|
Tuesday,
May 15, 2012. Chaos and violence continues, the secret prisons and
torture continue in Iraq, Tareq al-Hashemi's trial starts without him,
Jason Ditz is a dunce, and much more.
Today
is a really sad day as the BBC spits on human rights and treats
'confessions' most likely stemming from torture as being real.
Americans (wrongly) built a shrine to the BBC in 2003. And, yes, by
comparison to American outlets, the BBC coverage of the lead up to the
war was better. But compared to the basic standards of journalism, the
BBC didn't even cut it. It was as much a failure as the American
outlets. (And the providing of a confidential source's name to Blair's
cabinet goes far beyond any known crimes of US outlets.) No surprise
that it would again be Iraq that saw the BBC reveal its true nature.
KUNA reports,
"The first session for the trial of former Vice President Tareq
Al-Hashemi began here Tuesday with the charges being guiding and
financing terrorist attacks." Tareq al-Hashemi (pictured above) has
been a vice president since 2006. He is currently serving his second
term. Currently serving. He has not been removed from office so this
trial is legally not supposed to take place. But the law's never
mattered in Nouri's Iraq. Nouri waited until the bulk of US forces had
left to Iraq to suddenly declare his political rival al-Hashemi a
"terrorist." The vice president remains in Turkey.
Iraq
practices forced confessions and, despite the Iraqi Constitution
insisting upon innocence until proven guilty, the Baghdad court declared
al-Hashemi guilty back in Februray. Tareq al-Hashemi has repeatedly
requested that the trial be moved elsewhere -- a request that should
have been honored the moment the Baghdad
judges declared him guilty in February at their press conference and
while one judge was stating that he had been threatened by al-Hashemi!
(He actually claims to have been threatened by 'supporters' of
al-Hashemi -- he can't even make the claim if press for proof that it
was by a bodyguard of al-Hasehmi.) Today, after being pushed back twice,
the kangaroo court finally hopped into session. Chen Zhi (Xinhua) reports
that, as the trial started this morning, the court sent out
spokesperson Abdul-Sattar al-Birqdar to insist, "There are many crimes
that Hashimi and his bodyguards are accused of and we have confessions
from them, including the assassination of six judges." A court that's
dropped even the pretense of being impartial is exactly the sort that
would send out a spokesperson to declare they had confessions.
AFP had a confusing report
which was confusing for many reasons including: "Three other witnesses
gave testimony, accusing Hashemi of masterminding the assassinations,
before reporters were led out of the room." If reporters are led out of
the courtroom while a trial is going on, hate to break it to AFP,
but that's your lede, not the fifth sentence and fifth paragraph of
your report. And that's all the more true when there were calls for
international observers in advance of the trial and that call does not
appear to have been heeded. Equally true, if reporters are led out of
the courtroom, you explain why they were. And if no reason given to the
reporters, you include that: "Reporters were ushered out of the
courtroom. No reason was given for the removal."
AFP
declares there were three witnesses who testified after "families of
three victims whose deaths Hasemi is accused of orchestrating." They
tell you nothing about those three witnesses. As noted this morning,
"But I do expect to know if these people could even offer any testimony
against al-Hashemi. By that I mean, victims families can testify to
losses. That's all they can do unless they're eye witnesses. Even if
they are eye witnesses, they have no testimony on al-Hashemi." This was
confirmed by this afternoon by Sinan Salaheddin (AP)
when Salaheddin reported of the family witnesses, "They said they did
not witness the attacks, and only complained against al-Hashemi after
hearing the accusations against him in Iraqi media." Salaheddin also
states there was one other witness, someone who was an ex-employee of
al-Hashemi's (worked in the vice president's "media office") and that
reporters "were ordered to leave the court during" that testimony. Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Barry Malone and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) note
two bodyguards and "five relatives of people allegedly killed by the
death squads" and that the court is now adjourned until May 20th.
BBC files a report
that indicates they had no one in the courtroom and that they didn't
bother to do anything other than scan the wire reports quickly and then
(also quickly) dash off a 'report.' It's very shoddy. But let's skip
their bad journalism to note their shame: "Mr Hashemi's supporters have
also claimed that some of his bodyguards made allegations about death
squads under torture. The Iraqi judiciary dismissed the accusations of
torture." How very sad that the BBC chooses to self-embarrass and
self-shame on a day when the world learns (yet again) that Nouri
al-Maliki is still running secret prisons and torture chambers. Equally
true, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are not "supporters" of Tareq
al-Hashemi. They are human rights organizations.
