Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Jay Z's latest release

I had an e-mail about Kanye West's Yeezus.  I didn't care for it.  It honestly left me cold.  I was surprised because I thought it would have more heat and more passion.

By contrast, I had no high expectations for Jay Z's Magna Carta.  But I really do think it's a great album.  I wouldn't rate it the best rap album of the year because I'm sure there's some hungry rapper out there (maybe more than one) that's achieved something remarkable.  But of established rappers, I think Magna Carta . . . Holy Grail sets the benchmark.

I'm not a Jay Z fan.  I can take some of his music, I can live without some.

So a Jay Z devotte might view Magna Carta . . . Holy Grail differently but I really do love the album.

It's got an immediacy to it, a sense of in-the-now.  Kanye's doing turns that feel overly rehearsed whereas Jay Z's got this fresh impact

I loathe Justin Timberlake but I can even take him on this album ("Holy Grail" and "Heaven") because he's not singing in that castrato style that he's made his own.

But the main reason to love the album is that it sounds in the moment, Jay-Z sounds like he is there speaking to you, not like he's at the microphone, hidden in the studio, spitting out some well practiced moments that stopped being fresh a year ago.

That negative is how I feel towards Kanye West's album, sorry.

And sorry but I'm not doing a review of Jay Z's album.  I'm a little bothered by a lot of reviews of rap albums.  The writer (regardless of race) often appears unable to resist the impulse to pretend to be more-street-than-they-are.  Sometimes this can be funny but then you get that they aren't trying to be funny and you just feel sorry for them.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Wednesday, July 24, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, the prison break prompts more commentary about the state of Iraq, there's a call for Nouri to step down, Ed Snowden is not issued temporary asylum in Russia, Senator Patty Murray continues fighting for veterans, and more.


Sami Zaatari (Digital Journal) notes it was announced today that NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden was receiving "the whistleblower award by the German branch of the human rights organisation Transparency International."  Deutsche Welle notes in a video report:

Hans Pfeifer:  Those awarding the prize haven't yet said Edward Snowden is aware he's the recipeiant.  Snowden hasn't been easy to contact while marooned at Moscow Airport.  For civil rights campaigners, Snowden's case is a scandal.  They say he is being persecuted like a criminal for acting in the public interest.  

Edda Muller (Transparency International):  He's not a pedophile and he's not a person who has committed criminal acts.  He's not a tax evader.  He's simply a person who has uncovered some uncomfortable truths. 

Hans Pfiefer: The prize is not only in tribute to Snowden's whistle-blowing, it's also to put pressure on the German government to offer protection to the former IT contractor.

Edda Muller:  We would welcome it very much if Snowden were granted asylum in Germany or were taken into a witness protection program so that a genuine investigation could be undertaken here into what's actually going on there.

Hans Pfiefer:   But Chancellor [Angela] Merkel has ruled out help for Snowden.  In a brief statement last week, she said he was not eligible for asylum in Germany.


Hopefully, this is something that won't be taken away.  This morning, there were reports that Ed Snowden had some success on the asylum front.  Jim Ensom (Voice of Russia) reports, "Former CIA contractor-turned whistle blower Edward Snowden has been given temporary asylum in Russia. His papers from the Federal Migration Service;were delivered to him in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport on Wednesday, allowing him to leave the airport transit zone." The Irish Independent adds, "FORMER U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden was today granted documents that will allow him to leave a Moscow airport where he is holed up, an airport source said."


BBC News reports:

Mr Kucherena visited his client at the airport on Wednesday and told a news conference later that the 30-year-old would not yet be leaving the airport.
He said the application for temporary asylum had not been processed, and no travel documents had been received.
"He is not planning to leave for now. He asked for temporary asylum, which in the case of a positive decision is granted for a term of one year," said Mr Kucherena.

The Voice of Russia live blogged the confusing developments.  Aboard Air Force One this morning, White House press secretary Jay Carney took a few questions and the topic of Ed Snowden was raised:


Q    Jay, what is the latest information the White House has on the status of Edward Snowden?  There were Russian media reports earlier today that he had gotten papers that would allow him to enter Russia, and then the latest update that we had was that his lawyer said that he was going to stay in the transit zone in the airport.  So what’s the latest that you all know about him?

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, Darlene.  We have seen reports of the nature you just described and of both kinds, and we are seeking clarity from Russian authorities about Mr. Snowden’s status and any change in it.  But beyond that, I don't have any more information.  And I can say that our position on Mr. Snowden remains what it was, which is that he is neither a human rights activist, nor a dissident.  He’s been charged with serious felonies for the unauthorized leaking of highly classified information, and there is ample precedent and legal justification for him to be returned to the United States where he will face trial with all the rights and protections afforded defendants in the United States of America.



Q    Jay, what steps is the President prepared to take today to stop Edward Snowden from getting somewhere if he should be on the move?



MR. CARNEY:  We've made our position clear to the Russian government, to Russian authorities, and we'll continue to do that.  It is absolutely our view that Mr. Snowden should be expelled and returned to the United States.  And that's a message we've communicated both publicly and privately to the Russians, and I'm sure we will continue to do that.



Q    I mean beyond -- if he were to leave Russia on a plane, I suppose, what steps is the United States prepared to take to stop him from getting wherever he goes?  There was the incident with the Bolivian President’s plane and all that.



MR. CARNEY:  There’s a series of hypotheticals in there that I don't think I should address or need to address because even today’s reports don't suggest that that is what might be happening.  I think today’s reports -- which are contradictory, as Darlene noted -- suggested that he might be leaving the transit area of the airport and entering Russia proper.  But again, we've just seen the press reports, both those that say that might be happening and those that say it’s not happening, and we're seeking clarification from Russian officials.
But again, we've just seen the press reports, both those that say that might be happening and those that say it is not happening.  And we're seeking clarification from Russian officials.


Q    Jay, you said you're seeking clarification.  Will you be able to brief us or give us an update later today?

MR. CARNEY:  We'll obviously see if further information is available.  But I think it's certainly the case that your colleagues who are Moscow-based could also inquire of the Russian government if there's any new information to be imparted.


