President Obama has learned some interesting lessons from the Bush Administration's "Torture Memo". Capitalising on a more trusting public, and the free pass given the administration by progressives who manage to reconcile themselves somehow to its despicable methods, the Obama Administration has embraced secrecy and non-disclosure even more fulsomely than its unholy predecessor.
Upon being elected, the President repeatedly reiterated
that his administration would be "the most open and transparent in
history". He even issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments
and agencies on the subject of "Transparency and Open Government",
reiterating his commitment to "creating an unprecedented level of
openness in Government. We will work together", it went on to read, "to
ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public
participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy
and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government".
Except, it seems, when it comes to the waging of war and the ordering of murders. Earlier this year, Charlie Savage wrote in the New York Times
about the existence of a memo, now tacitly--snarkily,
almost--acknowledged by the administration, which explains the rationale
behind the President ordering the murder of American citizens. Such a
murder--and let's leave aside for the moment the moral character of the
man who was murdered, Anwar al-Awlaki--did in fact occur, "despite
an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against
murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the
international laws of war".
The administration's logic, according to those who saw Obama's Murder Memo,
threw these supposedly sacred laws under one bus after another,
relentlessly mowing down legal protections on the basis that in wartime,
anything, anywhere goes.
This, at least, is the general thrust. We cannot know precisely what
the Murder Memo authorises, because the President has chosen to hide the
rationale behind his frightful violence from the public. If the rights
to which the President pays an increasingly-hypocritical lip service in
virtually every public utterance are really so important, surely he
could at least dignify the public--the public which elected him--with an
explanation of why he sees the need to take the law into his own hand
and give himself the power to kill American citizens without defending a
change in the law before Congress.It is amazing the laws Barack is allowed to break and how he doesn't really even get called out for his actions. There is a small group of people who will call him out but the bulk of America doesn't want to know about it, doesn't want to be bothered.
This is very serious. I was outraged when Bully Boy Bush claimed his position gave him the power to detain any American without charges. Now Barack has upped that to argue that he has the right to kill any American without any charges.
With each occupant, the White House becomes less and less the seat of democracy. With each occupant, we learn better why Thomas Jefferson considered the US to be an experiment.
I believe he declared that where government fears the people, there is liberty; however, where the people fear the government there is tyranny.
He also declared that the the tree of liberty had to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Because he saw it as an experiment and viewed the government as a corrupt and all consuming being that would eventually need to be revolted against in the same way that the colonies revolted against Great Britain.
We are so far from the dream that most of us can't even remember it.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday,
December 11, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Moqtada al-Sadr's
supporters take to the streets of Baghdad and Basra, tensions continue
between Baghdad and Erbil, we go over the Memorandum of Understanding
between the US and Iraq (and do so slowly for the Cult of St. Barack),
the State Dept loved al Qaeda in Iraq when Barack wanted war on Libya
but they feel differently today, and more.
In Basra and Baghdad today, protests took place against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al Mada reports photos of Nouri were burned and he was denounced loudly. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Nouri used a Monday speech allegedly about human rights to attack Moqtada al-Sadr -- cleric and movement leader. Dar Addustour adds
"thousands" poured into the streets in Baghdad at two o'clock in the
afternoon. As they marched to a central location, Muzaffar Square, they
chanted slogans. Nouri can take comfort in that his wasn't the only
photo burned -- there were also a few photos of former leader Saddam
Hussein that were set on fire. All Iraq News notes
that as the protests took place, Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement
noting that the Iraqi army must be armed but not via corrupt deals (like
the Russian deal Nouri signed and then called off) and that all arms
must be to defend Iraq and not used to attack Iraqis. Please note
that all three previous links have a photo of the turnout in Baghdad, it
was huge. Just how large it was may be best captured in the photo Kitabat runs. At the Basra protest, Sheikh Khalid al-Issawi tells Al Mada
that the protest is to convey the outrage over Nouri's verbal attack on
Moqtada while, in Baghdad, Sheikh Taha Altablawbawi explains that the
people of Sadr City, elders, intellectuals, children, all, are serving
notice that attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr will not go unnoticed and will
result in a response. Protester Sam Abdul-Mahdi tells Alsumaria that this is the start of protests in Basra and that Nouri should retract his attack on Moqtada. The Iraq Times reports
that Nouri ordered helicopters to fly overhead during the Baghdad
protest and that some Sadrists saw that as an attempt at intimidation.
