PDF
A shorthand sketch of constitutional hardball is this: It consists of political claims and practices -- legislative and executive initiatives -- that are without much question within the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and practice but that are nonetheless in some tension with existing pre-constitutional understandings.3 It is hardball because its practitioners see themselves as playing for keeps in a special kind of way; they believe the stakes of the political controversy their actions provoke are quite high, and that their defeat and their opponents' victory would be a serious, perhaps permanent setback to the political positions they hold.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Chairman Waxman Reiterates Request for Testimony from Secretary Rice
Monday, April 09, 2007
Administration Oversight, Iraq Intelligence and Nuclear Evidence
Administration Oversight, Iraq Intelligence and Nuclear Evidence
After receiving an insufficient response from the State Department's Legislative Affairs office, Chairman Waxman reiterates his request for Secretary Rice to testify on April 18 regarding President Bush's claims that Iraq attempted to procure uranium from Niger and other subjects.
Houston Freeway Protest Against Israel
April 8, 2007
This blurb comes from a relative in the Houston area about a small bunch of people protesting the Palestinian occupation and any attack on Iran on a bridge. This is just for people in the Houston area to join in if you are against these actions.
This blurb comes from a relative in the Houston area about a small bunch of people protesting the Palestinian occupation and any attack on Iran on a bridge. This is just for people in the Houston area to join in if you are against these actions.
D I S T R I B U T E W I D E L Y , the announcement goes about a Planned Houston Freeway Protest Against Israel. The pictures show past protests.
FREEWAY BLOGGING (PROTESTS WITH SIGNS) IN HOUSTON, TEXAS ON MANDELL BRIDGE (NOT WOODHEAD) OVER HWY. 59 (SOUTHWEST FREEWAY) ALL INVITED. Photos of previous Wednesday protests show the site.
WHEN: Every Wednesday until further notice (starting Wed. 4-04-07)
TIME: 5:00 to 6:15pm
THEME: ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE--STOP ISRAELI CRUELTY--NO WAR WITH IRAN.
THE RESPONSES TO OUR SIGNS FROM THE CARS ON THE FREEWAY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE AND GROWING, BUT WITH PATIENCE, IT WILL TAKE TIME TO PUT A DENT IN THE 4 DECADES OF SKEWED PRO-ISRAELI MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE ISRAEL/PALESTINE CONFLICT WHERE A MINIMUM OF 3 PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN KILLED TO 1 ISRAELI, BUT IN TIME,THE PALESTINIANS WILL BE FREE SOMEDAY.
The SIGNS:
STOP U.S./ISRAEL WARS
STOP ISRAELI CRUELTY
PALESTINE SUFFERS
FREE PALESTINE
ISRAEL OUT OF PALESTINE
U.S. STOP FUNDING ISRAEL
THANK YOU FOR SAYING NO TO WAR
NO WAR WITH IRAN
READ CARTER'S BOOK ON PALESTINE
HANDS OFF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN
It reads on....
Why are we on the bridge protesting the U. S. unconditional political and economic support (approx. 10 million per day) to the Israeli Government when they continue the oppression, war crimes, and atrocities against the Palestinian people?
The average American doesn't know the extent of the suffering of the Palestinians and that this oppression is a predominant cause of radical Muslim terrorists, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism. When our government and Congressmen are unwilling to tell the truth about this conflict, and with the corporate media, which is highly biased in favor of Israel, this gross injustice is effectively kept under cover to "protect and defend" our twin brother, Israel. Even KPFT cooperates in this cover-up, inadvertently or intentionally, by canceling Flashpoints, which boldly attacks injustice where it exists, in Haiti, Darfur, or in Palestine. With our (US) phony "defense and protection" policies for our friend Israel, rather than defending and protecting, would not it be ironic if we contribute to its demise.
Injustices cannot last forever. History and inviolate laws inform us that the oppressor may become the oppressed. The Palestinian people are not going away.
Our efforts on the bridge may be slight but with malice toward none we would attempt to strike at the root of evil rather than hack at the branches and create a dialog for honest discussion to balance biased media coverage.
So if you’re in the Huston area, drop over on Wednesday afternoons and join in.
BUSH SPREADS GUANTANAMO GANGRENE AROUND WORLD; TENS OF THOUSANDS HELD
April 9, 2007
By Sherwood Ross
Jumah Al Dossari has been rotting in Guatanamo for five years now without ever having been charged of an offense. The prisoner believes “he has been condemned to live forever on an island where there is no law,” his lawyer says, adding, “He may well be right.”
Al Dossari is forced to spend virtually the entire day in solid-wall solitary under conditions that make Devil’s Island look like a health spa on the Riviera. He was kidnapped illegally, transported halfway around the world, torn from his family and other living beings, denied sunlight, short-shackled, beaten, and told by his sadistic tormentors he will never get out. On three occasions he has attempted suicide, according to his lawyer Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, who told his story in the April 5 Miami Herald.
Al Dossari cannot believe a human being can be flung in prison with no evidence, but what does he know of how President Bush and Congress have torched our Constitution? Al Dossari’s fate differs little from 400 other Guantanamo captives and of tens of thousands of luckless U.S. prisoners around the world, the bitter harvest of illegal wars by an illegitimate regime.
In a report published April 5th, Amnesty International called for the Guantanamo detainees either to be released from their “super max” high security cells or allowed to stand trial, a modest request under the circumstances. Amnesty said Guantanamo prisoners exist for 22 hours a day in windowless cells never seeing daylight; that they are allowed to exercise only at night; that they suffer from extreme “sensory deprivation”; that they are denied proper access to human rights groups and independent medical doctors. Amnesty’s Kate Kelly branded Guantanamo “a travesty of justice,” substantiating the charges leveled by Colangelo-Bryan and others with first-hand knowledge of this horrific mortuary.
The miseries of Guantanamo are being multiplied by the “compassionate conservative” in the White House. According to the British “Observer” newspaper, the U.S. operates an “invisible” (and hence illegal) network of prisons stretching from Diego Garcia to Iraq to Thailand, and including prison ships on the Indian Ocean. The Washington Post reported that six days after 9/11, Bush gave the CIA “broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world.” This order, of course, appropriate for a Roman Emperor, has not the merest shred of legality. By the time of his 2003 State of the Union, though, Bush could crow more than 3,000 suspected terrorists “have been arrested in many countries.”
Soon, tens of thousands of men, mostly from Iraq and Afghanistan, were being detained. The ensuing brutalities and murders at Abu Ghraib, just west of Baghdad, have been well documented. Likewise Bagram prison, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, where prisoners were chained to ceilings for days and repeatedly beaten; where they have been put in cold rooms so long their hands and feet became swollen, inflicting excruciating pain and death. As at Abu Ghraib, some Bagram captives were just beaten to death. John Sifton of Human Rights Watch, reported Iraq detainees were routinely beaten. Torture was “condoned and commonly used,” he said. The U.S., of course, prefers to commit such crimes in secret. Reminiscent of the odious practices of Stalin and Hitler, the CIA illegally denies Red Cross access to its compound in Kabul, known as “The Pit,” and prisoners are illegally kept “off the books,” also illegal. An official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Shamsullah Ahmadzai, told The New York Times that the Afghan police, courts, and prosecutors are all limited by law in how long they can hold criminal suspects, “The Americans are detaining people without any legal procedures. Prisoners do not have the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.”
In Morocco, the “Observer” says, the government has obligingly locked U.S. captives in the Al-Tamara interrogation center near Rabat. In Syria, the U.S. consigns detainees for torture in Damascus. Egypt also gets a flow of alleged militants to be tortured. The U.S. also houses prisoners in Baku, Azerbaijan, at a U.S. airbase in Qatar, and as far away as Thailand. Still other prisoners are alleged to be held in Poland, and some are known to have been tortured in Saudi Arabia and Aman, Jordan.
Many suspects are seized in Europe. Italy has arrest warrants out for a score of CIA agents for nabbing a suspect off the streets in Milan. On January 23 of last year, the Council of Europe put the number of illegally seized men on that continent at about 100. Swiss Senator Dick Marty told the Council: “I believe it is absolutely demonstrated that alleged terrorists or terrorist sympathizers were kidnapped, transported against their will across Europe, detained outside any jurisdiction, deprived of all rights, and sent to countries that, notably, offer no guarantees at all of the respect for fundamental rights.”
Amnesty has denounced the U.S. for its “two-faced strategy to torture,” that is, to deny it in public, as President Bush does, and practice it in secret, all the while seeking ways for the torture goons to elude criminal liability. Amnesty also criticizes the U.S. for its silence “on human rights abuses committed by many of its new-found friends.” Last January, Amnesty cited the case of Baloch National Movement political leader Akhtar Mengel, held incommunicado in solitary confinement in Karachi “without access to needed medical care” and hit America’s failure “to take any effective public action.”
Yet, why should it? The rights of opposition political leaders in his ally Pakistan mean nothing to George Bush. His indifference to their plight, like that of Jumah Al Dossari, is just another aspect of his contempt for human life and law. After all, he is the man who scrapped nuclear and germ warfare treaties, violated the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles, trampled the Charter of the United Nations, ringed the world with military bases, sold billions worth of arms to dictators, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians, bombarded the Middle East with illegal cluster bombs and uranium shells, threatened a small nation with the “nuclear option,” created a gigantic war machine bent on militarizing space to dominate every crevice of the Earth, and is spending his taxpayers into bankruptcy while offering thousands of their youth as human sacrifices on the altar of his wars of aggression. And that’s just for starters. Nowhere, though, does Mr. Bush reveal the depth of his degenerate character more clearly than by ordering the arbitrary arrest and torture of human beings. Victims should not look for mercy from this man.
Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
By Sherwood Ross
Jumah Al Dossari has been rotting in Guatanamo for five years now without ever having been charged of an offense. The prisoner believes “he has been condemned to live forever on an island where there is no law,” his lawyer says, adding, “He may well be right.”
Al Dossari is forced to spend virtually the entire day in solid-wall solitary under conditions that make Devil’s Island look like a health spa on the Riviera. He was kidnapped illegally, transported halfway around the world, torn from his family and other living beings, denied sunlight, short-shackled, beaten, and told by his sadistic tormentors he will never get out. On three occasions he has attempted suicide, according to his lawyer Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, who told his story in the April 5 Miami Herald.
Al Dossari cannot believe a human being can be flung in prison with no evidence, but what does he know of how President Bush and Congress have torched our Constitution? Al Dossari’s fate differs little from 400 other Guantanamo captives and of tens of thousands of luckless U.S. prisoners around the world, the bitter harvest of illegal wars by an illegitimate regime.
In a report published April 5th, Amnesty International called for the Guantanamo detainees either to be released from their “super max” high security cells or allowed to stand trial, a modest request under the circumstances. Amnesty said Guantanamo prisoners exist for 22 hours a day in windowless cells never seeing daylight; that they are allowed to exercise only at night; that they suffer from extreme “sensory deprivation”; that they are denied proper access to human rights groups and independent medical doctors. Amnesty’s Kate Kelly branded Guantanamo “a travesty of justice,” substantiating the charges leveled by Colangelo-Bryan and others with first-hand knowledge of this horrific mortuary.
The miseries of Guantanamo are being multiplied by the “compassionate conservative” in the White House. According to the British “Observer” newspaper, the U.S. operates an “invisible” (and hence illegal) network of prisons stretching from Diego Garcia to Iraq to Thailand, and including prison ships on the Indian Ocean. The Washington Post reported that six days after 9/11, Bush gave the CIA “broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world.” This order, of course, appropriate for a Roman Emperor, has not the merest shred of legality. By the time of his 2003 State of the Union, though, Bush could crow more than 3,000 suspected terrorists “have been arrested in many countries.”
Soon, tens of thousands of men, mostly from Iraq and Afghanistan, were being detained. The ensuing brutalities and murders at Abu Ghraib, just west of Baghdad, have been well documented. Likewise Bagram prison, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, where prisoners were chained to ceilings for days and repeatedly beaten; where they have been put in cold rooms so long their hands and feet became swollen, inflicting excruciating pain and death. As at Abu Ghraib, some Bagram captives were just beaten to death. John Sifton of Human Rights Watch, reported Iraq detainees were routinely beaten. Torture was “condoned and commonly used,” he said. The U.S., of course, prefers to commit such crimes in secret. Reminiscent of the odious practices of Stalin and Hitler, the CIA illegally denies Red Cross access to its compound in Kabul, known as “The Pit,” and prisoners are illegally kept “off the books,” also illegal. An official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Shamsullah Ahmadzai, told The New York Times that the Afghan police, courts, and prosecutors are all limited by law in how long they can hold criminal suspects, “The Americans are detaining people without any legal procedures. Prisoners do not have the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence.”
In Morocco, the “Observer” says, the government has obligingly locked U.S. captives in the Al-Tamara interrogation center near Rabat. In Syria, the U.S. consigns detainees for torture in Damascus. Egypt also gets a flow of alleged militants to be tortured. The U.S. also houses prisoners in Baku, Azerbaijan, at a U.S. airbase in Qatar, and as far away as Thailand. Still other prisoners are alleged to be held in Poland, and some are known to have been tortured in Saudi Arabia and Aman, Jordan.
Many suspects are seized in Europe. Italy has arrest warrants out for a score of CIA agents for nabbing a suspect off the streets in Milan. On January 23 of last year, the Council of Europe put the number of illegally seized men on that continent at about 100. Swiss Senator Dick Marty told the Council: “I believe it is absolutely demonstrated that alleged terrorists or terrorist sympathizers were kidnapped, transported against their will across Europe, detained outside any jurisdiction, deprived of all rights, and sent to countries that, notably, offer no guarantees at all of the respect for fundamental rights.”
Amnesty has denounced the U.S. for its “two-faced strategy to torture,” that is, to deny it in public, as President Bush does, and practice it in secret, all the while seeking ways for the torture goons to elude criminal liability. Amnesty also criticizes the U.S. for its silence “on human rights abuses committed by many of its new-found friends.” Last January, Amnesty cited the case of Baloch National Movement political leader Akhtar Mengel, held incommunicado in solitary confinement in Karachi “without access to needed medical care” and hit America’s failure “to take any effective public action.”
Yet, why should it? The rights of opposition political leaders in his ally Pakistan mean nothing to George Bush. His indifference to their plight, like that of Jumah Al Dossari, is just another aspect of his contempt for human life and law. After all, he is the man who scrapped nuclear and germ warfare treaties, violated the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles, trampled the Charter of the United Nations, ringed the world with military bases, sold billions worth of arms to dictators, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians, bombarded the Middle East with illegal cluster bombs and uranium shells, threatened a small nation with the “nuclear option,” created a gigantic war machine bent on militarizing space to dominate every crevice of the Earth, and is spending his taxpayers into bankruptcy while offering thousands of their youth as human sacrifices on the altar of his wars of aggression. And that’s just for starters. Nowhere, though, does Mr. Bush reveal the depth of his degenerate character more clearly than by ordering the arbitrary arrest and torture of human beings. Victims should not look for mercy from this man.
Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com
CCTV cameras that shout at you? All very well, but I have a much scarier idea. Trust me, you'll love it ...
I can see you, citizen
Charlie BrookerMonday April 9, 2007
The Guardian
In case you missed it, last week police in Middlesbrough unveiled a startling new weapon in the ongoing war against crime: CCTV cameras that shout at you whenever you do something wrong. Currently, they are chiefly used to warn drunken revellers hell-bent on stealing traffic cones, or to dish out virtual bollockings to litterbugs. "Respect tsar" Louise Casey says it "nips problems in the bud", while home secretary John Reid praised the scheme on the grounds that rather than being "secret surveillance", it was "very public", and most importantly, "interactive".
Of course, the word "interactive" is regularly wheeled out to make any old bullshit sound exciting and modern. Hey, it's not a humiliating infringement of civil liberties - it's interactive! You, know - a bit of democratic fun, just like The X Factor or MySpace! Woo hoo! Now put that in the bin or I'll blow your head off.
There are two major problems with justifying the bellowing CCTV cameras on the grounds that they're "interactive". Firstly, just because something's "interactive", that doesn't automatically make it right. Coprophilia is interactive, and that doesn't belong in the street either.