March 23rd, Human Rights Watch called for
an investigation into the death of Amir Sarbut Zaidan al-Batawi, a
bodyguard of al-Hashemi's who died in custody, whose family states he
was tortured to death and whom photos show "a burn mark and wounds."
The Iraqi government tried to say his kidneys failed. As though he had
some pre-existing condition (which the family denies). If he did, that
would still be on the Iraqi government. If someone has a medical
condition when you take them into custody, you're having custody of them
means in you're responsible for their well being. Had the alleged
kidney failure resulted from natural causes, the Iraqi government would
still need to explain how they failed to provide treatment for a known
condition? But most likely the kidneys were damaged in torture which
isn't at all uncommon, especially in Latin America. Especially in
Latin America? The US government taught the thugs of Iraq to behave
like the death squads of El Salvador in the 80s.
The
Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds
tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved
in early November will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit
manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. Experts
say it could lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed
rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and
thousands of civilian Baaathists up to 120,000 of the estimated 2.5
million former Baath Party members in Iraq.
"They're
clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did
in Vietnam," says Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief of
counterterrorism. Ironically, he says, the U.S. forces in Iraq are
working with key members of Saddam Hussein's now-defunct intelligence
agency to set the program in motion.
[. . .]
But
the bulk of the covert money will support U.S. efforts to create a
lethal, and revenge-minded, Iraqi security force. "The big money would
be for standing up an Iraqi secret police to liquidate the resistance,"
says [John] Pike. "And it has to be politically loyal to the United States."
Rasha
Narneer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima Saleem Kiryakos were arrested by
security forces at their homes on 1 January. Both women work in the
media team of Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by
the Iraqi authorities on terrorism-related charges.
Al-Hasehmi has denied the charges, saying the accusations are politically motivated.
"The
arrest of the two women appears to be part of a wider move targeting
individuals connected to Tareq al-Hashemi," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui,
Amnest International's Deputy Director for Middle East and North Africa.
"The
Iraqi authorities must immediately disclose the whereabouts of Rash
al-Hussain and Bassima Kiryakos. At the very minimum they should have
immediate access to their family and a lawyer.
"The
circumstances of their arrest and their incommunicado detention when we
know that torture is rife in Iraq can only raise the greatest fears for
their safety," she said.
One
of the two women working for the Iraqi Vice-President's Office who were
arrested on 1 January has been released. The other woman's whereabouts
are still unknown.
Rasha Nameer Jaafer
al-Hussain, who was working at the Iraqi Vice President's Office, was
arrested without a warrant at her parents' house in Baghdad's al-Zayuna
district on 1 January 2012. The security forces claimed they were taking
her away for questioning and that she would return two hours later.
Since her arrest her family has not known her whereabouts. However, the
Iraqi media reported on 30 January that a Human Rights Parliamentary
Committee had visited several of the Iraqi Vice-Preisdent's employees,
including both arrested women, who claimed they had been tortured in
detention. It is believed she was arrested in connection with a warrant
for the arrest of the Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who has
been wanted by the authorities since December 2011. He is accused of
terrorism-related offenses, an accusation which he has publicly said is
politically motivated.
But
let's all make like the BBC and pretend as if torture never happens in
Iraq and that the only ones claiming it does are "supporters" of Tareq
al-Hashemi.
(Beirut) --
Iraq's government has been carrying out mass arrests and unlawfully
detaining people in the notorious Camp Honor prison facility in
Baghdad's Green Zone, based on numerous interviews with victims,
witnesses, family members, and government officials. The government had
claimed a year ago that it had closed the prison, where Human Rights
Watch had documented rampant torture.Since October 2011 Iraqi
authorities have conducted several waves of detentions, one of which
arresting officers and officials termed "precautionary." Numerous
witnesses told Human Rights Watch that security forces have typically
surrounded neighborhoods in Baghdad and other provinces and gone
door-to-door with long lists of names of people they wanted to detain.