Al Mada reports
that Iraqiya is warning that if changes do not take place in Iraq
quickly, popular uprisings will take to the streets. Protests were
taking place around Iraq in January. Demonstrators were calling out the
disappearance of their loved ones into the 'justice system,' they were
calling out the lack of jobs and the lack of basic services. This
swelled into the massive protests that took place across Iraq February
25th. Iraqis took to the streets and, in Baghdad, Nouri sent his forces
to attack. Iraqi reporters were kidnapped by the police after
covering the protests, they were then tortured and forced to sign
statements saying they had not been tortured. Haidi al-Mahdi was one of
those reporters. It was after the protests, he and some other
reporters were ordering lunch and seated a table when Nouri's forces
barged over, used the butt of their guns to strike people and rounded up
Haidi and the other reporters.
NPR's Kelly McEvers interviewed Hadi for Morning Edition
after he had been released and she noted he had been "beaten in the
leg, eyes, and head." He explained that he was accused of attempting to
"topple" Nouri al-Maliki's government -- accused by the soldiers under
Nouri al-Maliki, the soldiers who beat him. Excerpt:
Hadi
al-Mahdi: I replied, I told the guy who was investigating me, I'm
pretty sure that your brother is unemployed and the street in your area
is unpaved and you know that this political regime is a very corrupt
one.
Kelly
McEvers: Mahdi was later put in a room with what he says were about 200
detainees, some of them journalists and intellectuals, many of them
young protesters.
Hadi
al-Mahdi: I started hearing voices of other people. So, for instance,
one guy was crying, another was saying, "Where's my brother?" And a
third one was saying, "For the sake of God, help me."
Kelly
McEvers: Mahdi was shown lists of names and asked to reveal people's
addresses. He was forced to sign documents while blindfolded.
Eventually he was released. Mahdi says the experience was worse than
the times he was detained under Saddam Hussein. He says the regime
that's taken Sadam's place is no improvement on the past. This, he says,
should serve as a cautionary tale for other Arab countries trying to
oust dictators.
Hadi
al-Mahdi: They toppled the regime, but they brought the worst -- they
brought a bunch of thieves, thugs, killers and corrupt people, stealers.
As
the protests continued, Nouri's thugs only grew more violent and, with
the exception of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and CNN,
those outside of Iraq rushed to look the other way. This allowed the political assassination of Hadi to take place on September 8, 2011.
Mohamed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported,
"Hadi al-Mehdi was inside his apartment on Abu Nawas street in central
Baghdad when gunmen shot him twice with silencer-equipped pistols, said
the ministry official, who did not want to be identified because he is
not authorized to speak to media." It was a political assassination.
Hadi continued to champion, organize and participate in the Friday
protests. Over a year later, no one has been arrested. There were
video cameras on the street outside Haidi's apartment. His killer(s)
would have been on camera. It's apparently been to Nouri's own
self-interest not to arrest the killer(s) of Hadi al-Mahdi.
All Iraq News notes
that MP Awad al-Awadi (with the Sadr bloc) has delcared that they have
seen no improvement in Nouri's government since the talk of a withdrawal
of confidence vote in the Parliament.
Al Mada observes that, come April, Nouri will have been prime minister for seven years and that during this time, Iraq has seen no imporvement in the average Iraqi's life and that the policies implemented favor elites and indicate the emergence of yet another strong-man leader, one who seeks to control everything. Nouri has ignored the Constitution, the article explains, and has openly, since 2009, stated his intent to change the rules as he attacked diversity and pluralism as well as attacking the role Parliament is supposed to play in law making and oversight. The article notes his attacks on Iraqi protesters, his demanding recounts in 2010 when he was unhappy with the results, the concerns about how he will behave after the people vote in the provincial elections (scheduled for this April), his secret prisons and much more.
Along with everything else, tensions continue between Baghdad and Erbil over Nouri and his Tigris Operation Command forces. Rudaw speaks with KRG Chief of Staff Fuad Hussein. Excerpt:
Rudaw:
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, is taking stronger positions
against Kurds day after day, but the Kurds insist on negotiations. What
is the reason behind this soft policy of the Kurds?
Fuad Hussein:
Kurdish soft policy is not a result of weakness, but rather from the
belief that problems can be solved through negotiations. However, Kurds
also have prepared for a war, in case it happens.
Rudaw: Is Maliki willing to solve the problems through negotiations?