Secondly, they're not interactive at all. They're faceless electronic scrutinisers that scream when you break the rules. What John Reid has done here is confuse the word "interactive" with the word "nightmarish".
And wait, it gets worse. As if the scheme wasn't already unsettling enough, according to news reports, "children's voices are to be used initially to make the encounter less confrontational".
This would be a brilliantly disturbing twist in a dystopian sci-fi movie in which the traditional adult-child relationship has been thrown into reverse, and misbehaving grownups are publicly scolded by eerie, disembodied infant voices, but unfortunately it's not happening in a dystopian sci-fi movie at all, but in Middlesborough. And, later this year, in Southwark, Barking and Dagenham, Reading, Harlow, Norwich, Ipswich, Plymouth, Gloucester, Derby, Northampton, Mansfield, Nottingham, Coventry, Sandwell, Wirral, Blackpool, Salford, South Tyneside and Darlington.
Incidentally, it's not yet clear whether the children's voices will address miscreants using formal language ("Attention, citizen: you are committing a felony; you have 20 seconds to desist") or in "kid speak" ("You're a bad man and I'm telling on you and my dad's going to tear your head off"). Perhaps they could also allow kids to control the cameras and decide what constitutes a crime. And, rather than mounting the cameras on poles, why not make them mobile and more kid-friendly by placing them inside full-size, remote-controlled Daleks, which can patrol the streets dishing out near-fatal electric shocks to those who disobey?
Actually, using the Daleks would be a masterstroke. Everyone loves Doctor Who - who wouldn't be thrilled by the sight of a real-life Dalek squadron rolling down the high street, glinting in the sun? The sheer excitement would genuinely make the accompanying loss of liberty seem worthwhile.
To liven things up even more, our rasping pepperpot overlords could be colour-coded. Blue Daleks would deal with minor infractions, and would spend most of their time issuing warnings and administering minor shocks - but they'd also be chummy and approachable, and willing to pose for photographs with your nephew. Red Daleks, on the other hand, would be emotionless killing machines.
Imagine the atmosphere outside a pub on a hot summer's day: a Red Dalek trundles past, and the convivial hubbub suddenly fades to a whisper. Everyone stiffens. And then he turns the corner and a communal sigh of relief goes up, and the drinking continues and the jukebox plays louder and louder ... community spirit lives again. Admit it: it'd be fantastic.
Of course, to maximise the psychological impact of the Red Daleks, they'd have to be fewer in number than the Blues. Ten per citizen, tops.
If anyone from the Home Office is reading this, incidentally, it's absolutely imperative that you license the actual, 100% official, BBC Daleks, as seen on TV. Don't just try to create some sort of rip-off close-as-dammit lookalike and hope we'll start calling them "Daleks". We're not idiots. And if you draw a blank with Terry Nation's estate, don't bother negotiating for the rights to the Cybermen instead. It won't be the same. Daleks or nothing. Pull that off and I guarantee we'll willingly accept it. Even Shami Chakrabarti, denouncing the plan on Question Time, would have to start her complaint by saying, "Obviously I love the idea of Daleks as much as anyone, but ..."
So come on, Reid. Stop pissing about with twittering cameras on sticks. The technology for an army of wirelessly controlled mobile CCTV spybots already exists - and it's interactive. There's nothing stopping you. Show some balls for once in your poxy life. Give us the Daleks.
News media plans escape from Baghdad
AJR Features
From AJR, April/May 2007
Obstructed View
Extreme danger and sky-high security costs have diminished the press corps in Iraq and severely limited access to a deepening morass. The result is a clouded picture of perhaps today’s most important news story.
By Sherry Ricchiardi
Sherry Ricchiardi (sricchia@iupui.edu) is an AJR senior contributing writer.
Before Rick Jervis heads out into the streets of Baghdad, he makes an important telephone call. Not to his editor back in USA Today's newsroom, but to his security consultant, a pipeline to the murky world of kidnappers, militias and other indiscriminate killers. If there is a rise in car bombings or assaults on foreigners, the reporter wants to know which routes to avoid before he takes off with a driver and bodyguard. He doesn't wear a flak jacket because that would draw too much attention.
The relentless violence in Iraq has seriously compromised coverage of arguably the most important story in the world today. Certain facets of the conflict remain exasperatingly elusive or, at best, thinly reported. The media's vital role as eyewitness has been severely limited; the intimate narrative of victims, survivors and their persecutors is sorely lacking in places like Anbar Province, where the insurgency continues to inflict havoc.
Few journalists have penetrated the clandestine network of resistance fighters and jihadists. CNN's Michael Ware is one of the only correspondents to sit face-to-face with al-Qaeda operatives on their own turf and survive to tell about it. The New York Times' Dexter Filkins used an inside source to set up meetings with local insurgents caught in a power struggle with al-Qaeda outsiders. But such breakthroughs have been rare. When it comes to factions in the fighting, there are more questions than answers.
And the roster of correspondents seems far too small for the daunting task. Escalating threats to foreigners and astronomical security costs have led media companies to scale back their staffs.
Though journalists struggle mightily to cut through the fog and spin, Americans are left without a complete account of a prolonged, bloody war that is devouring billions of taxpayers' dollars. Correspondents are hamstrung when it comes to independently verifying information from military press briefings or rhetoric from the Pentagon. Without risking their lives, they can't go into the festering city of Fallujah or certain Baghdad neighborhoods to conduct their own investigations (see "Out of Reach," April/May 2006). Embedding is an alternative, but it offers a limited view under scrutiny of the military.
"The whole thing seems so confusing," says Getty Images photographer Chris Hondros a few hours before heading back to Baghdad. He described this scenario: "A bomb blows up an American convoy. Who did that? The Sunni insurgents or the Shia or some other player? We have no idea and no way to figure it out... This is a profoundly different war."
No one sees the situation improving. Many news organizations have escape plans should American and Iraqi forces completely lose control of Baghdad, a squalid city brimming with weapons and sectarian animosity. For the media, security concerns have become an obsession.
Before they go out on assignments, correspondents work through a litany of questions: Where is it? What time is it? How can I get there? How can I get back? Who can I talk to? Who controls the neighborhood? Who guards the checkpoints? Is there enough fuel in the car and plenty of air in the tires? Is this story worth the risk?
To blend in, female journalists often don an abaya, a long robe worn by Muslim women, and a head scarf. Some male reporters with dark features grow moustaches and beards and try to emulate the attire of Iraqi men. Some blondes dye their hair black. Many operate on the 15-minute rule: They never stay longer in any one place for fear that someone with a cell phone will alert killers that a soft target is in play. Sometimes the smallest things can expose them. Wearing a seatbelt in a car is a clear giveaway: Iraqis rarely use them.
The high-pitched paranoia is justified. During the past four years, members of the press corps have been beheaded, gunned down at close range, blown apart by car bombs and IEDs (improvised explosive devices), targeted for assassination and kidnapped for ransom. Some have been wounded or died alongside coalition troops during combat missions. Sometimes they have shown up in grainy videos, flanked by masked executioners, tearfully begging for their lives.
On several occasions, suicide bombers have hit the heavily guarded hotels journalists live in, including the one where Jervis has set up USA Today's operation. Some media organizations like the New York Times and CNN have spent millions to build fortresses and maintain a private army of hired guns. Embedding with the U.S. military offers a modicum of protection; it also puts correspondents at risk for ambushes, IEDs and rocket attacks, common tactics used against the occupying forces.
The heavily protected Green Zone, the core of U.S. operations where journalists routinely go for briefings and to obtain press credentials, has become a favorite target. In his first-person account "Life in Hell: A Baghdad Diary," Time correspondent Aparisim Ghosh described an attack just 100 yards from the main entrance where twin blasts--one a car bomb, the other a suicide bomber--killed 16 people. It happened near small shops where journalists emerging from the Green Zone on hot afternoons stop to buy cold sodas.
For the fourth consecutive year, Iraq in 2006 ranked as the world's deadliest spot for the media, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Since the invasion, 133 journalists and media support workers have been killed; 83 percent were locals, many with ties to Western media outlets. The Associated Press lost two Iraqi staffers in December and January. CPJ reports that for the first time, murder has overtaken crossfire as the leading cause of deaths.
On March 6, CPJ announced two more murders: Mohan Hussein al-Dhahir, editor of the widely read al-Mashreq newspaper, was gunned down near his home in western Baghdad on March 4. Jamal al-Zubaidi, economics editor for two Baghdad-based dailies, disappeared after he left the office on February 24. His family found his body at the morgue a few days later.
Peter Osnos, who covered the war in Vietnam for the Washington Post, says Iraq is far riskier. "American journalists have never seen a war like this before--the extraordinary danger, the vast expense and the extraordinary set of circumstances. Every inch of terrain is a potential battlefield," says Osnos, now a senior fellow for media at the Century Foundation as well as founder and editor at large of PublicAffairs Books. "People underestimate how dangerous it is."
To be killed or injured, "All you have to do is make a wrong decision," says Richard Engel, NBC's Middle East correspondent, who has survived attempts on his life and seen friends kidnapped and killed during his four years in Iraq. Testimony from other journalists bears him out.
"You cannot move; you cannot go anywhere on your own," says Detroit Free Press photojournalist David Gilkey, who returned from his eighth trip to Iraq in January. Deadly strikes, he says, can come from any direction--an IED planted underground, a sniper on the roof of an apartment building, a gunman hiding in the trunk of a car, a teenager strapped with explosives, a car bomb set off by remote control as the killers sip tea nearby.
"Every time you get out of the vehicle, you are almost paralyzed, with your eyes darting around looking for where the shot might come from. Every time you are riding around it's all you can do to keep from plugging your ears, waiting for the blast to happen," says Gilkey, who survived an IED explosion on his last trip.
Photographer Samantha Appleton has been to Iraq five times for Time and The New Yorker. In 2003, she roamed freely with minor concerns about security. A year later, when foreigners became favorite targets, she began wearing an abaya, hoping to deflect attention as she documented the lives of Iraqi civilians, mostly in the Baghdad slum Sadr City. She now finds it impossible to travel by road anywhere outside of Baghdad. "Iraq is a country that hears and sees everything. A foreigner cannot blend in," Appleton wrote in an e-mail. She says it is common to travel with a minimum of two cars and three to five gunmen. "Few wars have required that," she says.
Besides being the most dangerous war for journalists, this also has become the most costly. Foreign editors for good reason are reluctant to discuss the specifics of their security strategies or what they pay to protect their staffs. It is no secret that companies like AKE Group Ltd. or Backwater USA charge around $1,500 a day for each member of a personal security detail. Armored vehicles can cost $100,000 or more, depending on the level of protection.
All but a handful of media organizations have been driven out by the high cost and risks. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the AP, and the broadcast and cable news networks are among the stalwarts. Even for those willing to bleed dollars for top-line security, newsgathering remains a struggle. The networks, whose crews are highly visible when they are covering a story, participate in a weekly conference call to share the latest intelligence reports. Competition goes out the window when safety is involved, says John Stack, Fox News Channel's vice president for newsgathering.
"What makes this war different," Stack says, "is that at least in certain cycles, journalists themselves were the targets, and that hadn't been the case in previous conflicts."
The heady days of "shock and awe" gave little hint of the angst to come. Operation Iraqi Freedom began as the best-covered war in American history, with television news crews transmitting unprecedented real-time images of U.S. armored divisions thundering through the desert. (See "Close to the Action," May 2003.) During the invasion, nearly 700 embedded journalists traveled alongside the troops. Hundreds more entered the war zone independently from Kuwait and other bordering nations. Today, it is a much lonelier media scene.
In October, the AP reported that only 11 journalists were embedded and there had been no more than 25 embeds during the months before. When Tribune Media Services military columnist Joseph L. Galloway contacted the Combined Information Press Center in Baghdad in early January, he was told there were only nine embeds. (CPIC, located in the Green Zone, monitors embed requests.)
"That is absolutely nothing for a story this big," says Galloway, who prowled the jungles of Vietnam for United Press International and reported from Iraq as senior military correspondent for the now-defunct Knight Ridder. "There's no substitute for getting out and spending time with a unit in a combat situation."
No one knows for certain how many journalists are in Iraq at any given time. The best guess from those on the ground is 50 to 60 on a consistent basis. Predictably, the number rises when major news breaks, such as the execution of Saddam Hussein. In mid-February, the number of embeds jumped to 52 as the U.S. military implemented a plan to secure Baghdad.
New York Times correspondent Dexter Filkins offers another measure. He recalls that in the early days, several hundred journalists packed into an auditorium in the Green Zone to attend press conferences. When he left in September, about a half dozen were showing up. "It was a big story then and now, just a lot fewer people are covering it, for all the obvious reasons," says Filkins, who spent three-and-a-half years in Iraq after covering the war in Afghanistan for a year.
Compared with Iraq, "Afghanistan was a tea party," says the correspondent, who is taking a break from combat as a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. "The people there are working incredibly hard and are working heroically, taking increasing risks to stitch [the story] together and get as much as they can. But there's still an awful lot we don't know."
Over the past four years, three types of media operations have evolved in Iraq. The top tier, such as the New York Times and Fox News Channel, has invested millions in armed encampments. (The Times has the most correspondents--generally five or six are in the country--as well as dozens of Iraqis working as office support staff and filing information from dangerous places.) Other news organizations, like USA Today and U.S. News & World Report, maintain a slim presence, with one correspondent and a stable of Iraqi stringers, usually operating out of a hotel or a shared house. Regional newspapers such as the San Antonio Express-News and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette parachute reporters in for stories with strong local ties.
National Public Radio, which generally has four correspondents and a producer in the country as well as a dozen Iraqis on the payroll, has moved its headquarters four times since the war started, says Senior Foreign Editor Loren Jenkins, who visits the Baghdad bureau two or three times a year to oversee security issues. Jenkins understands why many media companies stay out. "It's hair-raising to try and run an operation there. Every day you're saying, 'Oh, God, I hope nothing happens to our people,'" says the editor, who did stints in Vietnam for Newsweek. "It's a constant, gnawing fear."
NPR first set up shop in a flophouse, as Jenkins describes it, a risky venture since there was little security. The editor counted on operating under the radar with his low-profile staff. When conditions deteriorated in 2004, he rented a house and sought professional security advice. Then came a string of kidnappings. ABC News had a heavily fortified compound with extra room, so NPR moved in. "They had greater protection than we could ever have afforded," says Jenkins.
That neighborhood became more radicalized as Muqtada al-Sadr's militia began taking control of the streets. It was time to move again. In November, NPR rented a house with Fox and CNN for neighbors. ABC News has since moved in, and the Iraq Foreign Ministry, with its army of guards, is a few blocks down the street. Once again, Jenkins piggybacked on security provided by more affluent players. He calls the safety situation in Baghdad "a constantly changing crapshoot."
NPR has invested in a second armored vehicle, but correspondents do not travel with armed guards. "If the only way you can get to a place is with a bunch of mercenaries with guns sticking out of the car or surrounding you wherever you go, that is not the journalism I want to practice," says Jenkins. "I'd rather not cover the story than go there with an intimidating presence." The bottom line: "They're always going to have more guns than you do," he says.
The Los Angeles Times rents an entire floor of a hotel outside the Green Zone, which beefed up security after a suicide bomber attacked in November 2005. Bureau Chief Borzou Daragahi had the drab walls painted white, hung pictures by local artists, replaced wall-to-wall carpeting and had the harsh fluorescent lights softened in an effort to boost morale, especially for the large Iraqi staff of translators, office managers, drivers, a cook, bodyguards and stringers.
"It's really hard given that these folks are watching their country collapse," says Daragahi. The Times keeps three Western correspondents in Baghdad.
USA Today operates out of the same hotel in a two-room suite that doubles as office and sleeping space for Rick Jervis. He rents separate space for the four-person Iraqi staff, including a bodyguard. "We are operating, as you could call it, on the lower end of the spectrum," says Jervis, who became USA Today's full-time correspondent in April 2005. He pays $5,000 a month for hotel space and services, such as laundry and food, and another $5,000 to the Iraqis who work for him.
Jervis hired a security contractor who delivers operational briefings a couple times a week, sends e-mail alerts and does general consulting before Jervis goes out on assignments. The correspondent is on a six-week-in, three-week-out-rotation--USA Today sends in reporters with foreign experience to fill in for him. When Jervis returns from a break, the first thing he does is get a risk assessment.