The government has held hundreds of detainees for months, refusing to
disclose the number of those detained, their identities, any charges
against them, and where they are being held."Iraqi security
forces are grabbing people outside of the law, without trial or known
charges, and hiding them away in incommunicado sites," said Joe Stork,
deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The Iraqi government
should immediately reveal the names and locations of all detainees,
promptly free those not charged with crimes, and bring those facing
charges before an independent judicial authority."The
government should appoint an independent judicial commission to
investigate continuing allegations of torture and other ill-treatment,
disappearances, and arbitrary detention in Camp Honor and elsewhere,
Human Rights Watch said.Multiple witnesses told Human Rights
Watch that some detainees arrested since December 2011 have been held in
the Camp Honor prison in Baghdad's International Zone, known as the
Green Zone. In March 2011 the government announced it had closed Camp Honor prison, after legislators visited the site in response to evidence Human Rights Watch provided of repeated torture at the facility.The
two most sweeping arrest dragnets occurred in October and November
2011, detaining people alleged to be Baath Party and Saddam Hussein
loyalists, and in March 2012, ahead of the Arab summit in Baghdad at the
end of that month.In April two Justice Ministry officials
separately told Human Rights Watch that since the roundups began in
October, security forces often have not transferred prisoners into the
full custody of the justice system, as required by Iraq law. Instead,
the officials said, security forces have transported dozens of prisoners
at a time in and out of various prison facilities, sometimes without
adequate paperwork or explanation, under the authority of the military
office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.Fourteen lawyers,
detainees, and government officials interviewed by Human Rights Watch
said that recent detainees have been held at Camp Honor prison. Some of
the officials said that detainees have also been held at two secret
detention facilities, also inside Baghdad's Green Zone. These
allegations are consistent with concerns raised in a confidential letter
from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) obtained by
Human Rights Watch in July 2011 after the letter's existence was made
public by the Los Angeles Times.Officials, lawyers,
and former detainees also told Human Rights Watch that judicial
investigators from the Supreme Judicial Council continue to conduct
interrogations at the Camp Honor prison. Between December and May, Human
Rights Watch interviewed over 35 former detainees, family members,
lawyers, legislators, and Iraqi government and security officials from
the Defense, Interior, and Justice Ministries. Without exception, they
expressed great concern for their own safety and requested that Human
Rights Watch withhold all names, dates, and places of interviews to
protect their identities."It's a matter of grave concern that
Iraqis in so many walks of life, officials included, are afraid for
their own well-being and fear great harm if they discuss allegations of
serious human rights abuses," Stork said."Precautionary" Detentions ahead of March 2012 Arab SummitThe
most recent mass arrests occurred in March as the government
dramatically tightened security throughout Baghdad in preparation for
the Arab League summit there on March 29. Family members and witnesses
told Human Rights Watch that arresting officers characterized the
roundups as a "precautionary" measure to prevent terrorist attacks
during the summit. Six detainees released in April told Human Rights
Watch that while they were in detention, interrogators told them that
they were being held to curb criminal activity during the summit and any
"embarrassing" public protests.Legislators from Prime
Minister al-Maliki's State of Law party have denied in the news media
that any preemptive arrests took place, claiming that all arrests were
of suspected criminals and in response to judicial warrants. All
detainees and witnesses interviewed, over 20 in all, said they had not
been shown arrest warrants.In Baghdad neighborhoods where
multiple arrests were made, including Adhamiya, Furat, Jihad, Abu
Ghraib, and Rathwaniya, residents told Human Rights Watch it appeared
that a large proportion of those detained had previously spent time in
prisons run by the US military, including Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and
Camp Cropper. Some family members and legislators concluded that people
were being arrested not because of suspected current criminal activity,