Q    Any update on whether President Obama will meet with President Putin in Moscow on the sidelines of the G20?


MR. CARNEY:  Well, the G20 is in St. Petersburg, so that would be a very wide sideline.  But the President intends to travel to Russia for the G20 Summit, and as I've noted in the past, I have no further announcements to make about that travel.


Ed Snowden is an American citizen and whistle-blower who had been employed by the CIA and by the NSA before leaving government employment for the more lucrative world of contracting.  At the time he blew the whistle, he was working for Booz Allen Hamilton doing NSA work.  Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) had the first scoop (and many that followed) on Snowden's revelations that the US government was spying on American citizens, keeping the data on every phone call made in the United States (and in Europe as well) while also spying on internet use via PRISM and Tempora.  US Senator Bernie Sanders decried the fact that a "secret court order" had been used to collect information on American citizens "whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing."  Sanders went on to say, "That is not what democracy is about.  That is not what freedom is about. [. . .] While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."  The immediate response of the White House, as Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) reported,  was to insist that there was nothing unusual and to get creaky and compromised Senator Dianne Feinstein to insist, in her best Third Reich voice, "People want to keep the homeland safe."  The spin included statements from Barack himself.   Anita Kumar (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Obama described the uproar this week over the programs as “hype” and sought to ensure Americans that Big Brother is not watching their every move."  Josh Richman (San Jose Mercury News) quoted Barack insisting that "we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about."  Apparently not feeling the gratitude, the New York Times editorial board weighed in on the White House efforts at spin, noting that "the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights." The more Barack attempted to defend the spying, the more ridiculous he came off.  Mike Masnick (TechDirt) reviewed Barack's appearance on The Charlie Rose Show and observed of the 'explanations' offered, "None of that actually explains why this program is necessary. If there's a phone number that the NSA or the FBI gets that is of interest, then they should be able to get a warrant or a court order and request information on that number from the telcos. None of that means they should be able to hoover up everything."  As US House Rep John Conyers noted, "But I maintain that the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable search and seizure to mean that this mega data collected in such a super aggregated fashion can amount to a Fourth Amendment violation before you do anything else.  You've already violated the law, as far as I am concerned."  Barack couldn't deal with that reality but did insist, in the middle of June, that this was an opportunity for "a national conversation."  He's always calling for that because, when it doesn't happen, he can blame the nation.  It's so much easier to call for "a national conversation" than for he himself to get honest with the American people. And if Barack really believes this has kicked off "a national conversation" then demonizing Ed Snowden is a really strange way to say "thank you."


Ed was raised in this afternoon's State Dept press briefing as well:





QUESTION: Could we start with Russia, please?


MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: What’s your understanding of the situation of Mr. Snowden at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: Thank you for your question. I suspected this might be on your minds today. We have seen, of course, the press reports and are seeking clarification from the Russian Government. Obviously, any move that would allow Mr. Snowden to depart the airport would be deeply disappointing.
I also have another update for all of you. The Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning. He reiterated our belief, the belief of the United States, that Mr. Snowden needs to be returned to the United States where he will have a fair trial, that Russia still has the ability to do the right thing, and that call happened just late this morning.

QUESTION: So have you – who sought the clarification? Secretary Kerry sought clarification from Foreign Minister Lavrov in their conversation?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are still seeking an update on the exact status. Our understanding is he’s still in the transit lounge, but for any update or announcement on the Russian Government’s steps, I would point you to them.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that, but Lavrov did not clarify things to the Secretary in their phone call? Did he, or did he not?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any more on the phone call to read out for all of you.

QUESTION: So you’re basing – when you say you’ve seen the reports, you’ve seen that his lawyer went to visit him?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: About 10 days ago, two weeks ago when the human rights activists went in to see Mr. Snowden, into the transit lounge, you expressed disappointment that the Russians had facilitated this meeting, which turned into what you called a propaganda platform. I’m just wondering if you have a similar problem with the lawyer going to see him today.

MS. PSAKI: I would not compare all options. I believe at the time what we were most concerned about was the steps by the Russian Government to facilitate that event, which we expressed our concerns --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- about, as you know, but beyond that, our focus is on encouraging Russia to do the right thing and return Mr. Snowden to the United States.

QUESTION: Okay, but you don’t have any problem with them allowing this guy in to see him today. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: That’s not our focus.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you don’t have a problem with it?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I expressed a problem about it.


While Ed Snowden was asked of, Iraq was not raised at either the State Dept press briefing or Carney's Air Force One briefing.  This despite the fact that US officials say Iraq is now in the midst of a civil war.  From Tuesday's Today (NBC):

Richard Engel: Iraq is now back in a civil war, US officials tell NBC News.  The hard fought US surge there, the benefits of American war to stop Iraq's civil war,  are being wiped out.  In car bombs, ambushes and gun fights  more than 250 killed in ten days.  Abu Ghraib prison notorious for American abuses and humiliations that United States [. . .] remains an open wound.  On Sunday, attackers free hundreds some say up to 500 inmates in a jail break include dozens of al Qaeda fighters.




The Sunday prison attacks and breaks only became news outside of Iraq when the number of prisoners who escaped (between 500 and one thousand) was announced on Monday.  Yesterday, the Islamic State of Iraq claimed credit for the two prison assaults and breaks. On yesterday's Nightly News with Brian Williams, Richard Engel reported on Iraq.


Richard Engel: Iraq is back in a civil war -- bad for Iraqis.  More than 600 killed just this month in bombings and Sunni versus Shi'ite vengeance.  And bad for Americans -- after all nearly 4,500 US troops died to bring stability to this strategic, oil rich country A trillion dollars was spent, hundreds of thousands of American troops were deployed and deployed again.  But now Iraq is tearing itself apart again.  al Qaeda in Iraq won a big victory this weekend, perhaps enough to reconstitute itself.  They staged a major prison break, a major assault on Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib Prison.  Hundreds of militants were freed from their cells.  Iraqi officials today said at least 250.  al Qaeda in Iraq puts the number even higher at 500.  Militants stormed the prison, car bombs blasting open the gates, as suicide bombers rushed in and reinforcements fought off guards with mortars and assault rifles.  Nothing good seems to come from Abu Ghraib.  It was Saddam Hussein's dungeon.  After his fall, it held US detainees and became infamous for graphic images of prisoner abuse and humiliation.  And now a prison break releasing militants who will likely target the Iraqi government but who also have years of training fighting American troops. Richard Engel, NBC News.