Regional news organizations covering stories on a spot basis make do with far less protection than the regulars. Senior military reporter Sig Christenson and photographer Nicole Fruge of the San Antonio Express-News landed at Baghdad International Airport in August to do a story on a Texas legislator serving as a Marine reserve colonel in Ramadi. There was no high-priced security detail waiting to sweep them to safety in a bombproof car.
Instead, they hitched a ride in an armored vehicle with "burly mercenary types," as Fruge describes them, to get from the military side of the airport to the civilian side, a short but perilous drive. Once on the outside, they smoldered in 120-degree heat, waiting for a ride Christenson had arranged with a colleague in Baghdad. Fruge, on her second trip to Iraq, wondered if it was a bad idea to be so exposed.
Christenson, who rode across the desert with invading troops and has frequented the war zone, reassured her it was fine. "I was thinking to myself, 'You are the biggest bullshitter that ever lived.' I knew we were sitting ducks," says Christenson, a founder and former president of the group Military Reporters and Editors.
In early March, the two returned for a fourth anniversary story about how soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas, feel about the war and how it is affecting them. As always, they embedded, but they know traveling with the military offers no guarantees.
Last May, CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier was doing a Memorial Day story on what life was like for American troops in Baghdad when a car laden with explosives ignited, spewing razor-sharp shrapnel in her direction. CBS cameraman Paul Douglas and soundman James Brolan died at the scene. A U.S. Army captain and his Iraqi translator also were killed.
The network reported that Dozier, 39, arrived in Germany from Iraq on a ventilator and underwent surgery on her head and legs. In August, she left a Maryland hospital facing months of rehabilitation for her fractured limbs.
On December 4, Detroit Free Press reporter Joe Swickard, on his first trip to Iraq, was riding in a Humvee alongside Marines patrolling volatile Fallujah. His coworker, photographer David Gilkey, was in the lead vehicle. A commander was pointing out to Swickard that it would be the perfect spot for an ambush when, suddenly, the road in front of them exploded.
Swickard watched in horror as flames shot through a massive gray cloud of dust and the Humvee carrying Gilkey came crashing down out of the air. Swickard's first thought was, "Oh shit, they're dead. How will I cover this?"
When the Humvee came to rest, the two right-hand doors were sprung open. Suddenly, two sets of legs poked out of the wreckage. Gilkey and a Marine emerged, and "I just started breathing again," Swickard recalls. Then came the second shock. A hail of gunfire sent the survivors scrambling for cover.
Gilkey suffered only a temporary hearing loss. None of the Marines was seriously injured. During an earlier trip, the photographer had worked on a story about soldiers who had lost limbs. One them described how, after a blast, he looked down to find his severed leg lying in his lap. Gilkey remembers sighing with relief when he realized his own arms and legs were intact.
Many journalists who have covered the carnage describe their Iraq experience as life-altering. The L.A. Times' Daragahi noted that he was coming to the end of his stint as Baghdad bureau chief this spring. "Thank God! Quite frankly, I am burned out, and I see that I'm not having the ideas I used to have. I am a lot more tired of the rituals and rhythms of being in Baghdad. It's taken a toll on my personal life," says Daragahi, whose wife works for the French newspaper Le Figaro in Tehran.
They put off having children because "she did not want to be pregnant while I was in Iraq. Too much anxiety," he says. After Daragahi is relieved of bureau duties, he will be based in Beirut to cover the region, including Iraq and Iran.
Earlier this year, NBC's Engel sent a memo to his bosses telling them that as Iraq changed, he had changed. He had no semblance of a personal life, and the war had cost him his marriage. "Violence and cruelty now seem, to me, to come easily to mankind; a new belief that disturbs me," he wrote. Engel is based in Beirut but continues to cover Iraq.
As difficult as it is for American journalists, it often is worse for Iraqis. Bassam Sebti, who has reported for the Washington Post, wrote a personal account for CPJ in May 2006. He described how stress had become an unforgiving companion; body parts scattered in the street and children weeping over dead parents had become routine. Working for Americans could get him killed, so he convinced neighbors he ran an Internet café. Sleep is elusive, and nightmares have haunted him for months.
How does the human psyche cope with the magnitude of violence that journalists have experienced in Iraq? Dr. Frank Ochberg, a founder of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, points out a distinct difference between those who cope well and those who don't. Those who do best under extreme duress tend to maintain ties with significant others, don't allow themselves to become walled off and find ways to share their frustrations and worries.
Journalists in Iraq face the additional pressure of being limited by the danger and kept from working the story to the fullest. "Professionals can tolerate a hell of a lot when they're on the job and getting gratification from doing what they know they were put on earth to do," Ochberg says. "You don't really think twice; you don't feel all that courageous. You're doing what you've been trained to do. It's hard when on top of everything else you can't do your job. Then it becomes crushing."
His advice: Establish a daily rhythm, find sources of rest and relaxation, stay connected to other people, do physical exercise and lay off alcohol and other drugs.
Engel pounds a punching bag. Daragahi walks on a treadmill 30 minutes every day or two. Christenson carries an Army-issue Bible and finds respite reading the Old Testament "because so much of it happened around here." Unlike wartime Saigon's freewheeling party atmosphere, Baghdad mostly is a forbidden zone. Main sources of entertainment include satellite TV and DVDs. The press corps maintains a strong camaraderie via e-mail.
"This is a different war in a different time covered by journalists with different values from past conflicts," says Daragahi. "To relax, we're much more likely to be meditating using aroma therapy oils or working up a sweat on exercise equipment than smoking hashish and getting soused in the hotel bar. A number of Baghdad correspondents I know regularly do yoga."
There's also an emotional fallout when journalists take extraordinary risks and their material is not used or is underplayed. Lara Logan, CBS' chief foreign correspondent, caused a ruckus when she sent an e-mail appealing to friends and colleagues to intervene after a producer for the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" chose not to air her report "The Battle for Haifa Street." Instead, it was posted on the network's Web site.
Logan underscored the danger in her message, which quickly showed up on the Internet: "Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran," she wrote. The story, she said, "is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore."
The network's foreign editor declined to comment, referring instead to a statement by CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius: "The executive director of the 'Evening News' thought some of the images in it were a bit strong plus on that day the program was already packed with other Iraq news."
Marcus Wilford, ABC's director of news coverage for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, has lobbied for Iraq stories to be given better play. Is he satisfied with how the material is used? "It's OK, and I think it's gotten better, but it could be better still. Frankly, I have been frustrated at the number of times a reporter has clearly done something very risky and not gotten anything on... I feel there has been a tendency for broadcast to get weary of the story unless it's absolutely sensational. It's difficult, no doubt, after four years."
The future of the American journalistic presence in Iraq remains a large question mark. Not a single foreign editor or correspondent interviewed for this story felt conditions would get better. Most made bleak predictions of worse to come and talked about contingency plans for their staffs if conditions deteriorate even further. Some already have arranged for housing inside the heavily fortified Green Zone as a safety net.
One news operation plans to flee to safer areas inside Kurdistan, a way of staying in Iraq but farther from the killing zones. Those with bureaus in other parts of the Middle East will go there to retrench. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, no one was talking about shutting down, at least not yet. "We agonize over this, and we have discussions about at what point we would not cover it," says NPR's Jenkins.
What would it take for NPR to pull out? There was a long pause and a deep sigh on the other end of the telephone. "No one believes there's a victory at the end of this tunnel; it's how long you hold on and pretend. At some point, [the government] is going to have to pull the plug. Until then, we are in for the long haul."
From AJR, April/May 2007
Obstructed View
Extreme danger and sky-high security costs have diminished the press corps in Iraq and severely limited access to a deepening morass. The result is a clouded picture of perhaps today’s most important news story.
By Sherry Ricchiardi
Sherry Ricchiardi (sricchia@iupui.edu) is an AJR senior contributing writer.
Before Rick Jervis heads out into the streets of Baghdad, he makes an important telephone call. Not to his editor back in USA Today's newsroom, but to his security consultant, a pipeline to the murky world of kidnappers, militias and other indiscriminate killers. If there is a rise in car bombings or assaults on foreigners, the reporter wants to know which routes to avoid before he takes off with a driver and bodyguard. He doesn't wear a flak jacket because that would draw too much attention.
The relentless violence in Iraq has seriously compromised coverage of arguably the most important story in the world today. Certain facets of the conflict remain exasperatingly elusive or, at best, thinly reported. The media's vital role as eyewitness has been severely limited; the intimate narrative of victims, survivors and their persecutors is sorely lacking in places like Anbar Province, where the insurgency continues to inflict havoc.
Few journalists have penetrated the clandestine network of resistance fighters and jihadists. CNN's Michael Ware is one of the only correspondents to sit face-to-face with al-Qaeda operatives on their own turf and survive to tell about it. The New York Times' Dexter Filkins used an inside source to set up meetings with local insurgents caught in a power struggle with al-Qaeda outsiders. But such breakthroughs have been rare. When it comes to factions in the fighting, there are more questions than answers.
And the roster of correspondents seems far too small for the daunting task. Escalating threats to foreigners and astronomical security costs have led media companies to scale back their staffs.
Though journalists struggle mightily to cut through the fog and spin, Americans are left without a complete account of a prolonged, bloody war that is devouring billions of taxpayers' dollars. Correspondents are hamstrung when it comes to independently verifying information from military press briefings or rhetoric from the Pentagon. Without risking their lives, they can't go into the festering city of Fallujah or certain Baghdad neighborhoods to conduct their own investigations (see "Out of Reach," April/May 2006). Embedding is an alternative, but it offers a limited view under scrutiny of the military.
"The whole thing seems so confusing," says Getty Images photographer Chris Hondros a few hours before heading back to Baghdad. He described this scenario: "A bomb blows up an American convoy. Who did that? The Sunni insurgents or the Shia or some other player? We have no idea and no way to figure it out... This is a profoundly different war."
No one sees the situation improving. Many news organizations have escape plans should American and Iraqi forces completely lose control of Baghdad, a squalid city brimming with weapons and sectarian animosity. For the media, security concerns have become an obsession.
Before they go out on assignments, correspondents work through a litany of questions: Where is it? What time is it? How can I get there? How can I get back? Who can I talk to? Who controls the neighborhood? Who guards the checkpoints? Is there enough fuel in the car and plenty of air in the tires? Is this story worth the risk?
To blend in, female journalists often don an abaya, a long robe worn by Muslim women, and a head scarf. Some male reporters with dark features grow moustaches and beards and try to emulate the attire of Iraqi men. Some blondes dye their hair black. Many operate on the 15-minute rule: They never stay longer in any one place for fear that someone with a cell phone will alert killers that a soft target is in play. Sometimes the smallest things can expose them. Wearing a seatbelt in a car is a clear giveaway: Iraqis rarely use them.
The high-pitched paranoia is justified. During the past four years, members of the press corps have been beheaded, gunned down at close range, blown apart by car bombs and IEDs (improvised explosive devices), targeted for assassination and kidnapped for ransom. Some have been wounded or died alongside coalition troops during combat missions. Sometimes they have shown up in grainy videos, flanked by masked executioners, tearfully begging for their lives.
On several occasions, suicide bombers have hit the heavily guarded hotels journalists live in, including the one where Jervis has set up USA Today's operation. Some media organizations like the New York Times and CNN have spent millions to build fortresses and maintain a private army of hired guns. Embedding with the U.S. military offers a modicum of protection; it also puts correspondents at risk for ambushes, IEDs and rocket attacks, common tactics used against the occupying forces.
The heavily protected Green Zone, the core of U.S. operations where journalists routinely go for briefings and to obtain press credentials, has become a favorite target. In his first-person account "Life in Hell: A Baghdad Diary," Time correspondent Aparisim Ghosh described an attack just 100 yards from the main entrance where twin blasts--one a car bomb, the other a suicide bomber--killed 16 people. It happened near small shops where journalists emerging from the Green Zone on hot afternoons stop to buy cold sodas.
For the fourth consecutive year, Iraq in 2006 ranked as the world's deadliest spot for the media, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Since the invasion, 133 journalists and media support workers have been killed; 83 percent were locals, many with ties to Western media outlets. The Associated Press lost two Iraqi staffers in December and January. CPJ reports that for the first time, murder has overtaken crossfire as the leading cause of deaths.
On March 6, CPJ announced two more murders: Mohan Hussein al-Dhahir, editor of the widely read al-Mashreq newspaper, was gunned down near his home in western Baghdad on March 4. Jamal al-Zubaidi, economics editor for two Baghdad-based dailies, disappeared after he left the office on February 24. His family found his body at the morgue a few days later.
Peter Osnos, who covered the war in Vietnam for the Washington Post, says Iraq is far riskier. "American journalists have never seen a war like this before--the extraordinary danger, the vast expense and the extraordinary set of circumstances. Every inch of terrain is a potential battlefield," says Osnos, now a senior fellow for media at the Century Foundation as well as founder and editor at large of PublicAffairs Books. "People underestimate how dangerous it is."
To be killed or injured, "All you have to do is make a wrong decision," says Richard Engel, NBC's Middle East correspondent, who has survived attempts on his life and seen friends kidnapped and killed during his four years in Iraq. Testimony from other journalists bears him out.
"You cannot move; you cannot go anywhere on your own," says Detroit Free Press photojournalist David Gilkey, who returned from his eighth trip to Iraq in January. Deadly strikes, he says, can come from any direction--an IED planted underground, a sniper on the roof of an apartment building, a gunman hiding in the trunk of a car, a teenager strapped with explosives, a car bomb set off by remote control as the killers sip tea nearby.
"Every time you get out of the vehicle, you are almost paralyzed, with your eyes darting around looking for where the shot might come from. Every time you are riding around it's all you can do to keep from plugging your ears, waiting for the blast to happen," says Gilkey, who survived an IED explosion on his last trip.
Photographer Samantha Appleton has been to Iraq five times for Time and The New Yorker. In 2003, she roamed freely with minor concerns about security. A year later, when foreigners became favorite targets, she began wearing an abaya, hoping to deflect attention as she documented the lives of Iraqi civilians, mostly in the Baghdad slum Sadr City. She now finds it impossible to travel by road anywhere outside of Baghdad. "Iraq is a country that hears and sees everything. A foreigner cannot blend in," Appleton wrote in an e-mail. She says it is common to travel with a minimum of two cars and three to five gunmen. "Few wars have required that," she says.
Besides being the most dangerous war for journalists, this also has become the most costly. Foreign editors for good reason are reluctant to discuss the specifics of their security strategies or what they pay to protect their staffs. It is no secret that companies like AKE Group Ltd. or Backwater USA charge around $1,500 a day for each member of a personal security detail. Armored vehicles can cost $100,000 or more, depending on the level of protection.
All but a handful of media organizations have been driven out by the high cost and risks. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the AP, and the broadcast and cable news networks are among the stalwarts. Even for those willing to bleed dollars for top-line security, newsgathering remains a struggle. The networks, whose crews are highly visible when they are covering a story, participate in a weekly conference call to share the latest intelligence reports. Competition goes out the window when safety is involved, says John Stack, Fox News Channel's vice president for newsgathering.
"What makes this war different," Stack says, "is that at least in certain cycles, journalists themselves were the targets, and that hadn't been the case in previous conflicts."
The heady days of "shock and awe" gave little hint of the angst to come. Operation Iraqi Freedom began as the best-covered war in American history, with television news crews transmitting unprecedented real-time images of U.S. armored divisions thundering through the desert. (See "Close to the Action," May 2003.) During the invasion, nearly 700 embedded journalists traveled alongside the troops. Hundreds more entered the war zone independently from Kuwait and other bordering nations. Today, it is a much lonelier media scene.
In October, the AP reported that only 11 journalists were embedded and there had been no more than 25 embeds during the months before. When Tribune Media Services military columnist Joseph L. Galloway contacted the Combined Information Press Center in Baghdad in early January, he was told there were only nine embeds. (CPIC, located in the Green Zone, monitors embed requests.)
"That is absolutely nothing for a story this big," says Galloway, who prowled the jungles of Vietnam for United Press International and reported from Iraq as senior military correspondent for the now-defunct Knight Ridder. "There's no substitute for getting out and spending time with a unit in a combat situation."