but simply because they had been detained before.In May an
Interior Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that "security
forces, in the interest of keeping security incidents to a minimum
during the summit, while the world was watching, sometimes decided it
was easier to just round up people who had been imprisoned years before,
regardless of what crime they may have committed." In April a Justice
Ministry official told Human Rights Watch that of the hundreds arrested,
"some have been released, about 100 will be officially charged within
the justice system, and the rest are somewhere else. We do not know
where."During an April 9 parliament session, Hassan
al-Sinead, head of the parliament's Security and Defense Committee and
a member of Prime Minister al-Maliki's State of Law Party, held up what
he said were official security reports of Baghdad Operation Command and
said, in response to allegations of pre-emptive arrests by other
legislators, that there were only 532 arrests in all of Baghdad during
the month of March, and that none were pre-emptive.Two other
members of the parliamentary committee subsequently told Human Rights
Watch that this figure greatly underreported arrests that month. At the
April 9 session an investigative committee was formed, made up of
members of the Security and Defense and Human Rights committees. Members
of the investigative committee told Human Rights Watch that plans to
visit detainees never happened. To date, no investigation results have
been released."Baathist" Arrests In October
and November 2011, security forces arrested hundreds of people in
Baghdad and outlying provinces, almost all during nighttime raids on
residential neighborhoods. State television reported that Prime Minister
al-Maliki ordered these arrests. Government statements, including by
the prime minister, claimed that those arrested were Saddam Hussein
loyalists plotting against the government. Family members told Human
Rights Watch that security forces came to their doors with lists and
read off names. Some of those listed were former Baath party members and
others were not, including people who had died years ago. Three
officials separately told Human Rights Watch that the total number
arrested in the campaign approached 1,500.A man whose
57-year-old father was arrested along with 11 neighbors on October 30
told Human Rights Watch in December, "A week after my father was
arrested, some of the same police officers who arrested him came back
and found family members to give them belongings [of neighborhood men
who had been arrested], like clothes or money or IDs, but they still
said they had no information about where they were being held, or what
they were being charged with."The man's son showed Human
Rights Watch a document the police had given to him that listed the date
his father was arrested but left blank the space reserved for the name
of the detention facility.Upon learning that some prisoners
were being held in Baghdad's Rusafa prisons, run by the Justice
Ministry, Human Rights Watch asked Justice Minister Hassan al-Shimmari
on January 4 for access to the prisoners. The request was refused.Though
not all arrests have been on the same scale as those in October,
November, and March, regular arrest campaigns have taken place, often in
largely Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad as well as in several outlying
provinces, said witnesses, family members and media reports. Strict
government secrecy regarding the number of arrests and exact charges
makes it difficult to assess the scope.While some prisoners
were released within hours or days and say they were not mistreated,
others told Human Rights Watch they were tortured, including with
repeated electric shocks. Most said interrogators forced them to sign
pledges not to criticize the government publicly or to sign confessions.
They said interrogators threatened that unless they signed these
documents they would suffer physical violence, female family members
would be raped, or they would never be released. Some families told
Human Rights Watch that they were told to pay thousands of dollars in
bribes to secure their loved ones' release. In two cases known to Human
Rights Watch, detainees were released after the families made such
payments.Camp Honor PrisonCamp Honor is a
military base of more than 15 buildings within Baghdad's fortified
International Zone, which Iraqis and others continue to refer to as the
Green Zone. The Iraqi Army's 56th Brigade, also
known as the Baghdad Brigade, which falls under direct command of the
Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, controls the Camp
Honor complex and is responsible for the security of the Green Zone.