Fuad Hussein: We
have had many negotiations with Maliki, and signed many agreements. But
the problem is that he does not abide by the agreements. What is clear
is that Maliki is preparing for war. When he prepares for war, the Kurds
have the right to prepare for self-defense.
All Iraq News adds
that a spokesperson for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan political
party declared today that Nouri is only interested in blaming the Kurds
and aggravating the situation, not in resolving it. Meanwhile Ben Van Heuvelen (Washington Post) reports
that the US government is seriously concerned that the developing
relationship between the KRG and the government of Turkey could
strengthen the independence of the Kurdistan Regional Government:
Kurdish
and Turkish leaders have had a budding courtship for the past five
years. But now Turkey is negotiating a massive deal in which a new
Turkish company, backed by the government, is proposing to drill for oil
and gas in Kurdistan and build pipelines to transport those resources
to international markets. The negotiations were confirmed by four senior
Turkish officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of
political sensitivities.
"Turkey
hasn't needed to ask what we think of this, because we tell them at
every turn," said a senior U.S. official involved in Middle East
policymaking, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to talk
with the press. The official said any bilateral energy deals with
Kurdistan would "threaten the unity of Iraq and push [Prime Minister
Nouri] al-Maliki closer to Iran."
As
we've noted here repeatedly, the Kurds need to stop trusting the US
government. Since Barack Obama became president, the Kurds have been
repeatedly lied to, made to sacrifice with the promise that Nouri would
as well only to find out that they gave in but Nouri didn't. For Nouri
to have a second term as prime minister, the US government brokered the
Erbil Agreement. They had to do that because Nouri didn't have the
votes for a second term. So the US government drew up this agreement
wherein the political blocs allowed Nouri a second term and Nouri
allowed each political bloc various concessions. The White House, in
November 2010, swore that this contract was legal and binding and had
the full force of the US presidency behind it. So the political blocs
signed on. Then Nouri used the Erbil Agreement to get his second term
and then he trashed the Erbil Agreement. He refused to follow it.
And the White House didn't complain and didn't object. The White House
doesn't give a damn about the Kurds. The White House continues to court
the puppet Nouri. When you put a crazy insane person in charge of a
country (as Bully Boy Bush did in 2006 and as Barack did again in 2010),
you have to make sure crazy is happy all the time or he could explode.
He's the spoiled child throwing the tantrum that the White House rushes
to comfort while ignoring other people in the room. We've said it
before, it's past time for the Kurds to stop trusting the US
government. It has betrayed the Kurds non-stop since 2009. It will
continue to do so.
Moving on to the topic of violence, Alsumaria reports that an armed attack in Baquba today claimed the life of 1 Sahwa, and Abbas Abdul Hadi Tai was shot dead (repeatedly) in his Diyala Province home, he is the brother of the Deputy Officer of the Islamic Party. All Iraq News adds that an armed attack in Mosul left 1 police officer dead and another injured. And Alsumaria notes a Baghdad suicide car bombing has claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left two more injured.
This morning, the US State Dept issue the following:
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 11, 2012
The
Department of State has amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization
(FTO) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 designations of al-Qa'ida in Iraq
(AQI) to include the following new aliases: al-Nusrah Front, Jabhat
al-Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and Al-Nusrah Front for
the People of the Levant. The Department of State previously designated
AQI as an FTO under the Immigration and Nationality Act and as a
Specially Designated Global Terrorist under E.O. 13224 on October 15,
2004. The consequences of adding al-Nusrah Front as a new alias for AQI
include a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or
conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in
transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and
interests in property of the organization that are in the United
States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.
Since
November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging
from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised
explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus,
Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. During these attacks
numerous innocent Syrians have been killed. Through these attacks,
al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian
opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI to hijack the
struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes. AQI emir Abu
Du'a is in control of both AQI and al-Nusrah. Abu Du'a was designated
by the State Department under E.O. 13224 on October 3, 2011, and by the
United Nations under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 on October 5,
2011. Abu Du'a also issues strategic guidance to al-Nusrah's emir, Abu
Muhammad al-Jawlani, and tasked him to begin operations in Syria.