No one knows for certain how many journalists are in Iraq at any given time. The best guess from those on the ground is 50 to 60 on a consistent basis. Predictably, the number rises when major news breaks, such as the execution of Saddam Hussein. In mid-February, the number of embeds jumped to 52 as the U.S. military implemented a plan to secure Baghdad.
New York Times correspondent Dexter Filkins offers another measure. He recalls that in the early days, several hundred journalists packed into an auditorium in the Green Zone to attend press conferences. When he left in September, about a half dozen were showing up. "It was a big story then and now, just a lot fewer people are covering it, for all the obvious reasons," says Filkins, who spent three-and-a-half years in Iraq after covering the war in Afghanistan for a year.
Compared with Iraq, "Afghanistan was a tea party," says the correspondent, who is taking a break from combat as a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University. "The people there are working incredibly hard and are working heroically, taking increasing risks to stitch [the story] together and get as much as they can. But there's still an awful lot we don't know."
Over the past four years, three types of media operations have evolved in Iraq. The top tier, such as the New York Times and Fox News Channel, has invested millions in armed encampments. (The Times has the most correspondents--generally five or six are in the country--as well as dozens of Iraqis working as office support staff and filing information from dangerous places.) Other news organizations, like USA Today and U.S. News & World Report, maintain a slim presence, with one correspondent and a stable of Iraqi stringers, usually operating out of a hotel or a shared house. Regional newspapers such as the San Antonio Express-News and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette parachute reporters in for stories with strong local ties.
National Public Radio, which generally has four correspondents and a producer in the country as well as a dozen Iraqis on the payroll, has moved its headquarters four times since the war started, says Senior Foreign Editor Loren Jenkins, who visits the Baghdad bureau two or three times a year to oversee security issues. Jenkins understands why many media companies stay out. "It's hair-raising to try and run an operation there. Every day you're saying, 'Oh, God, I hope nothing happens to our people,'" says the editor, who did stints in Vietnam for Newsweek. "It's a constant, gnawing fear."
NPR first set up shop in a flophouse, as Jenkins describes it, a risky venture since there was little security. The editor counted on operating under the radar with his low-profile staff. When conditions deteriorated in 2004, he rented a house and sought professional security advice. Then came a string of kidnappings. ABC News had a heavily fortified compound with extra room, so NPR moved in. "They had greater protection than we could ever have afforded," says Jenkins.
That neighborhood became more radicalized as Muqtada al-Sadr's militia began taking control of the streets. It was time to move again. In November, NPR rented a house with Fox and CNN for neighbors. ABC News has since moved in, and the Iraq Foreign Ministry, with its army of guards, is a few blocks down the street. Once again, Jenkins piggybacked on security provided by more affluent players. He calls the safety situation in Baghdad "a constantly changing crapshoot."
NPR has invested in a second armored vehicle, but correspondents do not travel with armed guards. "If the only way you can get to a place is with a bunch of mercenaries with guns sticking out of the car or surrounding you wherever you go, that is not the journalism I want to practice," says Jenkins. "I'd rather not cover the story than go there with an intimidating presence." The bottom line: "They're always going to have more guns than you do," he says.
The Los Angeles Times rents an entire floor of a hotel outside the Green Zone, which beefed up security after a suicide bomber attacked in November 2005. Bureau Chief Borzou Daragahi had the drab walls painted white, hung pictures by local artists, replaced wall-to-wall carpeting and had the harsh fluorescent lights softened in an effort to boost morale, especially for the large Iraqi staff of translators, office managers, drivers, a cook, bodyguards and stringers.
"It's really hard given that these folks are watching their country collapse," says Daragahi. The Times keeps three Western correspondents in Baghdad.
USA Today operates out of the same hotel in a two-room suite that doubles as office and sleeping space for Rick Jervis. He rents separate space for the four-person Iraqi staff, including a bodyguard. "We are operating, as you could call it, on the lower end of the spectrum," says Jervis, who became USA Today's full-time correspondent in April 2005. He pays $5,000 a month for hotel space and services, such as laundry and food, and another $5,000 to the Iraqis who work for him.
Jervis hired a security contractor who delivers operational briefings a couple times a week, sends e-mail alerts and does general consulting before Jervis goes out on assignments. The correspondent is on a six-week-in, three-week-out-rotation--USA Today sends in reporters with foreign experience to fill in for him. When Jervis returns from a break, the first thing he does is get a risk assessment.
Regional news organizations covering stories on a spot basis make do with far less protection than the regulars. Senior military reporter Sig Christenson and photographer Nicole Fruge of the San Antonio Express-News landed at Baghdad International Airport in August to do a story on a Texas legislator serving as a Marine reserve colonel in Ramadi. There was no high-priced security detail waiting to sweep them to safety in a bombproof car.
Instead, they hitched a ride in an armored vehicle with "burly mercenary types," as Fruge describes them, to get from the military side of the airport to the civilian side, a short but perilous drive. Once on the outside, they smoldered in 120-degree heat, waiting for a ride Christenson had arranged with a colleague in Baghdad. Fruge, on her second trip to Iraq, wondered if it was a bad idea to be so exposed.
Christenson, who rode across the desert with invading troops and has frequented the war zone, reassured her it was fine. "I was thinking to myself, 'You are the biggest bullshitter that ever lived.' I knew we were sitting ducks," says Christenson, a founder and former president of the group Military Reporters and Editors.
In early March, the two returned for a fourth anniversary story about how soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas, feel about the war and how it is affecting them. As always, they embedded, but they know traveling with the military offers no guarantees.
Last May, CBS correspondent Kimberly Dozier was doing a Memorial Day story on what life was like for American troops in Baghdad when a car laden with explosives ignited, spewing razor-sharp shrapnel in her direction. CBS cameraman Paul Douglas and soundman James Brolan died at the scene. A U.S. Army captain and his Iraqi translator also were killed.
The network reported that Dozier, 39, arrived in Germany from Iraq on a ventilator and underwent surgery on her head and legs. In August, she left a Maryland hospital facing months of rehabilitation for her fractured limbs.
On December 4, Detroit Free Press reporter Joe Swickard, on his first trip to Iraq, was riding in a Humvee alongside Marines patrolling volatile Fallujah. His coworker, photographer David Gilkey, was in the lead vehicle. A commander was pointing out to Swickard that it would be the perfect spot for an ambush when, suddenly, the road in front of them exploded.
Swickard watched in horror as flames shot through a massive gray cloud of dust and the Humvee carrying Gilkey came crashing down out of the air. Swickard's first thought was, "Oh shit, they're dead. How will I cover this?"
When the Humvee came to rest, the two right-hand doors were sprung open. Suddenly, two sets of legs poked out of the wreckage. Gilkey and a Marine emerged, and "I just started breathing again," Swickard recalls. Then came the second shock. A hail of gunfire sent the survivors scrambling for cover.
Gilkey suffered only a temporary hearing loss. None of the Marines was seriously injured. During an earlier trip, the photographer had worked on a story about soldiers who had lost limbs. One them described how, after a blast, he looked down to find his severed leg lying in his lap. Gilkey remembers sighing with relief when he realized his own arms and legs were intact.
Many journalists who have covered the carnage describe their Iraq experience as life-altering. The L.A. Times' Daragahi noted that he was coming to the end of his stint as Baghdad bureau chief this spring. "Thank God! Quite frankly, I am burned out, and I see that I'm not having the ideas I used to have. I am a lot more tired of the rituals and rhythms of being in Baghdad. It's taken a toll on my personal life," says Daragahi, whose wife works for the French newspaper Le Figaro in Tehran.
They put off having children because "she did not want to be pregnant while I was in Iraq. Too much anxiety," he says. After Daragahi is relieved of bureau duties, he will be based in Beirut to cover the region, including Iraq and Iran.
Earlier this year, NBC's Engel sent a memo to his bosses telling them that as Iraq changed, he had changed. He had no semblance of a personal life, and the war had cost him his marriage. "Violence and cruelty now seem, to me, to come easily to mankind; a new belief that disturbs me," he wrote. Engel is based in Beirut but continues to cover Iraq.
As difficult as it is for American journalists, it often is worse for Iraqis. Bassam Sebti, who has reported for the Washington Post, wrote a personal account for CPJ in May 2006. He described how stress had become an unforgiving companion; body parts scattered in the street and children weeping over dead parents had become routine. Working for Americans could get him killed, so he convinced neighbors he ran an Internet café. Sleep is elusive, and nightmares have haunted him for months.
How does the human psyche cope with the magnitude of violence that journalists have experienced in Iraq? Dr. Frank Ochberg, a founder of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, points out a distinct difference between those who cope well and those who don't. Those who do best under extreme duress tend to maintain ties with significant others, don't allow themselves to become walled off and find ways to share their frustrations and worries.
Journalists in Iraq face the additional pressure of being limited by the danger and kept from working the story to the fullest. "Professionals can tolerate a hell of a lot when they're on the job and getting gratification from doing what they know they were put on earth to do," Ochberg says. "You don't really think twice; you don't feel all that courageous. You're doing what you've been trained to do. It's hard when on top of everything else you can't do your job. Then it becomes crushing."
His advice: Establish a daily rhythm, find sources of rest and relaxation, stay connected to other people, do physical exercise and lay off alcohol and other drugs.
Engel pounds a punching bag. Daragahi walks on a treadmill 30 minutes every day or two. Christenson carries an Army-issue Bible and finds respite reading the Old Testament "because so much of it happened around here." Unlike wartime Saigon's freewheeling party atmosphere, Baghdad mostly is a forbidden zone. Main sources of entertainment include satellite TV and DVDs. The press corps maintains a strong camaraderie via e-mail.
"This is a different war in a different time covered by journalists with different values from past conflicts," says Daragahi. "To relax, we're much more likely to be meditating using aroma therapy oils or working up a sweat on exercise equipment than smoking hashish and getting soused in the hotel bar. A number of Baghdad correspondents I know regularly do yoga."
There's also an emotional fallout when journalists take extraordinary risks and their material is not used or is underplayed. Lara Logan, CBS' chief foreign correspondent, caused a ruckus when she sent an e-mail appealing to friends and colleagues to intervene after a producer for the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" chose not to air her report "The Battle for Haifa Street." Instead, it was posted on the network's Web site.
Logan underscored the danger in her message, which quickly showed up on the Internet: "Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were about to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran," she wrote. The story, she said, "is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore."
The network's foreign editor declined to comment, referring instead to a statement by CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius: "The executive director of the 'Evening News' thought some of the images in it were a bit strong plus on that day the program was already packed with other Iraq news."
Marcus Wilford, ABC's director of news coverage for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, has lobbied for Iraq stories to be given better play. Is he satisfied with how the material is used? "It's OK, and I think it's gotten better, but it could be better still. Frankly, I have been frustrated at the number of times a reporter has clearly done something very risky and not gotten anything on... I feel there has been a tendency for broadcast to get weary of the story unless it's absolutely sensational. It's difficult, no doubt, after four years."
The future of the American journalistic presence in Iraq remains a large question mark. Not a single foreign editor or correspondent interviewed for this story felt conditions would get better. Most made bleak predictions of worse to come and talked about contingency plans for their staffs if conditions deteriorate even further. Some already have arranged for housing inside the heavily fortified Green Zone as a safety net.
One news operation plans to flee to safer areas inside Kurdistan, a way of staying in Iraq but farther from the killing zones. Those with bureaus in other parts of the Middle East will go there to retrench. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, no one was talking about shutting down, at least not yet. "We agonize over this, and we have discussions about at what point we would not cover it," says NPR's Jenkins.
What would it take for NPR to pull out? There was a long pause and a deep sigh on the other end of the telephone. "No one believes there's a victory at the end of this tunnel; it's how long you hold on and pretend. At some point, [the government] is going to have to pull the plug. Until then, we are in for the long haul."
A grim vision of the future: MoD predicts a world of revolution, neutron weapons and brain chips
Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday April 9, 2007
The Guardian
The MoD predicts more use of chemical weapons. Photograph: Paul J Richards/EPA
Monday April 9, 2007
The Guardian
The MoD predicts more use of chemical weapons. Photograph: Paul J Richards/EPA
Information chips implanted in the brain. Electromagnetic pulse weapons. The middle classes becoming revolutionary, taking on the role of Marx's proletariat. The population of countries in the Middle East increasing by 132%, while Europe's drops as fertility falls. "Flashmobs" - groups rapidly mobilised by criminal gangs or terrorists groups.
This is the world in 30 years' time envisaged by a Ministry of Defence team responsible for painting a picture of the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces. It includes an "analysis of the key risks and shocks". Rear Admiral Chris Parry, head of the MoD's Development, Concepts & Doctrine Centre which drew up the report, describes the assessments as "probability-based, rather than predictive".
The 90-page report comments on widely discussed issues such as the growing economic importance of India and China, the militarisation of space, and even what it calls "declining news quality" with the rise of "internet-enabled, citizen-journalists" and pressure to release stories "at the expense of facts". It includes other, some frightening, some reassuring, potential developments that are not so often discussed.
New weapons
An electromagnetic pulse will probably become operational by 2035 able to destroy all communications systems in a selected area or be used against a "world city" such as an international business service hub. The development of neutron weapons which destroy living organs but not buildings "might make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world". The use of unmanned weapons platforms would enable the "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues". The "explicit use" of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and devices delivered by unmanned vehicles or missiles.
Technology
By 2035, an implantable "information chip" could be wired directly to the brain. A growing pervasiveness of information communications technology will enable states, terrorists or criminals, to mobilise "flashmobs", challenging security forces to match this potential agility coupled with an ability to concentrate forces quickly in a small area.
Marxism
"The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx," says the report. The thesis is based on a growing gap between the middle classes and the super-rich on one hand and an urban under-class threatening social order: "The world's middle classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest". Marxism could also be revived, it says, because of global inequality. An increased trend towards moral relativism and pragmatic values will encourage people to seek the "sanctuary provided by more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism".
Pressures leading to social unrest
By 2010 more than 50% of the world's population will be living in urban rather than rural environments, leading to social deprivation and "new instability risks", and the growth of shanty towns. By 2035, that figure will rise to 60%. Migration will increase. Globalisation may lead to levels of international integration that effectively bring inter-state warfare to an end. But it may lead to "inter-communal conflict" - communities with shared interests transcending national boundaries and resorting to the use of violence.
Population and Resources
The global population is likely to grow to 8.5bn in 2035, with less developed countries accounting for 98% of that. Some 87% of people under the age of 25 live in the developing world. Demographic trends, which will exacerbate economic and social tensions, have serious implications for the environment - including the provision of clean water and other resources - and for international relations. The population of sub-Saharan Africa will increase over the period by 81%, and that of Middle Eastern countries by 132%.
The Middle East
The massive population growth will mean the Middle East, and to a lesser extent north Africa, will remain highly unstable, says the report. It singles out Saudi Arabia, the most lucrative market for British arms, with unemployment levels of 20% and a "youth bulge" in a state whose population has risen from 7 million to 27 million since 1980. "The expectations of growing numbers of young people [in the whole region] many of whom will be confronted by the prospect of endemic unemployment ... are unlikely to be met," says the report.
Islamic militancy
Resentment among young people in the face of unrepresentative regimes "will find outlets in political militancy, including radical political Islam whose concept of Umma, the global Islamic community, and resistance to capitalism may lie uneasily in an international system based on nation-states and global market forces", the report warns. The effects of such resentment will be expressed through the migration of youth populations and global communications, encouraging contacts between diaspora communities and their countries of origin.
Tension between the Islamic world and the west will remain, and may increasingly be targeted at China "whose new-found materialism, economic vibrancy, and institutionalised atheism, will be an anathema to orthodox Islam".
Iran
Iran will steadily grow in economic and demographic strength and its energy reserves and geographic location will give it substantial strategic leverage. However, its government could be transformed. "From the middle of the period," says the report, "the country, especially its high proportion of younger people, will want to benefit from increased access to globalisation and diversity, and it may be that Iran progressively, but unevenly, transforms...into a vibrant democracy."