On
March 29, 2011, Justice Minister al-Shimmari told Human Rights Watch
that the government had closed the camp's main detention facility, Camp
Honor prison (often simply referred to as "Camp Honor"). Al-Shimmari
said that authorities had moved all its detainees, whom he alleged were
terrorists and Islamist militants, to three other facilities under the
control of his ministry.Contrary to this assurance,
Human Rights Watch has received information from government and security
officials indicating that some detainees from the "Baathist" and
"Summit" roundups were held in Camp Honor prison and that it is still
being used at least as a temporary holding site, or as a place to
extract confessions before moving detainees into the official
correctional system. This use of military prisons outside the control of
the Justice Ministry is consistent with known procedures at other
publicly acknowledged facilities outside of the ministry's control, such
as Muthanna Airport Prison and a facility in western Baghdad run by the
army's Muthanna Brigade, both of which have also housed hundreds of
detainees from the recent arrests, according to government officials and
former detainees.A security official from the Defense
Ministry told Human Rights Watch in April that judicial investigators
attached to the Supreme Judicial Council go to the Camp Honor prison on a
regular basis, where they participate in investigations and
interrogations, alongside military investigators from the 56th Brigade. A
lawyer who works for the government but did not want his department
identified corroborated this allegation in an April interview with
Human Rights Watch.Three former detainees who spoke with
Human Rights Watch between December and April gave credible accounts of
what they said were their interactions with judicial investigators in
Camp Honor prison. These allegations are consistent with judicial
procedures known to have taken place there in the past. One detainee
told Human Rights Watch in April that he had been held for over a month
in Camp Honor prison, from late October to early December.In a
March interview, another man told Human Rights Watch he had been
detained in Baghdad in early November and taken to a prison inside the
Green Zone, which guards and other detainees told him was Camp Honor
prison. His description and a sketch he made of the layout of the cells
and interrogation trailers were consistent with the known layout of the
facility.Another detainee said in early December that he
could confirm that he was in Camp Honor prison in May 2011 by the
proximity of clearly recognizable surrounding buildings. When he was
taken from the main holding facility to adjacent trailers for violent
interrogations on three separate occasions, he said, he was not
blindfolded. "The Defense Ministry and the old Council of Ministers
[Hall] are right there," he said. "I'm a former military man, and I used
to work very close to there, so I knew right where I was."In
July Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of a May 22,2011 letter written
by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which said the
ICRC had "collected reliable allegations" of two separate secret
detention facilities attached to Camp Honor military base, plus another
facility next to the headquarters of the Counter-Terrorism Service, also
in the Green Zone, "that are used to this day to hold and conceal
detainees when committees visit the primary prison."In the
letter, the ICRC also documented the methods of torture used inside
Camp Honor prison and affiliated facilities, consistent with torture
methods Human Rights Watch had previously reported.The ICRC addressed
the letter to Prime Minister al-Maliki and copied Farouq al-Araji, head
of al-Maliki's military office, General Mahmoud al-Khazraji, commander
of the 56th Brigade, other defense officials, Justice Minister
al-Shimmari, and Judge Midhat al-Mahmoud, head of the Supreme Judicial
Council.After the Los Angeles Times made public the
letter's existence on July 14, the ICRC released a statement declining
to confirm or deny its authenticity, as per long-standing policy to
confine its communications to officials of the government concerned. In
July and August, two Iraqi government officials and one former official
familiar with the letter assured Human Rights Watch of the letter's
legitimacy.Two defense lawyers separately told Human Rights
Watch in May 2012 that clients of theirs had been held in Camp Honor
prison as recently as August 2011. Another lawyer told Human Rights
Watch that while working at the Supreme Judicial Council over the past
year he encountered frequent references in comments by judges and
others, as well as in court paperwork, to prisoners being held in Camp
Honor prison and in "two other prisons in the Green Zone also run by the
56th Brigade." Four officials from the Defense and Justice
ministries, plus two former officials, also told Human Rights Watch of
the existence of these secret prisons, one also part of the Camp Honor
complex, unofficially called "Five Stars," and another outside the base,
but still within the Green Zone.Treatment of DetaineesStatements
to Human Rights Watch by those captured in the roundups and detained in
various prisons, including those run by the Justice Ministry, varied in
describing the treatment they received. Some said they were not
physically mistreated. Three people detained in the "Summit" dragnet
told Human Rights Watch that security officers assured them that they
just had to wait until the Arab Summit was over and they would be
released -- that holding them "was just a precautionary measure." Others
described multiple beatings and threats and some described abuse that
amounts to torture.In May, a 59-year-old man told Human
Rights Watch that he was arrested in late October in a southern province
of Iraq and transported with more than 60 other prisoners to a
detention facility in Baghdad, which he identified but asked Human
