|
Thursday, January 5, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, bombs slam Iraq,
the League of Righteous is "honestly sorry" for killing a British citizen
several years ago (and for lying this summer that he was still alive?), the
political crisis continues, Nouri saw 'terrorists' trying to overthrow the
government but now they're being released, and more.
Nellie Bailey: But first, the US and its allies were on a military
offensive in 2011 except in Iraq where the Americans were forced to withdraw
almost all of their uniformed forces. But that doesn't mean the Americans are
gone. We spoke with Tony Monteiro, professor of African American Studies at
Temple University in Philadelphia.
Tony Monteiro: Don't forget the bulk of the troops might be out of
Iraq but they're not out of the region. When you look at the Obama
administration's policy, it is a continuation of the neo-conservative policy of
the Bush administration and those policies were defined by the objective of
regime change and bringing democracy -- so-called -- to the Middle East. And
Iraq was supposed to be the first domino and the most important domino to fall
in this respect. Now the other side of that is while they're allegedly moving
out of Iraq, of course the troops are in Kuwait and other parts of the Persian
Gulf. But the US is ramping up its war talk against Iran. Iran is a neighbor
of Iraq. In fact, Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan. So, it is my opinion
that this thing is not over. That the US, and this is of course Vice President
Biden's point of view, the United States should reserve the option of going back
into Iraq. And certainly with the Maliki government under increasing stress and
opposition, that government is not beond -- in the not too distant future --
calling for the American troops to come back. And I guess the third thing I
would say is that a lot of this has to do with the 2012 election. After the
election, all best are off, we have a new set of options. And we can not forget
that the largest US Embassy in the world is in Baghdad, Iraq -- over 17,000
so-called diplomats but mainly CIA, military intelligence. So Iraq is not over
by a long shot.
Glen Ford: The US had a long list of nations marked for regime
change. There has been regime change in Libya and it appears that the United
States and the Europeans are intent on making regime change in
Syria.
Tony Monteiro: And you know, even if they do not bring about
complete regime change, they want to make these states -- such as Libya, such as
Syria, such as Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq -- failed states, states that in
order to even exist or to function must rely on the United States and NATO. So
you have this attempt on the part of the United States and NATO to manage a
political, social and economic chaos in the Middle East.
Political, social and economic chaos pretty much describes the Iraq rocked
today by bombings. An Iraqi correspondent for
McClatchy Newspapers shares (at Inside Iraq), "As an Iraqi citizen,
I wouldn't really care about our politicians and their fight because I never
felt for a moment that any of them represents me or any regular people but the
only thing that pushes me to care is the fuel of this fight. Since the political
fight ignited between the Iraqi politicians, poor Iraqis were always the fuel
that inflames it. Hundreds of thousands were killed or missed since 2003 and
God knows when the bath of blood would stop in my bleeding country. Prayers of
mothers, fathers and sons couldn't stop the blood shedding because their
political brothers always pray for more blood for political gains since fuel is
always available and cheap as they believe."
In addition to the Baghdad bombings, southern Iraq was also targeted. Early
on,
AP counted 30 dead in a southern Iraq
bombing. AFP stated it was a Nasiriyah roadside
boombing. In addition to the 30 dead, Adrian
Blomfield (Telegraph of London)
reported the Nasiriyah bombing has left seventy-two injured. Reuters noted government officials
said it wasn't a roadside bombing, it was a suicide bombing. Jamal Hashim
(Xinhua) would report later in the day that the bomber wore a
suicide vest and note that the pilgrims killed were making a pilgrimage to
Karbala "to commemorate the Arbaeen religious ritual, the climax of which will
be on Jan. 13. Arbaeen is the end of 40 days of mourning for the Imam Hussein,
the Prophet Muhammed's grandson who was killed at the battle of Karbala in 680
A.D." Reuters notes
29 dead from Baghdad bombings (68 injured) and 44 dead in the Nassiriya bombing
(81 injured) for a total of 73 dead (74 if the suicide bomber is counted). In
addition, Reuters notes a
Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 child (five women were injured) and
1 man was shot dead in Mosul (with another man, his brother, left
injured).
After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Shiites of Iraq and the Kurds
saw a historic opportunity to have equal representation. This is fair enough.
But it is a grave mistake to depict the Saddam era as "Sunni" and to seek the
building o a new Shiite identity based on animosity towards the Sunnis. Luckily,
this is not the position of the vast majority of Shiites of Iraq. Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani, for instance, has resisted such temptations and played a key role in
lowering tensions between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis.