Terrorism
Casualties and the amount of damage inflicted by terrorism will stay low compared to other forms of coercion and conflict. But acts of extreme violence, supported by elements within Islamist states, with media exploitation to maximise the impact of the "theatre of violence" will persist. A "terrorist coalition", the report says, including a wide range of reactionary and revolutionary rejectionists such as ultra-nationalists, religious groupings and even extreme environmentalists, might conduct a global campaign of greater intensity".
Climate change
There is "compelling evidence" to indicate that climate change is occurring and that the atmosphere will continue to warm at an unprecedented rate throughout the 21st century. It could lead to a reduction in north Atlantic salinity by increasing the freshwater runoff from the Arctic. This could affect the natural circulation of the north Atlantic by diminishing the warming effect of ocean currents on western Europe. "The drop in temperature might exceed that of the miniature ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries."
Death threat's close news website
From Al-Jazeerah.info Editor to Readers
Dear Readers,
Al-Jazeerah.info has been a US independent forum promoting peace between the US and the Arab and Muslim worlds and between Israelis and Palestinians, for the last five years.
Some people apparently neither like peace nor tolerate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They have not stopped attacks on Al-Jazeerah, its editor, its contributors, and authors.
What's new this time is that those who oppose Al-Jazeerah.info have been orchestrating a campaign* against its Editor, personally.
A letter-writing campaign has been going on since March 22, 2007 targeting officials of the institution he works with, in addition to a continuous smearing internet and media campaign against him, personally.
I have concluded that it's not safe for me any more to continue editing Al-Jazeerah.info in this atmosphere of intimidation, which abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believed that, as an American citizen, I have these sacred rights as a given. I acknowledge now that I was wrong.
Until I'm assured of these Constitutional freedoms and rights, I'll stop editing news reports and opinion editorials about US wars and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, hoping that the campaign against my employer stops.
Readers and contributors, however, are welcome to continue submitting other topics. Let's be creative and try to find other subjects that promote peace in the world and serve humanity.
I promise to resume publication as soon as conditions change to a more peaceful and tolerant discourse.
I'm proud that Al-Jazeerah forum has enabled thousands of Americans to express themselves, warning against wars and promoting peace in their country and the world.
There's every reason for the US and Israel to adopt peaceful resolutions to international conflicts. Wars and excessive military spending have caused the US to sink into an unprecedented national debt of $9 trillion, which will eat up the economic achievements of the American people if it is not addressed as soon as possible.
The Israelis have been living in a continuous state of war for about 60 years, for denying Palestinians their human rights, including their right for self determination and having a state of their own. Military force does not solve problems. Occupation of Arab territories does not give security. Peace does. And this has been the message of Al-Jazeerah.info from Day One.
Peace!
Hassan El-Najjar
Al-Jazeerah Editor
Iran shuns meeting with US at Iraq conference
Related
Half of Americans Expect Conflict with Iran in Next Year
Russian General Says U.S. Continues Preparations for Iran Strike
Ahmadinejad: Iran Expanding Nuclear Process
---
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman has said that Iran has no plans to meet with US officials on the sidelines of the forthcoming conference on Iraq.
Mohammad Ali Hosseini has told Iran's state news agency that talks with the US are not on the agenda.
Yesterday Iraq announced that ministers from Iraq's neighbouring countries, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and industrialised nations will hold a meeting in Egypt early next month to discuss the situation in Iraq.
The forthcoming Iraq conference, which was originally planned to take place in Turkey, follows a similar one held in Baghdad last month in which envoys from Iran and the US spoke directly to one another for the first time in years.
However, envoys from the two countries did not meet outside the group meeting, and each blamed the other for Iraq's security crisis.
The US has accused Iran of providing money and weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq, while Iran has argued that the presence of US troops is destabilising the country.
US officials have not commented on potential contact with Iran at the forthcoming conference.
Half of Americans Expect Conflict with Iran in Next Year
Russian General Says U.S. Continues Preparations for Iran Strike
Ahmadinejad: Iran Expanding Nuclear Process
---
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman has said that Iran has no plans to meet with US officials on the sidelines of the forthcoming conference on Iraq.
Mohammad Ali Hosseini has told Iran's state news agency that talks with the US are not on the agenda.
Yesterday Iraq announced that ministers from Iraq's neighbouring countries, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and industrialised nations will hold a meeting in Egypt early next month to discuss the situation in Iraq.
The forthcoming Iraq conference, which was originally planned to take place in Turkey, follows a similar one held in Baghdad last month in which envoys from Iran and the US spoke directly to one another for the first time in years.
However, envoys from the two countries did not meet outside the group meeting, and each blamed the other for Iraq's security crisis.
The US has accused Iran of providing money and weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq, while Iran has argued that the presence of US troops is destabilising the country.
US officials have not commented on potential contact with Iran at the forthcoming conference.
US accused of using neutron bombs
The former commander of Iraq's Republican Guard has accused the US of using non-conventional weapons in its war against the Middle East country.
Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi told Al Jazeera that US forces used neutron and phosphorus bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9 capture of the Iraqi capital.
Al-Rawi is one of the most wanted associates of Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi leader, still on the run.
"The enemy used neutron and phosphorus weapons against Baghdad airport... there were bodies burnt to their bones," he said.
The bombs annihilated soldiers but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added.
A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but releases large amounts of lethal radiation that can penetrate armour and is especially destructive to human tissue.
About 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops "fought until they were martyred", according to al-Rawi.
He said the Iraqi military command was surprised by the speed of the US land offensive, expecting air bombardment to last much longer.
"We had not expected the enemy to launch its land offensive from the very first or second day.
We expected the air raids to last at least a month," he said.
"The land offensive came at the same time as the air offensive. That was a situation we did not expect," he told Al Jazeera.
Al-Rawi, who carries a $1m US bounty on his head, was also the jack of clubs on the deck of cards of 55 most wanted Iraqis distributed by the Pentagon before the invasion in 2003.
Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi told Al Jazeera that US forces used neutron and phosphorus bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9 capture of the Iraqi capital.
Al-Rawi is one of the most wanted associates of Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi leader, still on the run.
"The enemy used neutron and phosphorus weapons against Baghdad airport... there were bodies burnt to their bones," he said.
The bombs annihilated soldiers but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added.
A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but releases large amounts of lethal radiation that can penetrate armour and is especially destructive to human tissue.
About 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops "fought until they were martyred", according to al-Rawi.
He said the Iraqi military command was surprised by the speed of the US land offensive, expecting air bombardment to last much longer.
"We had not expected the enemy to launch its land offensive from the very first or second day.
We expected the air raids to last at least a month," he said.
"The land offensive came at the same time as the air offensive. That was a situation we did not expect," he told Al Jazeera.
Al-Rawi, who carries a $1m US bounty on his head, was also the jack of clubs on the deck of cards of 55 most wanted Iraqis distributed by the Pentagon before the invasion in 2003.
First Amendment Defense Is Pursued in Hezbollah TV Case
BY JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 9, 2007
Two men charged with attempting to broadcast Hezbollah television say the First Amendment protects them from being prosecuted for supporting terrorism.
Whether the case against Javed Iqbal of Staten Island and Saleh Elahwal of New Jersey will grow into a major confrontation over the First Amendment is far from certain.
So far, the federal government is building its case around the alleged economic ties the men have with executives at Al Manar, the television station Hezbollah broadcasts out of Lebanon that the federal government has designated to be a foreign terrorist organization. The indictment focuses on tens of thousands of dollars Al Manar allegedly paid the two for working toward making the television station available to North American viewers via satellite.
The charges sidestep any discussion of whether the men actually succeeded in making the station available to viewers who subscribed to a satellite service they sold.
In a legal brief filed Friday, lawyers for the men filed motions seeking the dismissal of the charges. The most serious charge the men face is conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.
"The Indictment seeks to punish Mr. Iqbal and Dr. Elahwal for exercise of their First Amendment rights: facilitating the broadcast of Al Manar," according to a brief filed by lawyers for the two men, Joshua Dratel and Edward Sapone. "The content of Hizballah's message cannot serve as a justification for repressing it, and/or for prosecuting Mr. Iqbal and Dr. Elahwal for communicating it," the brief said.
Besides the First Amendment defense, the two men allege they are being targeted for selective prosecution because of either their Muslim heritage or their Middle Eastern or South Asian ethnicity. The defense lawyers argue that even though several American corporations have provided advertising revenue to Al Manar, their clients are the only two persons to be prosecuted for assisting the television station.
Law enforcement notes made public with the brief also provide a fuller picture of Mr. Iqbal's business activities. His company sold satellite subscriptions for three separate television genres: pornography, church programming, and Arabic-language television, Mr. Iqbal told investigators at the time of his arrest.
April 9, 2007
Two men charged with attempting to broadcast Hezbollah television say the First Amendment protects them from being prosecuted for supporting terrorism.
Whether the case against Javed Iqbal of Staten Island and Saleh Elahwal of New Jersey will grow into a major confrontation over the First Amendment is far from certain.
So far, the federal government is building its case around the alleged economic ties the men have with executives at Al Manar, the television station Hezbollah broadcasts out of Lebanon that the federal government has designated to be a foreign terrorist organization. The indictment focuses on tens of thousands of dollars Al Manar allegedly paid the two for working toward making the television station available to North American viewers via satellite.
The charges sidestep any discussion of whether the men actually succeeded in making the station available to viewers who subscribed to a satellite service they sold.
In a legal brief filed Friday, lawyers for the men filed motions seeking the dismissal of the charges. The most serious charge the men face is conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.
"The Indictment seeks to punish Mr. Iqbal and Dr. Elahwal for exercise of their First Amendment rights: facilitating the broadcast of Al Manar," according to a brief filed by lawyers for the two men, Joshua Dratel and Edward Sapone. "The content of Hizballah's message cannot serve as a justification for repressing it, and/or for prosecuting Mr. Iqbal and Dr. Elahwal for communicating it," the brief said.
Besides the First Amendment defense, the two men allege they are being targeted for selective prosecution because of either their Muslim heritage or their Middle Eastern or South Asian ethnicity. The defense lawyers argue that even though several American corporations have provided advertising revenue to Al Manar, their clients are the only two persons to be prosecuted for assisting the television station.
Law enforcement notes made public with the brief also provide a fuller picture of Mr. Iqbal's business activities. His company sold satellite subscriptions for three separate television genres: pornography, church programming, and Arabic-language television, Mr. Iqbal told investigators at the time of his arrest.
Self-styled hippie grandmother reporting in Iraq for Central Texas paper
Click-2-ListenSunday, April 08, 2007
By Cindy V. Culp
Tribune-Herald staff writer
The bread in Iraq is heavenly, but the country really needs to work on its dating infrastructure. Or at least, that’s how citizen journalist Jane Stillwater sees it.
Those observations are among many the 64-year-old self-described hippie grandmother has made during her trip to the Middle East. She’s reporting them back via her Internet blog, but they also are being printed by the Lone Star Iconoclast, a weekly newspaper based in Crawford.
Stillwater’s collaboration with the newspaper was born of military regulation and political passion. In order for her to be eligible for an embedded assignment with U.S. troops, she had to be sponsored by a media organization.
A resident of Berkeley, Calif., Stillwater probably could have found a newspaper somewhere in the Golden State that would sign the paperwork. But she opted instead to go through the Iconoclast, which is located in President Bush’s adopted hometown.
The choice was no doubt meant to send a message. The introduction to Stillwater’s blog says her “goal in life (for now) is to send George Bush to jail & support honest politicians.” Similar ideas permeate her writings.
The Iconoclast also is a logical choice because it frequently publishes articles and opinion pieces critical of Bush. Its reputation is such that the only place in Crawford that carries it is the left-leaning Crawford Peace House, said editor-in-chief, W. Leon Smith.
Plus, the Iconoclast has published some of Stillwater’s work in the past, Smith said. So when she e-mailed about a month ago asking if the newspaper would give her media credentials to go to Iraq, Smith didn’t hesitate.
The paper is not paying Stillwater or even defraying the expense of her trip, Smith said. All it had to do was fill out the necessary paperwork for the Army. In return, it is getting the perspective of someone not beholden to a mainstream news outlet or the military, he said.
“It was just a win-win situation for us,” Smith said. “I wish I could go over there.”
Stillwater left for the trip March 28. She flew into Kuwait first and then to Baghdad. She is set to return April 17.
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle before her trip, Stillwater said she wanted to go to Iraq so she could size up the situation for herself. She was tired of getting news about the war from television journalists who flew there first-class and then produced reports that seemed more like photo-ops than truth, the article says.
Stillwater was able to snag a round-trip ticket for $1,072, an amount she saved up for by living the same thrifty lifestyle she always has, the newspaper reported. Although she has lived in subsidized housing for 27 years, she has always been able to squirrel away money for adventures by doing things like eating only peanut butter sandwiches and wearing clothes she finds discarded on the street or buys second-hand.
“I don’t go to movies, I don’t do anything,” Stillwater told the Chronicle. “You can save a lot of money that way.”
So far, Stillwater has not yet been embedded with a unit, according to her blog. But she is staying at a military base camp in Iraq, which has given her some perspective on Army operations and the situation in Iraq.
Her dispatches focus partly on politics, partly on trivia. Many times the two collide, tied together by humor.
In one post, for example, Stillwater comments on how well stocked the chow hall is, offering everything from chicken and salad to coffee and cheesecake. But her observations don’t end there.
“I was about to give this place a whole bunch of Michelin stars for sure, but when I finally sat down at my tastefully decorated table and started to eat, I discovered that every wall in the chow hall had at least two giant plasma TVs nailed up next to the air conditioners and every single one of them was turned to Fox News! Eeuuww. Watching Bill O’Reilly interviewing some lady from the Heritage Foundation while eating? That’s just gross. Two thumbs down.”
In another post, Stillwater says that after a week in Iraq, she has determined there is no way to salvage the country as it is now. Her suggestion on what to do?
“I’d get Exxon or Bush or whoever owns Iraq’s oil money now to give every man, woman and child in Iraq $15,000 and a passport and tell them to get the hell out. I’d send them off to the country of their choice. Tahiti, Iceland, Venezuela, wherever — even America! And I’d make sure they also got $15,000 a year for the rest of their lives. Let them open bakeries in Cleveland! Everyone would be happy. The Iraqis would be happy. The American troops would be happy. Even Exxon would be pleased. And then we could start all over again in Iraq with all new people.”
Anyone wanting to keep up with Stillwater’s trip can read her reports online, either on the Iconoclast’s site at www.lonestaricon.com or on her blog at www.jpstillwater.blogspot.com.
cculp@wacotrib.com
URGENT national ACTION needed for Hawaii SCR 83 requesting impeachment
Submitted by Matthew Lopresti on April 6, 2007 - 6:10pm.
Aloha everyone,
Aloha everyone,
I live way out in Honolulu and I have been fortunate enough to suggest and help draft for the Hawaii State Senate, Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, requesting Congress to commence impeachment proceedings against the President and the Vice President of the United States.
The deadline for this resolution to make it through the Hawaii State Judiciary and Labor Committee is Friday the 13th. Senator Clayton Hee is the chair and he decides whether or not it will be heard. He has waffled a bit on this and is very clearly seeking a great deal of attention to be paid to this if he is going to hear it. Hence my desperately late letter to you to ask people on your list serve to sign a petition, call, or write letters to Senator Hee, the Vice-Chair Senator Kokubun and the other committee members before this thing dies in committee! It might actually work here in one of the most liberal states in the Union, but its got to get through this committee first!
It does not matter that you and those you might be able to get to help call or write are not Hawaii residents, this Senator (and frankly this issue) needs national attention for action to take place.
Below is a proposed draft letter. PLEASE send this to Sen. Hee at senhee@Capitol.hawaii.gov or call his office at 808-586-7330 and say something in favor of him hearing this resolution. The local media wants to do a story on it too, but only if Sen. Hee agrees to hear the resolution. But unless people know about the resolution, they wont contact him to ask him to hear it...
Dear Senator Hee,
If a state legislature forwards a bill or a resolution on impeachment to the Congress of the United States, then the Congress must act. I urge you to hear Senate Concurrent Resolution 83 before the JDL committee. This resolution reflects the sentiment of a growing number of people in the State of Hawaii and in the nation at large, and the people and the sentiment of the people should be heard.