Rights Watch to keep confidential. "When I first arrived, I was
blindfolded and had my hands tied behind my back, and I had to walk down
a long line of men, each of whom punched me in the face and hit my head
with wire cables as I passed them," he said. "After that, I was in
solitary confinement for some time, and then they brought me before
the judicial investigators. I couldn't believe that they beat so hard
and gave me electric shocks for three continuous hours, without even
asking me any questions."He also said that during other
interrogations his captors stripped him naked, hit him with wire cables,
boxed his ears, poured cold water over him, and shocked him with
electrodes attached to his back.He was released in March,
five months later, after his family paid over US $10,000 in bribes and
an influential politician intervened on his behalf. Before leaving
custody, he was forced to sign what he said was a confession, though he
is not sure of its contents, as well as a pledge to never speak "against
the government" and never to talk to the media about his arrest. "They
told me that if I break any of these rules, they will bring in my sons
and destroy them, and rape my wife," he said. "As I left, they told me,
'We will arrest you again, and make sure you're executed.'"Family
members of detainees who spoke with Human Rights Watch said they had no
idea where their loved ones were being held, despite multiple inquiries
to the Ministry of Human Rights and the headquarters of the security
forces that arrested them. In cases in which the government disclosed
where prisoners were being held, security forces hindered or completely
blocked detainees' access to legal and family visits."On
paper, a defendant can be defended by a lawyer, but in real life, it is
next to impossible," said a defense lawyer who is attempting to
represent two men arrested in the "Summit" sweep in March. He told Human
Rights Watch that when he is actually informed of the location of a
detainee and allowed in, he is kept waiting for hours, and then told to
go home because it is the end of the day. "Any lawyer attempting to see
his client will be subjected to threats by the security forces holding
the detainees," the lawyer told Human Rights Watch. "Several times in
the past few months, they said, 'So, you want to represent a Baathist
and a terrorist? I wonder what is making you do this, why you are on his
side.' This is clearly an attempt to intimidate attorneys from standing
up for their victims."Families who tried to hire lawyers to
defend relatives arrested in the "Baathist" sweep gave strikingly
similar accounts. In December, one man told Human Rights Watch that his
family went to four separate criminal defense lawyers who were at first
cooperative. But when they learned that his father was taken in the
"Baathist" arrests, he said, "each immediately told us that they could
not interfere in this case because the arrests were by order of the
prime minister's office." He cited one lawyer as saying: "This case is
already decided. It's a lost case, and I can't be part of it, because
they were arrested by the order of the prime minister.'""It
is amazing that all four had the same reaction and this made us lose
hope," the family member said. "We did not try to get another lawyer,
and have no idea where my father is."
The Los Angeles Times can't find a writer in Iraq to touch it so it's left to Carol J. Williams to note, "The continued operation of the Camp Honor detention site was disclosed by Los Angeles Times staff
writer Ned Parker in July, four months after Maliki's government said
the facility had been closed at the urging of Iraqi lawmakers and human
rights advocates." Ned Parker can't cover it because he's currently on
sabbatical (he's an Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow with the Council on
Foreign Relations). The Telegraph of London adds,
"Amnesty International also said in a February 2011 report that Iraq
operates secret jails and routinely tortures prisoners to extract
confessions that are used to convict them."
What can I say this time
Which card shall I play
The dream is not over,
The dream is just away
And you will fly
like some little wing
straight back to the sun
The dream was not over
The dream has just begun
Which card shall I play? How about the fact check one?
That is wrong. That is false.
It is not, however, surprising. Drop back to Friday's " Iraq snapshot" and you'll find:
Kobler
also attempted to spin the violence today insisting 600 people died
this year. Pay a little closer attention and you realize he's just
talking about Baghdad. Since the UN's supposedly concerned with all of
Iraq, Kobler's little stunt is pretty offensive. Iraq Body Count
not only notes 55 dead so far this month, they noted 290 dead for the
month of April, 295 for the month of March, 278 for the month of
February and 458 for the month of January. That's 1376 reported deaths
from violence in Iraq since the start of the year. That's twice as many
as "600." Again, Kobler was being deliberately misleading. When the
United Nations whores what people remember are the rapes by UN peace
keepers (many, many times, but try these two who raped a 14-year-old boy in Haiti), the times the UN did nothing while countries were attacked (Iraq for starters -- and then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the Iraq War illegal) and
so much more. Kobler didn't just make himself into a cheap whore with
that little stunt, he reminded everyone of just how flawed -- some would
say criminal -- the United Nations can be. A far more realistic
picture on the continued violence came not from Kobler but from
a business decision. Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) reports, "Mobile
phone operator Asiacell has closed its offices in the Iraqi city of
Mosul, an al Qaeda stronghold, after attacks and threats by militants,
security officials and employees said this week."