The
United States takes this action in the context of our overall support
for the Syrian people. We have provided approximately $50 million in
non-lethal assistance to the unarmed civilian opposition and nearly $200
million in humanitarian assistance to those affected by the violence in
Syria. The violent, sectarian vision of al-Nusrah is at odds with the
aspirations of the Syrian people, including the overwhelming majority of
the Syrian opposition, who seek a free, democratic, and inclusive Syria
and have made clear their desire for a government that respects and
advances national unity, dignity, human rights, and equal protection
under the law – regardless of faith, ethnicity, or gender. Extremism and
terrorist ideology have no place in a post-Asad Syria, and all
responsible Syrians should speak out against al-Qa'ida and other
extremist elements. By opting for the use of force against its own
people, the Asad regime has created the circumstances that attract the
violent extremists of al Qa'ida, who seek to exploit civil strife for
their own purposes. The sooner the political transition to a post-Asad
Syria begins, the better it will be for the Syrian people and the
region.
In
a ridiculous press conference at the State Dept today, Victoria Nuland
insisted that it was the responsibility of Syrians to know the 'intent'
of those wanting to help them. Not since Bully Boy Bush claimed to have
seen the naked soul of Vladimir Putin by looking into Putin's eyes has
such a stupid statement been made by the US government. Arwa Damon and Tim Lister (CNN) offer,
"Rebels in brigades fighting around Aleepo have told CNN that the move
is a miscalulation. Their argument goes something like this: 'The U.S.
and the West in general have given us next to no help while we've
witnessed thousands die at the hands of Bashar al-Assad's heavy weaponry
and dominance of the skies'." It would, of course, be too much to
expect Arwa Damon to point out the obvious: US government says al Qaeda
in Iraq bad in Syria but armed them for Barack's war on Libya. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) reports
the move was unpopular within Syria and notes that US government's
decision to recognize what they have called "Syria's main opposition
group" is the US government recognizing "largely another exile group
without strong roots inside the country, and vehemently rejected by
the armed rebel groups fighting the Assad regime on the ground in
Syria."
In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum
of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of
Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the
United States of America. Angry,
dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers
indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more. It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon.
Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the
two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training
personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces
will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises. The
tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger
numbers. Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together
on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.
This shouldn't be surprising. In the November 2, 2007 snapshot
-- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview
Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who
was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's
presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper
published, the actual transcript. We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'"
at Third. Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after
"troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force." What did
he say this residual force would do? He said, "I think that we should
have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we
get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter
insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have
said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training
approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."
This
is not withdrawal. This is not what was sold to the American people.
Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that
rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times
wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election,
right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed
potatoes passed off as a report. In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear
Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because
this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat
troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our
civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."
So
when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he
wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so
frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of
peace.
In
Section Four of the Memo, both parties acknowledge that to achieve
these things they may need further documentation and that such
documenation will be done as attachments "to this MOU." Thse would
include things like "medical reports" for "dispatched personnel." Oh,
some idiot says, they mean State Dept personnel. No, they don't. The
US is represented in this Memo by the Defense Dept. This refers to DoD
personnel. They may also need an attachment to go over "procedures
for recalling dispatched personnel," and possibly for covering "the
death of dispatched personnel with the territory of the host country."
The Memo can run for five years from last Thursday (when it was signed)
and, after five years, it can renewed every year afterwards. US troops
could be in Iraq forever. The kill clause in this differs from the
SOFA. The 2008 SOFA had a kill clause that meant, one year after
notification of wanting out of the SOFA, the SOFA would be no more. The
Memo doesn't require lead time notice. Instead, "Either Participant
may discontinue this MOU at any time, though the Participant should
endeavor to provide advance notice of its intent to discontinue the MOU
to the other Participant."
Again,
Barack got what he wanted. He'd stated what he wanted in 2007. He got
it. If your life's goal is to cheer Barack -- that is the goal of the
Cult of St. Barack -- start cheering and stop whining that Barack's been
misrepresented. The Memo gives him everything he wanted so, for
Barack, it's a victory. For those who believe in peace, for those who
believe the US military should be out of Iraq, it's a tragedy.
More
time and space and we'd be covering the Central Bank and the
preparation for April's elections as well as Victoria Nuland on the
proposed oil and gas law in Iraq. Instead, we'll close by noting radio
in the US. Susanna Hoffs' Someday came out this summer. Kat raved over it here. It is a great album and Susanna's finest. Susanna's a guest on NPR's World Cafe today and she talks about the new album and performs two songs from the album live. (She also performs a cover of Jackie DeShannon's
"When You Walk In The Room.") Susanna first came to public attention
as a guitarist and vocalist with the Bangles whose hits include "Manic
Monday," "Walk Like An Egyptian," "In Your Room," "Eternal Flame," "Hazy
Shade Of Winter," "If She Knew What She Wants" and "Walking Down Your
Street."