Considering this resolution before your committee can only strengthen our democracy by fostering a much broader national debate on the importance of holding he executive branch of our federal government accountable for its actions and will send a strong message to future Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States that they are not above the law. Please do not shy away from making the State of Hawaii politically relevant on the national level and hear SCR 83 before your committee before it’s too late!
Matthew Lopresti
How the Bush Administration Destabilized the "Arc of Instability"
Tomgram: The Theater of the Imperially Absurd
[Tomdispatch recommendations: International human rights lawyer Scott Horton has long had a remarkably informative private newsletter, "No Comment," which is now lodged at the Harper's Magazine website where anyone can read it. It's an invaluable resource. On the subject of invaluable resources, don't miss my daily web-stop, Juan Cole's indispensible Informed Comment. Jonathan Schwarz, who has written for Tomdispatch, recently created a five-minute "Bush intervention" video which amused me greatly. Tom]
Six Crises in Search of an Author
How the Bush Administration Destabilized the "Arc of Instability"By Tom Engelhardt
One night when I was in my teens, I found myself at a production of Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author. I had never heard of the playwright or the play, nor had I seen a play performed in the round. The actors were dramatically entering and exiting in the aisles when, suddenly, a man stood up in the audience, proclaimed himself a seventh character in search of an author, and demanded the same attention as the other six. At the time, I assumed the unruly "seventh character" was just part of the play, even after he was summarily ejected from the theater.
Now, bear with me a moment here. Back in 2002-2003, officials in the Bush administration and their neocon supporters, retro-think-tank admirers, and allied media pundits, basking in all their Global War on Terror glory, were eager to talk about the region extending from North Africa through the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the former SSRs of Central Asia right up to the Chinese border as an "arc of instability." That arc coincided with the energy heartlands of the planet and what was needed to "stabilize" it, to keep those energy supplies flowing freely (and in the right directions), was clear enough to them. The "last superpower," the greatest military force in history, would simply have to put its foot down and so bring to heel the "rogue" powers of the region. The geopolitical nerve would have to be mustered to stamp a massive "footprint" -- to use a Pentagon term of the time -- in the middle of that vast, valuable region. (Such a print was to be measured by military bases established.) Also needed was the nerve not just to lob a few cruise missiles in the direction of Baghdad, but to offer such an imposing demonstration of American shock-and-awe power that those "rogues" -- Iraq, Syria, Iran (Hezbollah, Hamas) -- would be cowed into submission, along with uppity U.S. allies like oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
It would, in fact, be necessary -- in another of those bluntly descriptive words of the era -- to "decapitate" resistant regimes. This would be the first order of business for the planet's lone "hyperpower," now that it had been psychologically mobilized by the attacks of September 11, 2001. After all, what other power on Earth was capable of keeping the uncivilized parts of the planet from descending into failed-state, all-against-all warfare and dragging us (and our energy supplies) down with them?
Mind you, on September 11, 2001, as those towers went down, that arc of instability wasn't exactly a paragon of… well, instability. Yes, on one end was Somalia, a failed state, and on the other, impoverished, rubble-strewn Afghanistan, largely Taliban-ruled (and al-Qaeda encamped); while in-between Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a severely weakened nation with a suffering populace, but the "arc" was wracked by no great wars, no huge surges of refugees, no striking levels of destruction. Not particularly pleasant autocracies, some of a fundamentalist religious nature, were the rule of the day. Oil flowed (at about $23 a barrel); the Israeli-Palestinian conflict simmered uncomfortably; and, all in all, it wasn't a pretty picture, nor a particularly democratic one, nor one in which, if you were an inhabitant of most of these lands, you could expect a fair share of justice or a stunningly good life.
Still, the arc of instability, as a name, was then more prediction than reality. And it was a prediction -- soon enough to become a self-fulfilling prophesy -- on which George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and all those neocons in the Pentagon readily staked careers and reputations. As a crew, already dazzled by American military power and its potential uses, such a bet undoubtedly looked like a sure winner, like betting with the house in a three-card monte scheme. They would just give the arc what it needed -- a few intense doses of cruise-missile and B-1 bomber medicine, add in some high-tech military boots-on-the-ground, some night-vision goggled eyes in the desert, some Hellfire-missile-armed Predator drones overhead, and some "regime-change"-style injections of further instability. It was to be, as Andrew Bacevich has written, "an experiment in creative destruction."
First Afghanistan, then Iraq. Both pushovers. How could the mightiest force on the planet lose to such puny powers? As a start, you would wage a swift air-war/proxy-war/Special-Forces war/dollar-war -- CIA agents would arrive in friendly areas of Northern Afghanistan in late 2001 carrying suitcases stuffed with money -- in one of the most backward places on the planet. Your campaign would be against an ill-organized, ill-armed, ragtag enemy. You would follow that by thrusting into the soft, military underbelly of the Middle East and taking out the hollow armed forces of Saddam Hussein in a "cakewalk."
Next, with your bases set up in Afghanistan and Iraq on either side of Iran -- and Pakistan, also bordering Iran, in hand -- what would it take to run the increasingly unpopular mullahs who governed that land out of Tehran? Meanwhile, Syria, another weakened, wobbly state divided against itself, now hemmed in not only by militarily powerful Israel but American-occupied Iraq on the other would be a pushover. In each of these lands, you would soon enough end up with an American-friendly government, run by some figure like the Pentagon's favorite Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi; and, voilà ! (okay, they wouldn't have used French), you would have a Middle East made safe for Israel and for American domination. You would, in short, have your allies in Europe and Japan as well as your possible future enemies, Russia and China, by the throat in an increasingly energy-starved world.
Certainly, many of the top officials of the Bush administration and their neocons allies, dreaming of just such an orderly, American-dominated "Greater Middle East," were ready to settle for a little chaos in the process. If a weakened Iraq broke into several parts; or, say, the oil-rich Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia happened to fall off that country, well, too bad. They'd deal.
Little did they know.
The Tin Touch
Here's the remarkable thing, when you think about it: All the Bush administration had to do was meddle in any country in that arc of instability (and which one didn't it meddle in?), for actual instability, often chaos, sometimes outright disaster to set in. It's been quite a record, the very opposite of an imperial golden touch.
And, on any given day, you can see the evidence of this on a case by case basis in your local paper or on the TV news. You can check out the Iraqi, or Somali, or Lebanese, or Iranian, or Pakistani disasters, or impending disasters. But what you never see is all those crises and potential crises discussed in one place -- without which the magnitude of the present disaster and the dangers in our future are hard to grasp.
Few in the mainstream world have even tried to put them all together since the Bush administration rolled back the media, essentially demobilizing it in 2001-2002, at which point its journalists and pundits simply stopped connecting the dots. Give the Bush administration credit: Its top officials took in the world as a whole and at an imperial glance. They regularly connected the dots as they saw them. The post-9/11 strike at Afghanistan was never simply a strike at al-Qaeda (or the Taliban who hosted them). It was always a prelude to war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq was never meant to end in Baghdad (as indicated in the neocon pre-war quip, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran"). Nor was Tehran to be the end of the line.
Under the rubric of the "Global War on Terror," they were considering literally dozens of countries as potential future targets. Dick Cheney put the matter bluntly back in August 2002 as the public drumbeat for an invasion of Iraq was just revving up:
"The war in Afghanistan is only the beginning of a lengthy campaign, Cheney noted. 'Were we to stop now, any sense of security we might have would be false and temporary,' he said. 'There is a terrorist underworld out there spread among more than 60 countries.'"
Almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, they began stitching together the arc of instability in their minds with an eye not so much to Arabs, or South Asians, or even Israelis, but to playing their version of what the British imperialists used to call "the Great Game." They had the full-scale rollback of energy-giant Russia in mind as well as the containment or rollback of potential future imperial power, China, already visibly desperate for Iraqi, Iranian, and other energy supplies. In the year before the invasion of Iraq, they were remarkably blunt about this. They proudly published that seminal document of the Bush era, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002, which called for the U.S. to "build and maintain" its military power on the planet "beyond challenge."
Think about that for a moment. A single power on Earth "beyond challenge." This was a dream of planetary dominion that once would have been left to madmen. But in what looked like a world with only one Great Power, it was easy enough to imagine a Great Game with only one great player, an arms race with only one swift runner.
The Bush administration was essentially calling for a world in which no superpower, or bloc of powers, would ever be allowed to challenge this country's supremacy. As the President put it in an address at West Point in 2002, "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace." The National Security Strategy put the same thought this way: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." That's anywhere on the planet. Ever. And the President and his followers promptly began to hike the Pentagon budget to suit their oversized, military fantasies of what an American "footprint" should be.
With this in mind, the arc of instability, which, in energy-flow terms, was quite literally the planet's heartland, seemed the place to control. And yet -- look hard as you will -– you're unlikely to find a single piece in your daily paper that takes in that arc; that, say, includes Somalia and Pakistan in the same piece, even though Bush administration policy has effectively tied them together in disaster. To take another example, the rise of Iran (and a possible "Shiite crescent"), Iran's influence or interference in Iraq, Iran's nuclear program, and Iran's off-the-wall president have been near obsessions in the U.S. media; and yet, you would be hard-pressed to find a piece even pointing out that the Bush administration's two invasions and occupations -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- which left both those countries bristling with vast American bases and sprawling American-controlled prison systems, took place on either side of Iran. Add in the fact that the Bush administration, probably through the CIA, is essentially running terror raids into Iran through Pakistan and you have a remarkably different vision of Iran's geostrategic situation than even an informed American media consumer would normally see.
After September 11, 2001, but based on the sort of pre-2001 thinking you could find well represented at the neocon website Project for the New American Century, the Bush administration's top officials wrote their own drama for the arc of instability. They were, of course, the main characters in it, along with the U.S. military, some Afghan and Iraqi exiles who would play their necessary roles in the "liberation" of their countries, and a few evil ogres like Saddam Hussein.
Today, not six years after they raised the curtain on what was to be their grand imperial drama, they find themselves in a dark theater with at least six crises in search of an author, all clamoring for attention – and every possibility that a seventh (not to say a seventeenth) "character" in that rowdy, still gathering, audience may soon rise to insist on a part in the horrific farce that has actually taken place.
Six Crises in Search of an Author
Sweeping across the region from East to West, let's briefly note the six festering or clamoring crisis spots, any one of which could end up with the play's major role before George W. Bush slips out of office.
Pakistan: The Pakistani government was America's main partner, along with the Saudis, in funding, arming, and running the anti-Soviet struggle of the mujahedeen, including Osama bin Laden, in Afghanistan back in the 1980s; and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, was the godfather of the Taliban (and remains, it seems, a supporter to this day). In September 2001, the Bush administration gave the country's coup-installed military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, the basic you're-either-with-us-or-against-us choice. He chose the "with" and in the course of these last years, under constant American pressure, has lost almost complete control over Pakistan's tribal regions along the Afghan border to various tribal groups, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other foreign jihadis, who have established bases there. Now, significant parts of the country are experiencing unrest in what looks increasingly like a countdown to chaos in a nuclear-armed nation.
Afghanistan: In the meantime, from those Pakistani base areas, the revived and rearmed Taliban (and their al-Qaeda partners) are preparing to launch a major spring offensive in Afghanistan, using tactics from the Iraq War (suicide bombers or "Mullah Omar's Missiles," as they call them, and the roadside bomb or IED). They are already capable of taking over southern Afghan districts for periods of time. The Bush administration used the Northern Alliance -- that is, proxy Afghan forces -- to take Kabul in November 2001. It then set up its bases and prisons and established President Hamid Karzai as the "mayor of Kabul," only to abandon the task of providing real security and beginning the genuine reconstruction of the country in order to invade Iraq. The rest of this particular horror story is, by now, reasonably well known. The country beyond booming Kabul remains impoverished and significantly in ruins; the population evidently ever more dissatisfied; the American and NATO air war ever more indiscriminate; and it is again the planet's largest producer of opium poppies and, as such, supplier of heroin. Over five years after its "liberation" from the Taliban, Afghanistan is a failed state, home to a successful guerrilla war by one of the most primitively fundamentalist movements on the planet, and a thriving narco-kingdom. It is only likely to get worse. For the first time, the possibility that, like the Russians before them, the Americans (and their NATO allies) could actually suffer defeat in that rugged land seems imaginable.
Iran: The country is a rising regional power, with enormous energy resources, and Shiite allies and allied movements of various sorts throughout the region, including in southern Iraq. But it also has an embattled, divided, fundamentalist government capable of rallying its disgruntled populace only with nationalism (call it, playing the American card). Energy-rich as it is, Iran also has a fractured, weakened economy, threatened with sanctions; and its major enemy, the Bush administration, is running a series of terror operations against it, while trying to cause dissension in its oil-rich minority regions. It is also deploying an unprecedented show of naval and air strength in the Persian Gulf. (An aircraft-carrier, the USS Nimitz, with its strike group, is now on its way to join the two carrier task forces already in place there.) In addition, the administration has threatened to launch a massive air assault on Iran's nuclear and other facilities. Though Iraq runs it a close race, Iran may be the single potentially most explosive hot spot in the arc of instability. In a nanosecond, it would be capable, under U.S. attack, or even some set of miscalculations on all sides, both of suffering grievous harm and of imposing enormous damage not just on American troops in Iraq, or on the oil economy of the region, but on the global economy as well.
Iraq: Do I need to say a word? Iraq is the poster-boy for the Bush administration's ability to turn whatever it touches into hell on Earth. In Iraq, the vaunted American military has been stopped in its tracks by a minority Sunni insurgency. (In recent weeks, however, the war there is threatening to turn into something larger, as the American military launches attacks on radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.) Iraq now is the site of a religio-ethnic civil war of striking brutality, loosing waves of refugees within the country and on neighboring states; neighborhoods are being ethnically cleansed and deaths have reached into the hundreds of thousands. Amid all this, the occupying U.S. military fully controls only Baghdad's fortified citadel within a city, the Green Zone (and even there dangers are mounting) as well as a series of enormous, multibillion-dollar bases it has built around the country. Iraq is now essentially a failed state and the situation continues to devolve under the pressure of the President's latest "surge" plan. If that plan were to succeed, the citadel-state of the Green Zone would, at best, be turned into the city-state of Baghdad in a sea of chaos. Like Iran, Iraq has the potential to draw other states in the region into a widening civil-cum-religious-cum-terrorist war.
Israel/Palestine/Lebanon: From an early green light for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to join the Global War on Terror (against the Palestinians) to a green light for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch and continue a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, the Bush administration has largely green-lighted Israel these last years. It has also ignored or, in the case of the Lebanon War, purposely held back any possibility of serious peace talks. The provisional results are in. In Lebanon, the heavily populated areas of the Shiite south were strewn with Israeli cluster bombs, making some areas nearly uninhabitable; up to a quarter of the population was, for a time, turned into refugees; parts of Lebanese cities including Beirut were flattened by the Israeli air force; and yet Hezbollah was strengthened, the U.S.-backed Siniora government radically weakened, and the country drawn closer to a possible civil war. In the Palestinian areas, Bush administration democracy-promotion efforts ended with a Hamas electoral victory. Starved of foreign aid and having suffered further Israeli military assaults, the Palestinian population is ever more immiserated; Hamas and Fatah are at each other's throats; and the U.S.-backed President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is in a weakened position. In the wake of a disastrous war, Israel, with a government whose head has a 3% approval rate, is hardly the triumphant, dominant power in the Middle East that various Bush administration figures imagined once upon a time. This looks like another deteriorating situation with no end in sight.
Somalia (or Blackhawk Down, Round 2): In 2006, Director Porter Goss's CIA bet on a group of discredited Somali warlords, threw money and support behind them, and -- typically -- lost out to an Islamist militia that took most of the country and imposed relative peace on it for the first time in years. The ever proactive Bush administration then turned to the autocratic Ethiopian regime and its military (advised and armed by the U.S. with a helping hand from the North Koreans) to open "a new front" in the Global War on Terror. The Ethiopians promptly launched their own "preventive" invasion of Somalia (with modest U.S. air support), installed a government in the capital, Mogadishu, proclaimed victory over the Islamists, and -- giant surprise --promptly found themselves mired in an inter-clan civil war with Iraqi overtones. Today, Somalia, long a failed state and then, for a few months, almost a peaceful land (even if ruled by Islamists fundamentalists), is experiencing the worst fighting and death levels in 15 years. The new government in Mogadishu is shaky; their Ethiopian military supporters bloodied; over 1,000 civilians in the capital are dead or wounded, and tens of thousands of refugees are fleeing Mogadishu and crossing borders in a state of need. Rate it: a developing disaster -- with worse to come.