AFP's Mohamad Ali Harissi spoke with The World (PRI) today noting:


Sunday night, just one or two hours before midnight, two prisons -- one in the north and one in the west of Baghdad -- were attacked at the same time and the battle continued until six or seven a.m. the next morning .  At least twenty police men and soldiers were killed and at least 26 prisoners died in these battles. But what's more important is that hundreds of prisoners escaped from both prisoners.


The World also featured a conversation with guest host Carol Hills Time's Michael Crowley.  Excerpt.






Matthew Crowley: I think the most worrisome aspect of this is the larger context: Sectarian violence in the region if flaring up, to say the least. ... To be honest, I don't know which is worse.  In other words, should we be more concerned that al Qaeda in Iraq is strong enough, savy enough emboldened enough that they would stage these attacks?  Or is the more concerning part that they have now freed a large number of their hardened brothers in arms who had been taken off the battlefield, so to speak?  And incidentally one expert on Iraq  to whome I spoke with something called the Institute for the Study of War here in Washington, a former army intelligence officer, said that al Qaeda leaders in these prisons actually become more radicalized when they're in prison.  In fact, they may actually have become more dangerous in captivity.  [. . .]

Carol Hills:   Most US troops pulled out of Iraq more than a year ago and the idea was that Iraq was fairly secure.  And so this prison break can't bode well in what area.  What does this mean?

Michael Crowley:  In the piece I wrote about this for Time.com today, I opened with Barack Obama's presidency has been filled with several surprises in the Middle East but, actually, up until now, Iraq has not been one of them.


How serious has the prison break become?  INTERPOL issued the following today:


LYON, France – A regional security alert has been issued by INTERPOL at the request of Iraq following a mass breakout from two Iraqi prisons involving hundreds of dangerous prisoners, many of them members of Al-Qaida.
During the night of 21 July, gunmen attacked the Taji and Abu Ghraib prisons near Baghdad using mortars to gain access and free the prisoners, killing at least 20 members of the Iraqi security forces in the process. INTERPOL said the jailbreaks constituted a major threat to global security.
Many of the escaped prisoners were senior-level Al-Qaida members, some of whom had been sentenced to death.
Following confirmation of the escape from INTERPOL’s National Central Bureau in Baghdad, the Command and Coordination Centre at the General Secretariat headquarters issued the alert to member countries in the region to warn them of the threat posed by the fugitives.
INTERPOL is working closely with NCB Baghdad to collect information on the escaped prisoners, including photographs and fingerprints, with the view to issuing a global Orange Notice, to assist law enforcement officers regionally and worldwide in their search and eventual identification of the fugitives.
An Orange Notice can be issued by INTERPOL’s General Secretariat or an NCB for any act or event that poses a serious and imminent threat to the safety of citizens around the world.
A resolution underlining the need for member countries to alert the General Secretariat to prison escapes of suspected terrorists and other dangerous criminals was adopted at the INTERPOL General Assembly in 2006.




In addition to the INTERPOL notice, others are weighing in on possible meanings.  Jabbar Yaseen and Liz Sly (Washington Post) quote the Middle East Forum's Aymenn al-Tamimi stating, "This is a significant milestone in the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Iraq,” he said. “A good deal of the progress achieved from 2006 onwards has essentially been undone now.” David Blair (Telegraph of London) observes,  "The mass breakout from two of Iraq’s biggest prisons is yet more evidence of how close the country is to suffering the terrible sectarian bloodshed of 2006-07 once again. [. . .] The increasingly poisonous and sectarian nature of Iraqi politics – with Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, purging Sunnis from his government – is leading to greater alienation and violence."


The break outs and the increased violence are also prompting comments from Iraqis.  Sunday, Cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has already decried the 'leadership' that has allowed the problems to emerge and thrive.  Today, All Iraq News reports National Dialogue Front MP Haidar al-Mulla is calling for Nouri al-Maliki to be replaced as a result of "his failure in running the security file."  Mulla is quoted stating, "All realize well the failur of the CGAF in running the security institution in light of the continuing security breaches over the past eight years especially after Maliki dominated the management of this file without engaging any other side.  The one-sided administration of the security file proved failure, so the issue needs changing the CGAF and his strategy and plans."  Nouri should be held accountable for the security failures.  He is over the security ministries having refused to nominate anyone to head them.  Over a year ago, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."  These positions were supposed to be filled no later than December 2010.  They have never been filled. The Constitution requires they be filled for someone to be moved from "prime minister-designate" to "prime minister."  But the Iraqi Constitution was circumvented by the US-brokered Erbil Agreement.

The Erbil Agreement was needed because Nouri's State of Law came in second and Barack was adamant that, the will of the Iraqi people be damned, Nouri would have a second term.

Having failed at the ballot box, the Constitution couldn't rescue Nouri so Barack ordered an extra-constitutional measure, The Erbil Agreement, which would go around the law and provide cover for Nouri.  Having given Nouri a second term not by votes but by a suspect contract, the Constitution no longer applied. So it didn't matter that Nouri failed to create a Cabinet in 30 days as the Constitution dictates.

He's continued to refuse to fill those slots.  Barack has gone along with it and babied, stroked and petted his little toy Nouri and in the process he has screwed Iraq over forever. 



The Tripoli Post notes "around 700 people" killed in violence this month in Iraq by their count. Through Tuesday, Iraqi Body Count counts 722 violent deaths. 