Reporting from Baghdad, Dahr Jamail (Al
Jazeera -- link is video) declared, "These latest attacks highlight just how
serious the political deadlock in Iraq has become and only days after the last
US forces left the country. Once again, it's the Iraqis who have been killed
and injured. The victims of a dispute that only Iraq's politicians, whether
Sunni or Shia, can resolve." It wasn't supposed to be this way. It was only
December 12th that Nouri al-Maliki and US President Barack Obama were at the
White House and Barack was singing the praises of the US-backed thug.
US President Barack Obama: Today, I'm proud to welcome Prime
Minister Maliki -- the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and
democratic Iraq. We're here to mark the end of this war; to honor the sacrifices
of all those who made this day possible; and to turn the page -- begin a new
chapter in the history between our countries -- a normal relationship between
sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual
respect. Iraq faces great challenges, but today reflects the impressive progress
that Iraqis have made. Millions have cast their ballots -- some risking or
giving their lives -- to vote in free elections. The Prime Minister leads
Iraq's most inclusive government yet. Iraqis are working to build institutions
that are efficient and independent and transparent.
Except for "today," pretty much everything Barack said was a lie. Now
yesterday Barack found a way to appoint yet another man to a position. When the
left wanted Elizabeth Warren in that position, Barack didn't know how to appoint
her. But then he really doesn't appoint many women to positions of power.
Which is how he could lie that, "The Prime Minister leads Iraq's most inclusive
government yet." Barack's overweight flunky Jay Carney mentioned Warren in the
White House press briefing today, "Richard Cordray is, as she herself has said,
the right man for the job -- the right person for the job -- and enormously
qualified." No, Warren never called him "the right man for the job." But how
telling of this White House, so known
for its sexism (see Ron Suskind's Confidence Men),
that their spokesperson would have to correct himself in front of the press
corps and how telling on the press corps that most will never report his telling
(Freudian?) slip.
So it's no surprise that Barack would be praising the "diversity" when even
women in President Jalal Talabani's family are publicly calling out Nouri's
Cabinet (which, when originally named, didn't have one woman in it).
A "democratic" Iraq? If "democratic" means following the rule of law or
the Constitution, forget it. (See yesterday's snapshot on
Nouri's latest efforts to break the Constitution.) If "democratic" means a
country that values free speech, forget it. Nouri's attacked activists, had
then kidnapped and tortured throughout 2011 and the same for journalists. How
sad that Barack cheapened the White House by inviting that thug into it.
"Millions have cast their ballots," declared Barack, "some risking or
giving their lives -- to vote in free elections."
Yes, they did. And in those March 2010 elections they clearly made Iraqiya
their first choice. Ayad Allawi's slate came in first. Not a "Sunni" slate or
a "Shia" slate, a mixed slate that was not about sectarianism. Some, like
Allawi, were Shia. Some, like Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, were
Sunni. And in choosing Iraqiya, Iraqis were saying they wanted a national
identity, they were done with sectarianism. Which is why Nouri al-Maliki's
political slate came in second. But the White House wouldn't abide by the will
of the Iraqi people or by the Iraqi constitution. Instead the White House
demanded that Nouri stay on as prime minister. So maybe Barack Obama should
quit lying about "free elections"?
Now, he wants you to know, Iraq's working on being efificent, independent
and transparent. It shouldn't be too hard for them to improve on that last
one. In December Transparency International their latest rankings of 182
nation-states. Number one would be most transparent, number 182 would be
least. Where did Iraq come in? Number 175. There aren't a lot of spots it can
drop down too. This was at the start of December (December 3rd) and yet there
was Barack on December 12th, lying yet again.
Upon returning to Iraq from DC, Nouri promptly ordered the homes of
political rivals to be circled with tanks. Then he had Deputy Prime Minister
Saleh al-Mutlaq, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and their bodyguards pulled off
an airplane to the KRG on December 18th. All but three bodyguards were released
and the plane was allowed to take off. December 19th, with al-Hashemi in the
KRG for meetings, Nouri had a warrant sworn out on him for terrorism. December
21st, Nouri held a press conference. Journalist Jane Arraf (Christian Science
Monitor and Al Jazeera) Tweeted it.
The the Fifth Clause of Article 19 from the Iraqi Constitution:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial.
The accused may not be tried on the same crime for a second time after acquittal
unless new evidence is produced.