In short, from Somalia to Pakistan, the region is today a genuine arc of instability. It is filled with ever more failed states (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine, which never even made it to statehood before collapse), possible future failed states (Lebanon, Pakistan), ever shakier autocracies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan); and huge floods of refugees, internal and external (Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan) as well as massively damaged areas (Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon). It is also witnessing the growth of extremist and terrorist organizations and sentiments.
A Rube Goldberg Machine
At any moment, somewhere in the now-destabilized "arc of instability," that seventh character could indeed rise, demand attention, and refuse to be ejected from the premises. There are many possible candidates. Here are just a few:
Al-Qaeda, an organization dispersed but never fully dismantled by the Bush administration, has now, according to Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, rebuilt itself in the Pakistani borderlands with new training camps, new base areas, and a new generation of leaders in their thirties, all still evidently serving under Osama bin Laden. (In the future, Mazzetti suggests even younger leaders are likely to come from the hardened veterans of campaigns in Bush's Iraq). Al-Qaeda is a wild card throughout the region.
Iraqi Kurdistan is now a relatively peaceful area, but from the disputed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk to its Turkish and Iranian borders it is also a potential future powder keg and the focus for interventions of all sorts.
Oil pipelines, which, from the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf, crisscross the region, are almost impossible to defend effectively. At any moment, some group or groups, copying the tactics of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, could decide to begin a sabotage campaign against them (or the other oil facilities in the region).
Saudi Arabia, an increasingly ossified religious autocracy, faces opponents ready to practice terrorism against its oil infrastructure and rising unrest in its oil-rich Shiite areas as well as an ascendant Iran.
Syria, a rickety minority regime, under internal pressure, now faces the launching of a renewed Bush administration campaign to further undermine its power. Though we have no way of knowing the scope of this campaign, it seems the President and his top officials have learned absolutely nothing about what their meddling is likely to accomplish.
Outside the "arc of instability," but deeply affected by what goes on there, let's not forget:
The U.S. Army: 13,000 National Guardsmen have just been notified of a coming call-up, long before they were due for another tour of duty in Iraq. The Army, like the Marine Corps, finds itself under near-unbearable pressure from the Iraq and Afghan Wars and, as a result, is sending less than fully trained troops, recruited under ever lower standards, with worn equipment, into battle. The Army, for instance, is having trouble holding on to its best soldiers. Beyond their minimum five years of service, to take an example, "just 62% of West Pointers re-upped, about 25 percentage points lower than at the other service academies." And the public grumbling of the top brass is on the increase. Who knows what this means for the future?
The American People -- Oh yes, them. They haven't really hit the streets yet, but they've hit the opinion polls hard and last November some of them hit the polling booths -- decisively. Who knows when they will "stand up" and insist on being counted. Perhaps in 2008.
In other words, in addition to the normal cast of characters dreamt up by the Bush administration in its fantasy production in the global round, a whole set of unexpected characters are already moving up and down the aisles, demanding attention, and at any moment, that seventh character -- whether state, ethnic group, terrorist cadre, or some unknown crew in search of an author is likely to make its presence felt.
And let's not forget that there is one more obvious "character" out there in search of an author; that there is one more Bush-destabilized place on the planet not yet mentioned, even though it may be the most important of all. I'm talking, of course, about Washington D.C.; I'm talking about the Bush administration itself.
Consider the process by which it turned Washington into a mini-arc of instability: First, it fantasized about the "arc of instability," then stitched it together into a genuine Rube Goldberg instability machine, one where any group, across thousands of miles, might pull some switch that would set chaos rolling, the flames licking across the oil heartlands of the planet. Then, remarkably enough, the administration itself and all its dreams -- both of a Pax Americana globe and a Pax Republicana United States -- began to disintegrate. The whole edifice, from Rumsfeld's high-tech military to Karl Rove's political machine, became destabilized under its own tin touch. The putative playwright became just another desperate character.
It's no longer far-fetched to say that, with the President's polling figures in the low 30s, resistance to his war still growing, a Democratic Congress beginning to feel its strength, the Republican Party shaking and its presidential candidates preparing to head for the hills, corruption and political scandals popping up everywhere, and high military figures implicitly reading the riot act to their political leaders, the already listing Bush imperial ship of state seems to be making directly for the next floating iceberg.
Imagine then, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still clinging tenaciously to what's left of their dreams and delusions amid the ruins of their plans -- as the USS Nimitz sails toward the Persian Gulf; as American agents of various sorts "advise" and, however indirectly, shuffle aid to extremist groups eager to fell the Iranian regime; as a new campaign against the Syrian regime is launched; as stolen Iraqi oil money is shuttled to the Siniora government in Lebanon (and then, according to Seymour Hersh, to Sunni jihadi groups in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria); and as American agents continue to "interrogate" suspected jihadis in their latest borrowed secret prisons in Ethiopia, while American-backed Ethiopian troops only find themselves more embroiled in Somalia. Imagine all that, and then ask yourself, what levers on that Rube Goldberg machine they've done so much to create are they still capable of pulling?
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.
Half of Americans Expect Conflict with Iran in Next Year
Related
Russian General Says U.S. Continues Preparations for Iran StrikeAhmadinejad: Iran Expanding Nuclear Process
---
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Half of Americans Expect Conflict with Iran
April 9, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States believe a military conflict with Iran could develop within the next year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 55 per cent of respondents think it is likely that the U.S. will be at war with Iran.
After being branded as part of an "axis of evil" by United States president George W. Bush in January 2002, Iran has contended that its nuclear program aims to produce energy, not weapons. In June 2005, former Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Iran’s presidential election in a run-off over Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani with 61.6 per cent of all cast ballots.
In December 2006, the United Nations (UN) Security Council unanimously voted to impose sanctions against Iran after it failed to stop uranium enrichment. On Jan. 2, Ahmadinejad declared, "Let the world know that from the Iranian nation’s point of view, this resolution has no validity. I want (the United States) to know that the Iranian nation has humiliated you many times, and it will humiliate you in future."
On Apr. 3, Bush discussed the current state of affairs, saying, "I firmly believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously destabilizing influence in the Middle East. And therefore, we have worked to build an international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up their weapon, to make it clear that they have choices to make—whether the choice be isolation, or missed opportunity to grow their economies."
Polling Data
How likely is it that the United States will be at war with Iran within the next year?
| Mar. 2007 | Feb. 2007 | |
| Very likely | 23% | 23% |
| Somewhat likely | 32% | 34% |
| Not very likely | 31% | 26% |
| Not at all likely | 4% | 6% |
Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 800 likely American voters, conducted on Mar. 28 and Mar. 29, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.
Constitution's framers split powers to bridle 'dog of war'
| Posted on Sun, Apr. 08, 2007 |  | |
| No end in sight for Iraq feud Washington Bureau 1/83/8 WASHINGTON | Congress and the White House are locked in a high-stakes game of chicken over the war in Iraq, with no easy way out for either side. If Congress wins, American troops could be home as soon as next March - whatever the consequences for Iraq and the broader war on terrorism. If President Bush wins, the troops will stay and keep trying to transform Iraq into a stable democracy - whatever the cost in lives and dollars. History, political calculation and simple math suggest that congressional Democrats will blink first, but that won't end the fight. It's a power struggle with deep roots in American history. More than 200 years after the drafters of the Constitution split war powers between the president and the Congress, Americans are still arguing over the proper balance. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but only Congress can declare war and provide funding for the military. The drafters knew the division of labor would be messy, but that's what they wanted. In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson expressed hope that the Constitution would restrain "the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the legislative body." Madison made clear his belief that Congress could end wars as well as start them. He even suggested that the commander in chief couldn't be trusted with that responsibility. "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded," he wrote in the Federalist Papers. Congressional Democrats couldn't agree more. They plan to send Bush legislation in the next few weeks calling for a phased withdrawal from Iraq. Slightly different versions of the bill have already passed the House of Representatives and Senate. The Senate voted to require the nonbinding goal of withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008. The House set a deadline for withdrawal by the end of August 2008. Congressional leaders hope to resolve the differences and have a bill ready for Bush by mid-April. Bush says he'll veto any bill that includes a timetable. But here's the twist: The withdrawal language is attached to a $123 billion war-spending bill. The two sides differ over how quickly money for Iraq would run out, but everyone agrees that the troops would suffer if the stalemate drags on. "The president doesn't have the authority to go into the U.S. Treasury on his own and cut a big check and send it over to the troops. That's where Congress' leverage is greatest," said Christopher Schroeder, a law professor at Duke University. "The president's leverage is we've got 135,000 troops over there who need to be supplied." Bush and his allies are working hard to ensure that Congress is blamed for any interruption in war funding. "Congress' most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation," Bush said at a Tuesday press conference, one of a series of events designed to increase pressure on lawmakers. "They're now failing in that responsibility, and if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones." Some Democrats acknowledge that it's only a matter of time before they deliver a bill that Bush will sign. "Ultimately, politically, we have to give him money," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend. But Democrats also have some leverage in the standoff. They're fighting against a politically weakened president who is trying to defend an unpopular war. Plus, polls show that Democrats can rightfully claim that the public is on their side on the issue of a timetable for withdrawal. While Bush wants to frame the debate as a fight over funding the troops, Democrats want to keep the focus on their plan to bring the troops home. "There's going to be a battle in the next six weeks to frame this the right way," said Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran and co-founder of www.votevets.org, a group that opposes the Iraq war. "There's no perception that people who are challenging the war don't support the military. If the Democrats lose that image, it becomes much harder for them to challenge the war." Polls underscore the risks for Democrats in the struggle to define the terms of the debate. A Gallup poll in late March found that 60 percent of Americans would support a timetable calling for all troops to come home by next fall. But only 36 percent would support cutting off funds for additional troops. Of course, public opinion doesn't necessarily alter government policy. Support for the Vietnam War collapsed in 1968, but the conflict dragged on for five more years. Anti-war lawmakers offered bill after bill to end the war, with little success. Members of the new generation of anti-war activists say they won't be deterred if Congress backs down in the current standoff. They predict that congressional support for withdrawal will increase in the months ahead if Bush's latest plan for Iraq fails to make a significant difference. "You have to look at this as a long haul, as a marathon," said Soltz, the Iraq veteran who turned against the war. "Even if the Democrats back down in two months, they'll put up a fight that the public supports. Either way, it's a win." | ||
Bush Officials Cover-Up Indonesian Military Role in Murder of U.S. Citizens
Joyo News/Pantau Exclusive Report
Murder at Mile 63
By S. Eben Kirksey and Andreas Harsono
U.S. intelligence reports linked the Indonesian military to the 2002 murder of American school teachers in Timika, a mining town in the remote Indonesian province of Papua. Despite these reports, and opposition from the U.S. Congress, the Bush Administration removed a decade-old ban on funding for military education programs in Indonesia. An Indonesian court charged that Antonius Wamang, an alleged Papuan guerrilla, was the ringleader of this attack and sentenced him to life in prison on 7 November 2006. Six other alleged coconspirators were given sentences ranging from 18 months to seven years in jail. The same day that the sentences were handed down, Pentagon officials announced a “new era of military co-operation” with Indonesia. Yet, rigorous standards of evidence did not prevail in this Indonesian court and questions remain about whether Wamang’s group acted alone. This report is based on internal police documents, court records, and eyewitness accounts. Antonius Wamang, Decky Murib, Patsy Spier and more than 50 other sources were interviewed in Timika, Jayapura, Jakarta and Washington DC.
A TRIP TO THE BIG CITY
When Antonius Wamang boarded a passenger jet in September 2001 at Timika’s airport in Papua, his heart was pounding—he was on a mission to get weapons and ammunition in Indonesia’s capital of Jakarta.[1] (Operasi Kikis) in the highlands of Papua.[2] Anti-personnel Daisy Cluster bombs, mortars and machine-guns were used against Papuan villagers who were armed with bows and arrows.[3] Nearly 30 years later, Wamang found what he thought was an opportunity to buy arms and to fight back against the Indonesian military. Born in the remote highland village of Beoga in 1972, Wamang was a young boy when Indonesian Brigadier General Imam Munandar launched Operation Eliminate
Wamang told us he flew alone and was met at Jakarta’s airport by Agus Anggaibak, a sandalwood dealer with ties to the Indonesian military.[4] According to Janes Natkime, who has long known both Wamang and Anggaibak and currently heads the Warsi Foundation in Timika, “Agus Anggaibak set up everything, he lobbied the officers and arranged the money.”[5] Anggaibak had earlier visited Wamang’s group in their jungle hideout, encouraging them to raise money to buy guns. He brought a rifle with him. Anggaibak showed off this weapon in Wamang’s camp. Identifiers were etched into the gun: “MODEL P88-9, Col 9 mmp AK, Made in Germany.”[6]
Anggaibak promised to help Wamang obtain weapons like the one he was carrying, as well as other guns, from arms dealers in Jakarta.[7] Like all groups in West Papua’s Tentara Pembebasan Nasional (National Liberation Army)—a group without a clear hierarchical command structure founded in 1971—Wamang’s group was poorly armed.
Antonius Wamang’s group, according to evidence presented in the Indonesian court that later charged him with murder and several witnesses, only had three aging weapons: an SS1, an M16, and a bolt-action Mauser. Following several weeks of intensive gold panning, and sandalwood collecting, Wamang raised money to purchase more guns. Anggaibak departed for Jakarta, with an advance payment from Wamang, where he began working on securing a deal. Wamang later flew to meet Anggaibak. He brought sacks of sandalwood probably worth more than 500 million rupiah ($50,000 USD) in Jakarta.[8] On the international market sandalwood fetches even higher prices. This rare wood is used to make incense and perfume.
Initially Anggaibak and Wamang stayed in a police guest house in Jakarta. A sandalwood middleman from Makassar named Mochtar introduced Anggaibak and Wamang to some Indonesian army and police officers. Well aware of how to exploit internal conflicts within the Indonesian security forces, Wamang hoped to secure weapons from one faction in hopes of attacking another faction.
Sergeant Puji, a police officer, befriended Wamang while he was staying at the guest house. Sergeant Puji took Wamang and Anggaibak on trips around Jakarta. They toured around while Puji asked them about the activities of Papuan guerrillas around Timika. Puji said that he wanted to help the movement: he presented Wamang with a gift of six magazines of bullets (total 180 bullets) that could be used in Wamang’s M16 or SS1 rifles. Puji also gave Wamang bullets for his Mauser.[9] One night in the guest house, Puji showed Wamang fifteen M-16 rifles. Wamang said he paid 250 million Rupiah ($25,000 USD) for these guns and Puji held on to them for safe keeping.[10]
Later Wamang moved to Hotel Djody at Jalan Jaksa 35, a backpacker hostel in downtown Jakarta.[11] He probably checked in using a false name. “Mochtar was a regular guest here,” said Herry Blaponte, the hotel’s front office staff. Blaponte told us Mochtar had regularly made sandalwood business deals with his Papuan guests. Hotel staff remembered Mochtar as having a stocky build and being well dressed. Their memories of him are not fond, however, since he left without paying his bill. Blaponte and hotel security staff Mahmud Trikasno later told Indonesian chief detective Dzainal Syarief that they did not remember Wamang’s stay at their hotel. “I don’t remember his face,” said Trikasno. Four cleaning service staff also did not recognize Wamang, when presented with his picture some five years after he says he stayed at the hotel.[12]
One afternoon at Hotel Djody, according to Wamang, a stranger approached him and Anggaibak. “I hear you are looking to buy guns”, Wamang quoted the stranger as saying. Eventually Anggaibak admitted that they were. The stranger—Captain Hardi Heidi—said that he was an Indonesian soldier from Surabaya. Eventually Wamang paid for four additional guns from Hardi Heidi: two AKs and two M-16s. As with Sergeant Puji, Wamang arranged for Hardi Heidi to keep the weapons for safe keeping until he was ready to depart for Timika.[13]
Hardi Heidi introduced Anggaibak and Wamang to Sugiono, an active duty Kopassus officer who pledged to help transport the weapons to Timika.[14] Sugiono and Hardi Heidi had interests similar to Sergeant Puji’s—they wanted to hear about the activities of Papuan guerillas around Timika.