See,
we called it out for a reason, Kobler's wording ensured that there was a
good chance people would misunderstand the 600 figure and assume it
applied to all of Iraq when it only applied to Baghdad. Griffis'
mistake will most likely be made by many others and Kobler seems to have
intentionally sought that rection.
While Griffis' mistake may be understandable, there's no excuse for what Jason Ditz has done here.
He laments that the residents of Camp Ashraf might be taken off the
terrorist list, this "is almost certain to be delisted in the next 60
days, in a mover that is likely to dramatically increase tensions
between the US and Iran." And he amplifies his error and ignorance with
this: "Technically speaking, officials say, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton hasn't made an official decision on the matter, but has promised
to do so in the next 60 days."
No, she hasn't.
Maybe
before you write about something, you should read several different
reports and not just one outlet. Had Ditz bothered to do that, he would
know that the attorney representing the State Dept and Hillary in court
refused to give a deadline when prompted by the judge and specifically
stated that anything they discovered in the 60 day time period, in the
search of Camp Ashraf, could add additional time.
Ashish Kumar Sen (Washington Times) maintains,
"Mrs. Clinton will decide on removing the MEK from the list no later
than 60 days after Camp Ashraf has been vacated, and data gathered from
the relocation has been studied to verify the group's claims that it is
not a terror group, Mr. Loeb said." However, that's not accurate. The
sixty days is a projection, it's not a promise and Loeb stated in court
that information may result from a search of the then-empty Camp Ashraf
that could delay any decision by Hillary on the issue beyond the 60
days. How far beyond the sixty days? Loeb didn't have specific
numbers. This is among the reasons Dinh made the argument that the
residents want a decision even if it's a decision against them because
they can appeal that. The limbo status that they've been in for two
years now is something very different.
How very sad to show up days after (Ditz published Monday) and not have nailed down any of the facts.
But
what do facts matter to Antiwar.com? Apparently damn little. Ditz has
been allowed to be 'creative' with 'news' if the topic was the MEK. He
does so again in a way -- take a warning, I know Ed -- that could
result in a lawsuit.
Again,
I know Ed and I wouldn't be the least surprised if, months from now, he
filed a lawsuit over that statement. He'd win too. Justin Raimondo
better start providing supervision of his little outlet and that
includes telling Scott Horton and Jason Ditz that they can't liable
(Ditz) and slander (Horton). They've been given free reign by Raimondo
on the MEK and allowed to say any crazy ass thing they wanted. Not as
opinion, mind you, but to lie and present as fact.
Does Justin want the next fundraiser to be about Antiwar.com's legal fees?
If
you click on the link that Jason Ditz has supplied, what you find is
another bad article by Jason Ditz from March with a link to this Philadelphia Inquirer article that speaks of "reportedly" in terms of a probe.
Ed
Rendell has not been found guilty of anything nor has he entered any
plea on any charge. In what's supposed to be a news report from Antiwar.com
-- an outlet that promotes itself as a news outlet every time they beg
for money -- Jason The Ditz is declaring that Ed "violated federal law
by taking funds . . ." Jason The Ditz can't prove that. If he can
prove it, he should consider filling in for the federal prosecutor.
If Antiwar.com
wants to be an opinion journal that's fine and dandy but while they're
promoting themselves as an alternative news outlet and while Ditz is
billed as the "news editor," they need to learn that you can't write a
news story and call someone guilty before they've either admitted guilt
or been convicted. One careful word could have taken Ditz's 'report'
from potential lawsuit to just bitchy. That word is "allegedly." Ditz
should try to familiarize himself with the term.
The superficial libertarian media lobby has spoken, if you missed it, Glenn Greenwald among them.
He weighs in today playing tough talker. ("Superficial libertarian
media lobby" does not refer to all libertarians in media. Adam Kokesh,
certainly, is not superficial. But there is a set among the lobby that
is. Glenn Glenn represents them.)
Everytime
Little Glenn Glenn tries to legalize, you realize just how uninformed he
is and why he's such a joke in legal circles. He dealt with civil
liberties -- specifically those of people accused of -- and convicted of
-- violent crimes. There's nothing wrong with that and there is a need
for it but don't turn around and try to pimp that as "I'm a
Constitutional lawyer." No, you weren't.
Glenn
manages to fool people because most don't know what a litigator is.