The violence continues today.  National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed clash in Anbar left 2 Iraqi soldiers and 4 rebels injured, 1 person was shot dead in Baquba, a Mosul bombing claimed 2 lives and left three people injured,  a Hilla sticky bombing left one attorney injured,  and "on foot gunmen assassinated Mukhtar of the reform area near his home in western Mosul."  Alsumaria adds that 3 corpses were discovered in Baghdad (gun shot wounds) and a Tazi bombing left four Iraqi military members injured.  In Sulman Pak, Reuters notes, "Militants shot dead 14 Shi'ite tanker-drivers after checking their identity papers at a makeshift roadblock on the main route leading north from the Iraqi capital late on Wednesday, police said."

In addition, there's been an attack on a northern police station. Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports an attack on a Bashmaya police station  Reuters notes it was in Shura and 9 people are dead.


Meanwhile someone please find out what John Arquilla is smoking or snorting and put it out on the open market.  Stoned is the only thing that can explain his column entitled "Why Iraq Was America's Best-Run War" (Foreign Policy). 


Turning to veterans issues, at the end of May, the Federal Registry posted a notice:


The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed new collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to ascertain and monitor the health effects of the exposure of members of the Armed Forces to toxic airborne chemicals and fumes caused by open burn pits.

Patricia Kime (Air Force Times) notes, "The Veterans Affairs Department has extended the deadline for the public to comment on its planned registry for service members exposed to open-air burn pits through Aug. 20." The use of burnpits in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many veterans and contractors with breathing difficulties and illnesses.  It has left people seriously ill and, in some cases dead.  Burnpit 360 is a resource for those needing more information.


Still on veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and the former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Today her office issued the following:



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                            CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Wednesday, July 24, 2013                                                                                    (202) 224-2834
 
Murray Bill to Help Catastrophically Wounded Veterans Start a Family Clears Major Hurdle
 
Murray calls for quick action on bill to end the VA’s ban on In Vitro Fertilization which has prevented thousands of veterans with traumatic brain injury and serious spinal cord or reproductive organ injuries from accessing fertility care
Last Congress Murray’s bill passed the Senate unanimously only to be stalled in the House of Representatives

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) that ends the ban on in vitro fertilization (IVF) services at VA in order to help severely wounded veterans start families was cleared through the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Senator Murray’s bill, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2013, also builds upon previous law to improve VA services for women veterans and veterans with families.
 

Late last year, Senator Murray was able to pass the bill through the U.S. Senate after delivering an impassioned speech on the Senate floor describing the challenges veterans and their families face in accessing IVF. Unfortunately, the bill failed to move in the House of Representatives in time to make its way to the President’s desk after Republican leaders there expressed opposition. Working with advocates and military families, like Staff Sergeant Matt Keil and his wife Tracy, Sen. Murray is pushing for the Senate to once again immediately take up and pass this legislation.
 

“There is absolutely no reason that this bill should not move quickly to the President’s desk,” said 
 Senator Murray. “It was passed unanimously in the Senate, and the House has a responsibility to our most seriously wounded veterans and their spouses to act. This is about giving veterans who have sacrificed everything, every option we have to help them fulfill the simple dream of starting a family. It says that we are not turning our back on the catastrophic reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars. It says to all those brave men and women that didn’t ask questions when they were put in harm’s way that we won’t let politics get in the way of our commitment to you. We owe them nothing less.”


Last year, the New York Times ran an editorial emphasizing the importance of providing these services saying:

“In more than a decade of combat overseas, the military and V.A. have continually had to adjust to the challenges of new traumas with new treatments, as with the epidemic of brain injuries and post-traumatic stress. Adapting the V.A. health system to better meet reproductive-health needs should be part of that response. It is one compassionate way to fulfill the country’s duty to wounded veterans.”


Department of Defense (DOD) data show that between 2003 and 2012 nearly 2000 servicemembers have suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma. The reliance on foot patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of improvised explosive devices has left servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries. In fact, these data show a clear increase in injuries of this nature in recent years.
 

Veterans who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures like IVF to conceive. However, under current law, IVF is expressly excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to veterans or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for veterans with SCI and genital and urinary tract injuries and as a result they have to seek care outside of the VA. DOD currently provides access to IVF services under the Tricare program and coverage for IVF and other fertility treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded servicemembers. Senator Murray’s bill would provide veterans with the same access.
 

Murray’s bill also will give VA permanent authority to offer child care programs at hospitals and Vet Centers for veterans seeking care, and improve outreach to women veterans.
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834


 
 
 
RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office


 








 alsumaria

cnn

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

The Drone War



As the government looks for alternatives to convince the US to call off its drone campaign in the tribal areas, the foreign ministry has asked Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to drop his plan to ask Washington for the transfer of drone technology from his list of options citing ‘legal implications’.
The government was planning to formally request the US for drone technology during the upcoming visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry as part of efforts to end the impasse over the controversial programme.

However, senior foreign ministry officials recently briefed the government on the likely implications of such a policy.


I don't know how people can look at the Drones flying over Pakistan, consider all the people killed and not get how much hatred the US is breeding with Barack's ongoing Drone War.

And today we learned that the death toll is significantly higher than what we have been told.

It has been one lie after another with Barack and one lie after another to justify The Drone War.

You need those lies because there is no rational way to justify The Drone War.

You can't do it with facts, you can't do it with truth.

Like all illegal wars, The Drone War depends upon deceit to keep it going.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



Tuesday, April 23, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, people read meaning into the prison attacks-breaks, US officials say Iraq is now in a civil war, The Drone War continues and we learn the number of people killed is far higher than Barack said, and more.


Through Monday, Iraq Body Count counts 684 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.   With eights days left in the month, AFP is declaring July to have "the highest monthly figure in a year marked by spiraling violence."


Federal News Radio notes, "Hundreds of convicts, including senior members of al Qaeda, broke out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail after comrades launched a military-style assault, authorities said on Monday."  The Sunday prison news only became news outside of Iraq when the number of prisoners who escaped were announced on MondayDan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) concludes:


 These weren't attacks on mosques or markets, designed to spread terror by killing unprepared civilians in public spaces. These were attacks on the militarized prisons of Abu Ghraib and Taji, both of which have large contingents of insurgents among their inmates and have long been targets for Iraq's jihadis. Yet the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was forced to scramble attack helicopters and rush troops to join pitched battles. Even so, they may not have staved off a stunning symbolic defeat.