It's a point Nouri fails to grasp. Repeatedly. Nouri is also calling for
al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his position. al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq are both
Sunnis as well as members of Iraqiya. Iraqiya is the political slate, led by
Ayad Allawi, which came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections. (Nouri's
own State of Law came in second. They are political rivals.) Al Rafidayn notes the Kurdistan
Alliance has declared that they will not support firing al-Mutlaq. (To strip
al-Mutlaq of his position would require Parliament to agree with Nouri's
proposal.) al-Hashemi is currently a house guest of Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani. This has so enraged State of Law that they've taken to calling
Talabani a "terrorist" (which led to the Kurdish Alliance walking out on a
session of Parliament Tuesday). Al Mada reports that State of Law
is admitting that, despite rumors (mainly started and circulated by State of
Law), Nouri has no terrorism files on either al-Mutlaq or Ayad
Allawi. Jalal Talabani has been calling for a national conference to
address the political crisis. State of Law is stating it should happen
mid-month. For months, Iraqiya, the Kurds and the National Alliance have called
on Nouri to reinstate the US-brokered Erbil Agreement that ended Political
Stalemate I. The parties came together in Erbil and agreed to a variety of
concessions. It was agreed Nouri would continue as prime minister (despite his
slate's second place showing). That's the only element Nouri honored. As soon as
he was named prime minister-designate, he trashed the agreement. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN)
notes:
Iraqiya, a cross-sectarian as well as Sunni-backed bloc, castigated
the al-Maliki government, saying it had shunned cooperation despite the
power-sharing arrangement.
It said it is considering sending a request to parliamentary
leaders to withdraw support for al-Maliki and come up with a new prime minister
to form a post-occupation government.
There have also been mounting calls for federalism from at least
three predominantly Sunni provinces. Al-Maliki has called federalism a recipe
for the partitioning of Iraq.
The bloc loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a key
ally to al-Maliki, has called for the dissolution of parliament and early
elections.
January 4, 2012, New York -- In
response to President Obama's New Year's Eve signing of the controversial
National Defense Authorization Act, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
issued the following statement:
"The Center for Constitutional Rights strongly condemns
the U.S. Congress for passing, and President Obama for signing, the 2012
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which effectively endorses war
without end and makes indefinite military detention without charge or trial a
permanent feature of the American legal system. This is the first time since the
McCarthy Era that Congress has written indefinite detention into law. We had
hoped that President Obama -- a constitutional law professor and believer in the
aspirational course of American justice -- would uphold his promise to veto this
radical law that threatens to roll back both decades-old legislation enacted to
combat McCarthy-era excesses and 19th-century limitations on domestic military
policing. At the same time that heroic activists in the Arab world are risking
their lives to rid themselves of the remnants of their authoritarian and
militaristic regimes, the United States is embracing practices contrary to the
basic aspirations of any constitutional democracy.
The NDAA reauthorizes and extends the 2001 Authorization
for Use of Military Force, which has been used to justify the detention of men
at Guantanamo without charge or trial for the past ten years. The NDAA also goes
further and broadens the range of activities that warrant indefinite detention
to include undefined 'substantial support' for terrorism. In addition, the NDAA
contains no geographic limitation and allows the president to indefinitely
detain even American citizens. President Obama did pledge in a signing statement
not to use this law to detain American citizens but this provides little
comfort, as signing statements have no legal force and he has repeatedly failed
to uphold similar promises in the face of political pressure -- including his
pledge to close Guantanamo within his first year in office. More important, even
if President Obama were to keep this promise, the law authorizes a future
President, such as a President Romney, President Bachman, or President Perry, to
use this authorization in the most aggressive manner available.
Whatever ambiguity the legislation creates regarding the
detention of American citizens, it clearly requires the military
detention of non-citizens suspected of an association with al Qaeda or suspected
of having committed terrorist acts, even within the territorial United States.
The U.S. Army, rather than civilian law enforcement, will be required to make
arrests on U.S. soil; and military detention, not the basic constitutional
guarantees of our civilian justice system must be deployed. No one should be
held indefinitely without the opportunity to challenge their detention. Human
rights are not limited by citizenship.
The NDAA continues to place utterly unnecessary and
onerous obstacles to closing Guantanamo. The law prohibits the president from
transferring anyone to the U.S. for trial, and also prohibits the transfer of
innocent detainees to their home countries or to third countries willing to
resettle them unless the Defense Department effectively guarantees the detainee
will never again commit wrongdoing. According to the Defense Department, these
conditions are nearly impossible to satisfy, which effectively prevents the
transfer and resettlement of 89 men -- over half of the 171 currently detained
in Guantanamo -- who have been unanimously cleared for release by the CIA, FBI,
NSC, and Defense Department. Even as we are contemplating a peace deal with the
Taliban and have, according to the Defense Department, largely vanquished al
Qaeda, the NDAA guarantees that the U.S. carry on a dangerous war paradigm into
a second decade."
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and
protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who
represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and
educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive
force for social change.
| 