That's not about the Constitution and, as he rightly notes sometimes, he
was a litigator.
There are Constitutional
attorneys. Glenn doesn't have the academic background or the courtroom
history to be trusted with those issues by anyone but the most
desperate. Constitutional cases go before the Supreme Court. Glenn
argued before them how many times?
Yeah. Exactly.
In
his bad column today, Glenn provides an 'update' where he explains,
having just learned (oh, he's a smart one!), that the Bush
administration originally declared the residents of Camp Ashraf
terrorists -- specifically the residents of Camp Ashraf not just MEK.
That would be news to anyone not paying attention to the issue. Good
going, Glenn, you 've established that you've written repeatedly about a
subject you knew nothing about.
Being on that
list is why the US had them disarm. This was all known by the adults
long ago. Who knows what Glenn was doing while the rest of us were
paying attention?
Camp Ashraf residents have
to leave Iraq. That is a reality. They have been twice attacked by
Nouri's forces. That is a reality. It is why Amnesty issued an alert.
Glenn and his boy squad of faux crusaders want to pretend they're doing
something. But all they're doing is slamming the residents of Camp
Ashraf. The residents -- my opinion -- have been used as a political
football by many including some MEK spokespeople. It's a damn shame
that here in the US you have the Glenn Brigade working overtime to trash
a people who are basically a sinking lifeboat and need assistance
immediately.
But that's how the Glenn Brigade rolls.
And Antiwar.com better
their act together real damn quick because, as I understand it, their
house of cards could collapse real quick and they can't afford a law
suit. The very smart thing to do right now would be for Jason Ditzy to
do a correction to that post -- immediately. But, again, Justin's
provided no oversight and allowed Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) and Jason Ditz to slander and libel repeatedly if it was MEK related.
I'm going to repeat it one more time and hope that even Jason Ditz can grasp what I'm saying: What you have written is actionable.
You can be sued for it. I would not make a point to go after Ed
Rendell period (I like Ed) but, if I were to do so, I'd be damn sure I
didn't say or write anything that left me open to a lawsuit. Hopefully
that's clear enough for even Jason Ditz.
In Iraq, the political crisis intensifies, Al Rafidayn reports
that MP Mohammed Jawad (of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc) is stating that,
should a no-confidence vote take place, the names on the list to replace
Nouri al-Maliki are Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Hussein
al-Shahristani and Khudayr Musa Jafar Abbas al-Khuzai. Ahmed Chalabi
-- like Nouri -- has very tight connections to Iran. So much so that
his compound was raided by the US military despite the fact that he was
once one of the prized exiles (he was also Dexter Filkins' favorite
Iraqi source for 'reporting'). Ibrahim al-Jaafari was previously prime
minister. (The US refused to allow him a second term in 2006 and
demanded that Nouri al-Maliki be named prime minister.) Hussain
al-Shahristani is the Deputy Prime Minister for Energy. He was
educated in London and Toronto. He's a nuclear scientist who fled
Saddam Hussein's Abu Ghraib prison during the first Gulf War and went
through Iran onto Canada. al-Khuzai is the Shi'ite Vice President. Alsumaria notes
that MP Abdul Amir Mayahi (also of the Sadr bloc) stated that Ibrahim
al-Jaafari is their ideal candidate, calling him a national figure and a
moderate. (al-Jaafari was prime minister from April 2005 until May
2006.) Meanwhile Al Mada has interesting article
where State of Law and Dawa officials state that, if Nouri is replaced,
the replacement must come from the National Alliance. The argument
goes that Nouri wouldn't have been prime minister without the
consolidated support and backing of the National Alliance therefore they
should be the pool from which a different prime minister was selected.
All the names being tossed around are from the National Alliance (a
slate of various Shi'ite political groups). What makes it interesting
is that Dawa -- Nouri's own political party -- and State of Law --
Nouri's own political slate -- appear to be preparing for the
possibility that Nouri might be replaced. Prior to this, they've
insisted that it wasn't happening. Now their public presentation is: If
it does, the prime minister has to come from the National Allaince.
This shift in public strategy may result from the meeting Alsumaria reports took place last night and was chaired by Ibrahim al-Jaafari. All the political blocs of the National Alliance were present. |