 Alsumaria reports today that al Qaeada in Iraq has issued a statement claiming responsibility for 'invading' the prisons in Abu Ghraib and Taji and breaking down the walls to allow for the release of the prisoners.  BBC News adds, "In an online statement, al-Qaeda said Sunday's attack was the final one in a campaign aimed at freeing inmates and targeting justice system officials."  Salam Faraj and Mohamad Ali Harissi (AAP) point out the note proclaims "dark days ahead."

Ari Soffer (Israel National News) explains, " Iraqi officials had initially denied that any prisoners had escaped, but were forced to backtrack as the sheer scale of the jailbreak became clear." Mohammed Tawfeeq and Joe Sterling (CNN) note, "At least 21 inmates and at least eight prison guards were killed, the Iraqi Justice Ministry said, while 25 inmates and 14 guards were wounded."  Mona Mahmood and Peter Beaumont (Guardian) report:

Yousef Ali had just sat down at his home near Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison at shortly after 9pm on Sunday evening to break his Ramadan fast when he was startled by the sound of explosions from the direction of the prison. "We began to hear mortars and gunfire, followed by two car bombs," he said. "We could tell there was a big fight inside the prison. We could see aircraft hovering above the prison and nearby areas."

The scope and magnitude of the attacks drawfed earlier attempts at breaking out which is another reason that the prison attacks and break outs are news.  Also making the events news?  The issue of how and the issue of what it says about the state of Iraq today as well as the issue of the attempt to locate the escapees. On the last one, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Iraqi security forces on Tuesday set up dragnets at airports and along highways leading out of the country in a hunt for hundreds of Al Qaeda-allied militants broken out of jail by a massive, coordinated assault on two prisons near Baghdad, Arab media reported."  NBC News' Richard Engel reported (video and text) on the prison break this morning for NBC's Today:

Checkpoints were set up Tuesday as the search continued for up to 500 militants freed by the attack, which followed the deaths of 250 Iraqis in 10 days of violence.
[. . .]
They added that checkpoints had been set up around Abu Ghraib, as the search for the escapees continued.  
Both attacks took place exactly a year after The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's most senior leader, Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, launched a campaign dubbed "Breaking the Walls" to make freeing imprisoned members a top priority. 
“The mujahideen brigades set off after months of preparation and planning to target two of the biggest prisons of the Safavid government," the group said in the statement, Tuesday.

Suada al-Salhy (Reuters) also quotes that section of the statement from the Islamic State of Iraq, "In response to the call of the mujahid (holy warrior) Sheikh Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to seal the blessed plan of 'Breaking the Walls'... the mujahideen brigades set off after months of preparation and planning to target two of the biggest prisons of the Safavid government."  David Blair (Telegraph of London) offers this on the statement and its meaning:


No Iraqi would have missed the subliminal message of al-Qaeda’s triumphant announcement yesterday. When the movement’s leaders claimed credit for two audacious prison breaks outside Baghdad, they declared how “months of preparation and planning” had culminated in these blows against a “Safavid government”.
The Safavids have not actually been in government for a while – for a good 300 years, in fact. They were a Persian dynasty that dominated Iran and its empire, including a big slice of present-day Iraq, in the 16th and 17th centuries. Under their founder, Shah Ismail I, the Safavids managed the extraordinary feat of making Shia Islam the state religion in Iran, while imposing their faith on conquered peoples living between the Tigris and Euphrates.
Iraqis will grasp the analogy: al-Qaeda’s Sunni zealots believe that the Shia politicians who dominate Baghdad today are heirs to foreign invaders. Once, the violence in Iraq was directed towards the Anglo-American occupiers; today, the killing has become a sectarian struggle between a Shia majority that holds the reins of power and a beleaguered Sunni minority.

Let's move on to the questions of how the two attacks were carried out.   Colin Freeman (Telegraph of London) notes that questions are being asked about the hows of the attack and break out:


Questions were also asked as to why it took the Iraqi government 10 hours to send in helicopter gunships to quell the fighting at Abu Ghraib, a delay that some said suggested poor command and control within the security establishment.
One Iraqi politician, who asked not to be named, claimed that the assault on the prison at Taji was planned simply to divert security forces from what was to be the main strike at Abu Ghraib, where an estimated 15,000 inmates are held.
He added that a number of senior Sunni guards at Abu Ghraib had gone missing since, and that it was possible that they had been acting as "inside men". Other reports claimed that inmates had started riots just prior to the attacks to distract the guards, and had been armed with weapons.


Adam Schreck (AP) observes, "The attacks, among the most stunning in Iraq since a surge in violence began in April, have provoked sharp criticism from opposition lawmakers of the government's efforts to keep the country's safe." All Iraq News notes that cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has declared the prison attacks are the "beginning of the terrorist attacks and the biggest security breach in Iraq."  He is calling for Nouri and others to appear before the Parliament for questioning.  Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the head of the Iraqi National Alliance.  He is also a former prime minister of Iraq and, had the White House not stepped in, but would have been renamed prime minister for a second term.  (Instead, in 2006, the Bush White House insisted Nouri be named prime minister; just as, in 2010, the Barack White House insisted Nouri get a second term despite the will of the voters.)  All Iraq News reports that al-Jaafari is calling for an investigation into the prison attacks and escape.  Comments are also coming in from US observers.   RT offers:


However, despite widespread claims that the escapees are largely affiliated with Al-Qaeda, there is no way of knowing, says Sara Flounders, head of the International Action Center. She also told RT that not much is known about Abu Ghraib itself after the US handed over control to the Iraqi government, following its withdrawal from the country. 
“The state of security hasn’t substantially improved since. We know also there are many operatives left in Iraq that continue US policy aims. There’s a lot that’s uncertain and unknown today in Iraq. We do know there was a prison break. But before we rush to label everyone Al-Qaeda, let’s be aware that Abu Ghraib itself as a prison was notorious for US torture techniques… it was turned back over to the Iraqi government and we have no idea if any conditions improved.”
But ultimately, Flounders concludes that the international audience shouldn’t be surprised at the news, because Western efforts in Iraq have not shown any signs of addressing the actual spread of sectarian violence after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, while billions of dollars were misspent – an opinion shared by defense consultant Moeen Raoof.
“The Iraqi government isn’t controlling anything… [It] hasn’t been spending its oil funds on security… the toppling of Saddam Hussein was a fatal, fatal mistake,” one that will be repeated in Afghanistan, after complete US withdrawal, he believes.


And there's is criticism from a US Senator.   Lauren Fox (US News and World Reports) notes:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blamed the Obama Administration Tuesday for the massive prison break in Abu Ghraib outside of Baghdad.

"It's the result of our failure to leave a residual force behind. The whole place is unraveling," McCain says. "We won the peace and lost the war. It is really tragic. And those people who are out of Abu Ghraib now, they are heading right to Syria."

Press TV finds someone who also feels the US government is to blame -- along with the British government:


“This is a legacy of the occupation of Iraq by the United States and the British for the past ten years or so,” said Sabah Jawad in a Tuesday interview.
“They recruited a lot of pro-Ba’athists within the security system. There [are] a lot of people in the security system who do not feel allegiance to Iraq as such,” he added.
The analyst highlighted links between the terrorists in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, including in Syria, and said, “They (terrorists) have links with the regional powers. They are part and parcel of the whole plan to destabilize and divide the Middle East on sectarian lines as well.”




Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) examines the increase in violence and notes:


Five years after pulling itself out of civil war, the country is again mired in a relentless series of bombings, political assassinations and sectarian attacks that have stalled progress many Iraqis hoped they would achieve.
This year the holy month of Ramadan - when many Muslims fast in the day and gather in mosques, cafés and markets in the evening - has been marked by almost daily attacks on a widening range of targets.
Almost 600 people have been killed so far in July, most of them civilians. This month's toll follows a grim landmark in May when the UN reported at least 963 civilians had been killed and more than 2,000 injured in the biggest monthly casualty toll since 2008.




Rick Gladstone and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) declare, "The audacity of the assaults underscored the deterioration of Iraq's stability, punctuated recently by an almost daily litany of car bombings and other violence tied to a resurrection of sectarian tensions in the country, largely between the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis."  Colin Wolfgang (Huffington Post) observes:

Following this mass prison break, the question of what this attack means for the future of Iraq remains. For one thing, al Qaeda has flexed their muscles and demonstrated their capability to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people. It is worth noting that one of the jails attacked -- the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, which gained notoriety for the abuse U.S. soldiers once inflicted on their prisoners -- is one of the most high-security facilities within Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), as this particular faction of the terrorist organization is known, is estimated to have members numbering between 2,000 and 3,000, according to an article today in Time magazine. With no shortage of mujahideen ready to continue escalating the violence, Iraqi military forces may need to prepare for a lengthy and bloody campaign.


"Iraq is now back in a civil war, US officials tell NBC," Richard Engel announced this morning.  And that's not surprising except for the fact that if US officials believe Iraq is "back in a civil war," you'd think they'd be addressing that and asked about it in press briefings.  Engel reported that fact on this morning's Today show.  Hours later at the White House press briefing, no one bothered to raise the issue and, even later, at the State Dept press briefing no one raised the issue.

France's Foreign Ministry issued the following statement:  

France condemns the particularly lethal attacks carried out in recent days in Iraq.
It offers its condolences to the families of the victims and expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi authorities in their fight against terrorism.
In this situation, France calls for unity and the rejection of all forms of violence, and reaffirms the importance of a political process that does not exclude any community.

The UK's Foreign Ministry issued the following:


Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, Alistair Burt said:
The British Government strongly condemns the terrorist attacks that took place at the prisons of Abu Ghraib and Al-Taji in Iraq yesterday. My condolences go out to families of the members of the Iraqi Security Forces who were killed in these attacks.
Like the vast majority of the Iraqi people, we are clear that violence and terrorism have no place in Iraq’s future. The United Kingdom supports the Iraqi government in its efforts to uphold the rule of law and apprehend those inmates that escaped.
These attacks follow a number of horrific incidents that have taken place across Iraq recently. That these attacks have taken place during the holy month of Ramadan, a time for tolerance, is especially disturbing and I urge all political, religious and community leaders to work together to combat terrorism and violence.

Further information

Follow Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt on twitter @AlistairBurtFCO
Follow the Foreign Office on twitter @foreignoffice
Follow the Foreign Office on facebook and Google+
Subscribe to the announcements feed or email alerts to get our latest news and announcements


So France and Great Britian condemned the violence and it was noted in Iraq -- for example here and here.  There was no statement from the US and it's very doubtful that the Iraqi people failed to note that.  The Iraqi government regularly issues statements such as the one All Iraq News reported on yesterday:

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry mourns the death of the Palestinian Ambassador to Iraq, Daleel Mikhail al-Qasous.
A statement by the Ministry cited "With deep sorrow, we mourn the death of the Ambassador of Palestine to Iraq who passed away on last Saturday morning."
"The Iraqi Ministry extends its condolences to the government and people of Palestine on the Ambassador's death, asking Allah Almighty to give his family patience and solace," the statement added.

So think about how that looks to the Iraqi people.  They hear sop about the US government cares and is present for them but they notice a stronger commitment from France and England.  The US Embassy in Baghdad did condemn a killing yesterday:

The United States strongly condemns the assassination today of Sheikh Abdullah Sami al-Assi al-Obeidi, head of the Arab bloc in the Kirkuk Provincial Council and member of the Kirkuk Security Council, and members of his security detail south of Kirkuk city.  Sheikh al-Assi was a senior member of the al-Assi tribe and a well-respected leader, who worked tirelessly for peaceful co-existence and equal treatment of all Kirkuk’s ethnic groups.  This reprehensible and pointless act represents a tremendous loss for Kirkuk province and for all Iraqis working toward a secure, unified and democratic Iraq.
Sheikh al-Assi was a friend to many who work for the cause of peace and understanding, and we express our heartfelt condolences to his family and friends.

The United Nations also issued a statement:


The current top United Nations official in Iraq today strongly condemned the killing of a tribal leader in the northern city of Kirkuk, who was assassinated along with two of his bodyguards.
Gyorgy Busztin, Acting Special Representative of the Secretary-General, condemned in the strongest terms the assassination yesterday of Sheikh Abdallah Sami Al-Assi, Head of the Arab bloc in the Kirkuk Provincial Council and Deputy Chairman of the Provincial Council Security Committee, and two of his bodyguards, the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) said in a statement.
Sheikh Al-Assi was a “pivotal and well-respected political figure in Kirkuk” who always advocated dialogue and peaceful coexistence in the province, the statement continued.
The Mission added that the Sheikh engaged with them in discussions on the way forward for holding Kirkuk elections.


Today National Iraqi News Agency reports a Muqdadiya mortar attack has left thirteen people injured,  a Kirkuk grenade attack claimed the life of 1 Peshmerga, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one police officer injured, 2 guards were killed in Rashad (and the local council building blown up), a Kut car bombing claimed 2 lives and left three more people injured, a Baghdad car bombing "near Omer al-Mokhtar Mosque" left 3 people dead and fifteen more injured, a second Baghdad bombing claimed 6 lives and left twenty-eight people injured, and "Gunmen killed a guard and wounded another in Badush prison in western Mosul."  All Iraq News adds that an armed attack n a Mosul sheep market left 3 people dead, and that a Kirkuk suicide bomber attacked a mosque killing 7 people and leaving thirty more injured.



Last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a two-day visit to Iraq.   Both he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stressed the various bonds their two countries shared.  Sunday All Iraq News reported that Jawed Aoji, Director General of the National Company for Gas, had declared Iraq and Iran had reached an agreement for Iran to provide natural gas to "Baghdad and Mansouriya electricity stations."  The news outlet notes that the discussions on this had been ongoing for two-and-a-half-years.  AP notes the deal requires Iraq to purchase "850 million cubic feet [of gas] a day." On the deal, David Kashi (International Business Times) reports that some are saying the deal is not a concern for the US government and quotes the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Simon Henderson stating, "Washington is relatively powerless to intervene. The U.S. is more concerned about Iranian overflights of Iraq with arms supplies for Syria."  However, the Tehran Times notes:


Based on the agreement, Iran would earn $3.7 billion a year from natural gas exports to Iraq.
The U.S. has asked the Iraqi government about the deal, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said Monday. 
Baghdad "has been receptive to these discussions in the past and has expressed its desire to remain compliant with U.S. sanctions," she said. "We would, of course, make clear the implications were any activity to be deemed as at variance with U.S. sanctions."

Changing topics, Eduardo Galeano contributes a pointed column at Huffington Post and includes:

Robots with Wings(October 13)
Good news. On this day in the year 2011 the world’s military brass announced that drones could continue killing people.
These pilotless planes, crewed by no one, flown by remote control, are in good health: the virus that attacked them was only a passing bother.
As of now, drones have dropped their rain of bombs on defenseless victims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Palestine, and their services are expected in other countries.
In the Age of the Almighty Computer, drones are the perfect warriors. They kill without remorse, obey without kidding around, and they never reveal the names of their masters.

Thomas Gaist (WSWS via Global Research) explains,  "While Obama has claimed that 'the tide of war is receding,' actually the US government is intensifying military operations worldwide. During the past decade, the Pentagon has assembled a fleet of hundreds of high-altitude, 'unmanned aerial vehicles' (UAVs), which now carry out missions on a daily basis in service of the strategic aims of US imperialism. The 'Predator' drone series alone has carried out at least 80,000 sorties in conflict areas including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Somalia." On The Drone War, it turns out that the actual number of people killed is much higher than Barack Obama and his administration have led people to believe.    Chris Woods (Bureau of Investigative Journalism) reports:



 A secret document obtained by the Bureau reveals for the first time the Pakistan government’s internal assessment of dozens of drone strikes, and shows scores of civilian casualties.
The United States has consistently claimed only a tiny number of non-combatants have been killed in drone attacks in Pakistan – despite research by the Bureau and others suggesting that over 400 civilians may have died in the nine-year campaign.
The internal document shows Pakistani officials too found that CIA drone strikes were killing a significant number of civilians – and have been aware of those deaths for many years.
Of 746 people listed as killed in the drone strikes outlined in the document, at least 147 of the dead are clearly stated to be civilian victims, 94 of those are said to be children.
The confidential 12-page summary paper, titled Details of Attacks by Nato Forces/Predators in FATA was prepared by government officials in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).


Chris Woods appeared on Democracy Now! (link is audio, text and video) today:

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the most significant findings in this report. I should say we are going to talk about children today, though, but we’ll talk about children in Pakistan.
CHRIS WOODS: I think the most important thing about this—as you know, the work that the Bureau does and people like New American Foundation, the big studies that have taken place in Pakistan, they’re often driven by media reports. What’s really interesting to me about this document, which was never meant to be published, is that it’s driven from the inside. This is from the villages upwards. This is put together by civilian officials in the tribal areas who pull together information from the towns, from the villages, and feed that back up. They’re not interested in political grandstanding; they’re simply saying who got killed, what got destroyed, what the—how many were injured, and so on. And all of that information is then collated. So what we’ve seen emerge here is a completely parallel and independent tracking of civilian deaths in Pakistan in the U.S. drone strikes, which pretty closely match where the numbers seem to be falling now, which is in this 400 to 600, 700 civilian deaths over the entire period of the CIA’s bombing. So I think that it really is an important document—first big document to emerge either from the U.S. or the Pakistan government that’s out there in its entirety now.

[. . .]



AMY GOODMAN: Talk more about what the Pakistani government report does not say, Chris.
CHRIS WOODS: There are some really interesting omissions. So, there are some strikes that are just missing. So, for some reason, all of 2007 is missing. There were only four or five strikes that year. It’s not a significant number, but it’s a strange omission. They only start in 2006, so the very small number of strikes in 2004 and '05 are missing. Fascinatingly, there is no naming of individuals, whether civilian or militant. And some very big-name militant leaders were killed in some of these strikes. For example, Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistan Taliban, who was killed back in August 2009, you read the entry in this Pakistan document, which you can find online on the Bureau's website, by the way—we published it in full there—no reference at all to the fact that one of the most dangerous men in Pakistan at that time, an existential threat to the people of Pakistan, had been killed. It just says, "One woman killed, one man killed," and it leaves it at that. It’s a very strange document, from that point of view.
Also missing—and this is where I think it gets really interesting, is when we get into Obama’s first year, in 2009, civilian deaths disappear from the record. Now, partly that’s because the document ends at the end of that year, and some of these investigations were clearly still ongoing. But we found examples where we know the civilian administration of the tribal areas in Pakistan knew that civilians had died. In fact, there are documents showing that. But somehow and for some reason, those records of civilian deaths under Obama just slide away from the record. So they’re just not there for 2009, and we don’t really have a good explanation as to why that is.
So, some really curious omissions, but otherwise, you know, I think a very important document. And it just adds to this growing canon of publicly available evidence that says, "You know what? This claim that CIA killed 50 to 60 civilians in Pakistan, it just doesn’t add up. It doesn’t add up at all." And really, all of the questioning needs, in my view, to be focusing back on CIA right now. They are the holders of the key information that we need to be hearing: Who did they kill? When did they kill them? Why did they kill them? And these are the answers I think we really need now.


Attorney and former Judge John J. Gibbons (Los Angeles Times via the Provo Daily Herald) shares:

On Friday, a federal judge in Washington will hear a challenge to the Obama administration's approach to targeted killings. I find myself frustrated by how little progress we've made.
In 2004, I represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush, challenging President George W. Bush's claim that he could hold noncitizens at Guantanamo without judicial review based on the administration's unilateral claim that the detainees were enemies of the United States. I argued that the president's position presented a profound threat to the role of the courts in safeguarding the rule of law, and that the prisoners were entitled to due process, including judicial examination of the government's reasons for holding them. The Supreme Court agreed, reaffirming that an asserted "state of war is not a blank check" for the executive branch when civil liberties are at stake.
When campaigning for office, then-Sen. Barack Obama agreed with the court's decision and criticized Bush's abandonment of basic checks and balances in the so-called war on terror. Yet today, President Obama has taken his predecessor's assertion of executive fiat even further. His administration says it has the power not just to detain suspected terrorists but also to kill them without any judicial oversight or accountability.


Dropping back to the June 6th snapshot for that day's Senate Appropriations Committee hearing:


Senator Susan Collins:  Mr. Attorney General, it troubles me that the President has virtually unreviewable, unfettered authority to order the killing of any American citizen overseas who is suspected of terrorist activity -- without any kind of charge or trial or judicial review.  We've all read this morning of the controversy over the NSA having access to phone records of American citizens.  It seems to me that an American currently receives a greater degree of due process from the judicial branch if the government is seeking to listen in on his phone conversations or get information about his phone conversations than if the President is seeking to take his life.  That just doesn't make sense to me. Why hasn't the administration proposed to Congress a process that would require some degree of independent judicial review for a targeted lethal strike against a US person overseas -- something, either an expansion of the FISA court or a different kind of classified proceeding before a court to ensure that there's some kind of judicial review rather than vesting that authority to take a life -- an American life, I'm talking about, overseas -- only in the President. 


 
Attorney General Eric Holder:   Well -- it -- With all due respect, I-I would say that, uhm, it's incorrect to say that it's only in the, uhm, -- it's in the un- the President has unlimited authority in this regard -- with regard to the use of drones.  And we're talking about being more transparent.


 They're talking about it.  They're violating the Constitution but, have no fear, they are talking about creating some faux court that would assist them in violating the Constitution.  They're also talking about NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden.  Not about how to fix the illegal actions of the government that Ed exposed but how to punish Ed, how to pursue him, how to silence truth tellers.  From today's White House press briefing:


Q    Jay, thanks.  There are reports that Edward Snowden might get his travel documents in Russia any day now, possibly as early as Wednesday.  Is that the administration’s understanding?  And in light of that, have there been recent conversations between President Obama or other senior administration officials and Russian officials?

MR. CARNEY:  I have no new understanding about those reports.  I would simply say that our position is the same as it has been, which is that we believe Mr. Snowden ought to be expelled and returned to the United States, where he faces felony charges, and that there is ample legal justification for that and precedent in terms of cooperation with Russia in the law enforcement arena that would allow for that.  But I have no new information on his disposition, if you will. 
And while I am confident that conversations are ongoing between the administration and the Russian government on this and many issues, I don’t have any White House conversations to read out.

Q    And is the President still traveling to Moscow?

MR. CARNEY:  As I’ve said, the President intends to travel to Russia for the G20, and we have no further announcements to make beyond what we’ve said in the past about that travel.

Q    And, Jay, some Russian officials are accusing the United States of a double standard, saying that the U.S. has repeatedly refused extradition requests; one official saying, “We’ve been denied the extradition of murderers, bandits and bribe-takers.”  Is that a fair assessment?  What’s your reaction?  Is that harming your efforts to try to get Snowden?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, you would have to give me a specific case.  The fact is that we have worked with Russia to  -- in this arena, in both directions, and as well as with other countries, so we believe there’s ample precedent here.  And our position has been conveyed to the Russian government, much as it has been conveyed by me and others publicly, which is that Mr. Snowden is not a dissident, he’s not a human rights activist.  In the view of the government which brought the case, he very clearly violated the law in disclosing classified information.  And he, as a citizen charged in this country, will be afforded all of the many rights given to defendants in our country, in our system of justice, when he returns.







 













 



 

 

 
 
   
the new york times