On September 21, Wamang visited 40 Papuan delegates, who had just returned from negotiations with Freeport McMoRan—the New Orleans based company that operates a mine near Timika with the largest gold deposit in the world. They were making a stop in Jakarta and stayed at Hotel Mega Matra. Excited to see many fellow Amungme leaders, Wamang visited the hotel a number of times. The leaders were negotiating a profit sharing deal with Freeport’s management.
Wamang asked many delegates for money. According to delegate Eltinus Omaleng, Wamang bragged about how he had secured a shipload of weapons that were ready to be shipped to Papua.[15][16] Wamang needed the extra money to transport the weapons. Janes Natkime gave Wamang 1.5 million Rupiah ($160 USD), “Five days later he came back to the hotel, saying that the ship had been rerouted to Aceh.”
Wamang said that he had paid Sugiono nearly 50 million Rupiah ($5,400 USD)to ship the guns to Timika. After a chartered boat was loaded with the weapons, Wamang claims that Sugiono and Hardi Heidi gave him the slip. The ship motored away with Wamang standing alone on the dock.[17] Just prior to the boat’s departure, Wamang said that he overheard a conversation between Hardi Heidi and his wife. Wamang quoted the wife as saying: “We should sell these in Aceh.”[18]
After calling associates back in Timika for more money, Wamang traveled alone back to Timika on the Kelimutu passenger ship.[19] Wamang arrived in Timika with only the bullets that Sergeant Puji had given him.[20] His extensive contacts with Sergeant Puji, with Sugiono, with Hardi Heidi, and with Mochtar had given him moments of hope. But his mission to obtain guns had ultimately failed. Instead, Wamang revealed his plans to launch an assault to these Indonesian officers and gave them intelligence about the activities of fellow Papuan guerillas.
THE AMBUSH
In early August 2002, Wamang started out on foot with at least six other men, including Johny Kacamol, Yulianus Deikme and Elias Kwalik, from a jungle camp near Kali Kopi[21]. Their destination was the main road that connects Tembagapura, the mining town of Freeport McMoRan, to Timika, a sprawling urban center in the lowlands.
According to Wamang, the journey took nearly three weeks. Wamang, and his men, were preparing to launch an armed assault on Indonesian military troops traveling on this road. The group set up a temporary camp in a ravine below mile 63 of the road.[22]
One of Wamang’s co-conspirators, Hardi Tsugumol, was also very busy getting ready for “an action” on the road, according to Deminikus Bebari of the Amungme Indigenous Council (Lemassa). In the weeks leading up to the ambush, Tsugumol “amassed food and other supplies,” wrote Bebari, in a 2002 report prepared for Indonesian police investigators.[23]
When Hardi Tsugumol was a boy, growing up in a highland village, he wanted to be a soldier.[24] As an adult, Tsugumol cultivated relationships with Indonesian soldiers stationed in Timika. In the lead up to the ambush Tsugumol “contacted his friends in the military to buy ammunition—300 bullets for 600,000 rupiah, via his friends who were in the Indonesian special forces,” wrote Bebari.[25]
On Saturday 31 August 20002, just before dawn, three men, including Tsugumol, were “picked up at the Kwamki Lama neighborhood by a white Toyota Land Cruiser from Freeport’s Emergency Planning Operation division,” wrote Bebari.[26] The EPO is a Freeport division that provides logistical, transportation and communication supports for the more than 3,000 Indonesian security personnel stationed in the area.[27] Tsugumol, declined to reveal the identity of the vehicle’s driver, saying that he has to protect his “friend.” He only admitted that they had traveled along the Timika-Tembagapura road, past five checkpoints, that morning.[28] The 79-mile road has 14 military posts manned by various units such as Kostrad army reserves, the Marines, the Air Force’s Paskhas elite unit, the Army Battalion 752, the Army’s Cavalry, Brimob (Mobil Brigade) police troops as well as the infamous Kopassus special operations forces.
Decky Murib, a Papuan man who works as a military informant, said that ten soldiers picked him up at Hotel Serayu in Timika at 8 am that same day. Murib often accompanied Indonesian officers in their operations. He said that he was surprised to see Kopassus Captain Margus Arifin leading this group. “He was supposed to be in Bandung,” said Murib. Formerly, Margus had been the Kopassus liaison officer at Freeport’s EPO office. Murib later told police investigators that Margus brought him in a car with license plate number 609 through the Freeport checkpoints and dropped him, with four solders at mile 62 of the Tembagapura road. Margus reportedly continued north along the road with the remaining soldiers.[29] Margus Arifin denied Murib’s testimony, saying that he was in Bandung that day. Kopassus commander Major General Sriyanto Muntrasan told Tempo that Margus’s signatures showed he was in a Bandung military course.
Freeport operates its check points to register every car and person traveling along the road.[30] Workers have to show their employee ID cards at the checkpoints. Locals have to show special permits issued by Freeport’s Community Liaison Office. There are also special Freeport-issued visitor cards. “Only the soldiers refuse to report at the checkpoints,” said Lexy Lintuuran, Freeport’s corporate security chief.[31][32] According to Linturan, a car with the license plate 609, the car Decky Murib claimed he was in, passed through the checkpoints in the morning of the attack.
That morning a group of school teachers from the Tembagapura International School, went on a picnic around mile 62 of the road. The rugged terrain around this high-elevation section of the road is covered by old-growth cloud forest. Patsy Spier, who was part of this picnic with 10 others, said that it was rainy and foggy. “We ended up leaving the picnic early,” said Spier.[33]
The teachers traveled in two white Toyota Land Cruisers. Rick Spier, her husband, drove the first SUV with four colleagues riding as passengers. Ted Burgon, the school’s principal, sat next to Rick Spier.
The first shots, fired by a sniper at Rick Spier’s SUV as it traveled down the road, were deadly. The windshield of Rick Spier and Ted Burgon’s car exploded. Within moments they both sustained fatal wounds.[34]
Wamang claims to not know who fired these first shots. In the initial burst of gunfire it was hard to tell who was shooting. “With everyone shooting, you can’t hear well .... If I had shot first, then I would have been able to tell,” recalled Wamang.[35] Wamang’s group was a rag-tag band of teenagers and men with limited weapons training.[36] They wore black shorts, black t-shirts, and black plastic headbands. They were all barefoot.[37]
Patsy Spier traveled in the second car driven by Ken Balk. She sat next to Bambang Riwanto, her Javanese colleague.[38] Suddenly, in the fog, Patsy Spier saw her husband’s car stopped by the side of the road. Another car was speeding towards her on the opposite side of the road. “They ran Rick’s car off of the road,” Spier thought. Turning around in her seat to get a good look at its license plate, Spier felt a sharp stab in her side. She had been shot. The windshield shattered. Blood splattered all over the SUV interior.[39]
“I did not see the shooters,” said Patsy Spier. Ken Balk, in the same car as Spier, saw a pair of black army boots underneath a truck, some 20 yards away from where their vehicle had come to a stop.[40] Three other vehicles, a yellow Mac truck and two Canadian Pacific dump trucks, were also riddled with bullets.[41]
“All of us were shot, wounded. Bambang was laying on top of me, bleeding. I was worried about my husband but the shooting just continued,” said Spier.[42] Bambang died in the attack. Among the 11 people who were wounded in the attack, there were three Indonesian drivers. The two drivers who were seriously injured, Loudwyk Worotikan and Johannes Bawan, were employees of a Freeport contract company. Mastur, the third driver, sustained light injuries.
Another pick up truck was also shot but its driver, Daud Tandirerung, managed to speed away from the crime scene. Two colleagues, Yohan Jikwa and Kamame Moom, were riding with Tandirerung. They told investigators that they saw “two men in ski masks.”[43] According to witnesses, and a reconstruction by police investigators, the shooting lasted between 30 to 45 minutes.[44]
“We weren’t there very long. We immediately retreated,” Wamang told us. We asked him, “Were you there thirty minutes?” “No,” he said, “30 minutes is way too long.”[45] They did not approach the stopped cars. As Wamang’s group left the scene, the other unknown gunmen continued shooting. No one followed as they beat a hasty retreat on foot.[46]
Andrew Neale, a Freeport expatriate, came upon the scene from the north.[47] Neale jammed his vehicle and drove back to the Kostrad military post about 500 meters away at mile 64. According to Lexy Lintuuran, Freeport’s security chief, the Kostrad company stationed there “has more than 100 soldiers.”[48]
Why didn’t the Kostrad soldiers come sooner? Did they hear the 30-45 minutes of gunfire?
When the soldiers finally arrived at the scene, the attackers melted away. The soldiers briefly fired their guns. Then the shooting abruptly stopped. “I assumed that the shooters left after the TNI came,” said Spier, using the acronym of the Indonesian military. She remembered a soldier, dressed in full camouflage and black boots, who stood over her, glaring down.[49] Victims were immediately transported to a nearby hospital and soon evacuated to bigger hospitals in Australia and Indonesia.
A total of thirteen guns were used in this assault on the five cars, according to a leaked ballistics reportPusat Laboratorium Forensik Polri) on 19 December 2002: five M16s, six SS1s, and two Mausers.[50] “We had one M16, one SS1, and one Mauser,” Wamang told us.[51] Wamang’s account of his weaponry is consistent with the evidence presented by chief prosecutor Anita Asterida: his group carried a total of three guns.[52] The prosecution did not account for the ten other guns. issued by the Police Central Forensic Laboratory (
Ch. Syafriani, one of the Lab’s ballistics experts, reiterated the data contained in the original ballistics report on 29 September 2006 in the Central Jakarta district court —the lab analyzed 30 bullets of 5.56 caliber, 77 bullet fragments, 94 bullet casings of 5.56 caliber, 7 bullet casings of 7.62 caliber.[53] A total of 208 bullets, shells, or fragments were recovered from the crime scene.[54] Of the six magazines given to Wamang by Sergeant Puji, he claims that only 1½ magazines (about 45 bullets of 5.56 caliber) were used by his men that day.
Wamang told us that other gunmen were present.[55] He saw other men shooting into the cars, but he could not clearly identify them. “The testimony of Anton Wamang and others at the crime scene is clear and consistent: there was a second group of shooters,” said Paula Makabory, a human rights worker in Timika who repeatedly interviewed Wamang over the course of three years.
Evidence of a second group of shooters was not considered by the Indonesian courtroom that recently found Wamang guilty. An Indonesian police investigation questioned 30 soldiers, 44 civilians, and conducted extensive forensic research. These police investigators found “a strong possibility” that there were Indonesian military shooters.[56]
Why would the Indonesian military stage an attack at the Freeport mine? One theory is linked to the fact that Freeport paid a total of US$5.6 million in 2002 for “support costs for government-provided security.”[57] The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposed new reporting requirements on U.S. companies in the wake of the Enron corporate accounting scandal. After this measure was passed into law, Freeport was forced to disclose their payments to the Indonesian military. Under public scrutiny, Freeport began reducing official and unofficial payments to Indonesian security forces.[58] The August 2002 attack may have been orchestrated by the Indonesian military in a bid to convince Freeport of their continued need for security.
On 1 September, one day after the attack, the body of “Mr. X” appeared near the crime scene. Senior Indonesian military officers claimed that their troops had shot one of the Papuan guerrilla attackers. Second Class Corporal Wayan, an Indonesian soldier with Satgas Pam 515 Kostrad, claimed to have shot Mr. X while patrolling a mountain near the crime scene at 11:40 am.[59]
At 1:30 pm senior military and police officials—including Papua police chief Major General I Made Mangku Pastika—arrived at the side of the road where Corporal Wayan was standing with the body.[60][61] There were no blood stains on the ground near the body. The body was sent to the Tembagapura hospital at 3:30. Dr. Kunto Rahardjo conducted an autopsy. He concluded that Mr. X had been killed more than six hours before he was examined at the hospital. Mr. X had not eaten for more than 12 hours before his death. He had suffered from a severe intestinal worm infection and had a condition called hydrocele which caused his testicles to swell to 17 cm in diameter.
Corporal Wayan claims that Mr. X was standing on a small ledge approximately ½ meter in width on the side of a steep cliff when he shot and killed him. A police reconstruction conducted on 10 September 2002 found no blood stains on the ledge, at the base of the cliff, nor along the route where Corporal Wayan and his patrol members reportedly dragged the body. The Timika-Tembagapura road is 78 meters from the base of the cliff. This rugged terrain is covered with dense roots and loose rocks.[62] The police reconstruction deemed Wayan’s story implausible.[63] The body reportedly fell 8 meters off the cliff, yet did not have any broken bones. A report by Indonesian forensics experts found that the blood type of Mr. X was “O” and that dirt and leaves from the site where Wayan claimed to have shot the man did not contain any blood of this type.[64]
THE COVER UP
Elsham Papua, a human rights group which was involved in the Timika investigation, issued a preliminary report on 26 September 2002. It presented evidence “suggesting the shooting was carried out by Indonesian military personnel or groups facilitated by the TNI.”[65] The BBC, Radio Australia, and many Papuan newspapers covered the report. Two days later, the Indonesian military announced that it was to sue Elsham. A court summons arrived in November, announcing that John Rumbiak and Yohanis Bonai, respectively the supervisor and director of Elsham, were being sued for libelous statements.[66]
Thugs raided Elsham Papua’s Jakarta office on 10 October 2002.[67] “During the raid, the men seized documents and computer diskettes containing Elsham reports on the August ambush,” wrote the Jakarta Post.[68]
Yohanis Bonai’s wife, Elsje, and other members of their extended family, were attacked by unknown gunmen while travelling by car near the border between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on 28 December 2002. Elsje Bonay was shot in both legs.[69] She survived the attack, but after repeated surgeries she still has difficulty walking. Tempo magazine ran a story with the headline: “Shooting of Papuan Human Rights Activist’s Family May Be Related to Timika Incident.”[70]
Brigadier General Raziman Tarigan, the second in command of the Papua police, headed an Indonesian police investigation. Tarigan worked closely with Elsham investigators.[71] Tarigan told reporters that the 13 guns used in the attack were the types of weapons issued to soldiers stationed in the area.[72] “Only the military and Freeport workers pass through the area,” Tarigan was quoted as saying by Koran Tempo.[73]
Separately, I Made Mangku Pastika, Tarigan’s immediate superior, told three aides to Coordinating Minister on Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in a meeting in the Timika police station: “Gentlemen, this country belongs to all of us. If you do something for the sake of the country and the nation, well, please tell us first. So we’re not all in trouble.”[74] Yudhoyono is now Indonesia’s President. Saul Tahapary, a Freeport security consultant, was party to this conversation, recalled that Pastika was upset with attempts by the military to cover up their own actions.
Soon Tarigan and Pastika were transferred off of the investigation to new assignments elsewhere in Indonesia. Pastika was assigned to investigate the Bali bombing that killed more than 200 people.
Following the reports by Tarigan and Pastika, Indonesia’s Central Military Police (Puspom TNI) sent a team to conduct a “reconstruction.” According to Richard Saferstien’s text on criminology, Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, a murder reconstruction involves answering a series of questions: (1) was there more than one person involved? (2) how was the victim killed? (3) were there actions taken to cover up what actually took place?[75] The Indonesian military reconstruction did not rigorously attempt to answer any of these three questions. In fact, this “reconstruction” itself is further evidence of a cover up.
Decky Murib, the military informant who claimed to be near the scene of the crime, told us that he was threatened and intimidated by Indonesian soldiers on 28 December 2002, the day of the reconstruction.[76] In the months prior to this day, Murib had worked with police investigators to identify Kopassus soldiers whom he alleged were at the crime scene: Captain Margus Arifin, First Lieutenant Wawan Suwandi, Second Class Sergeant I Wayan Suradnya, and First Class Private Jufri Uswanas.[77] Murib told us that he had changed his story as a result of threats by Captain Margus on the day of the reconstruction.[78] Captain Margus told Murib to not participate in the reconstruction. Murib decided to go into hiding.[79]
On 28 December 2002 at 11:30 am, the Indonesian military reconstruction team traveled by bus to mile 58. Deminikus Bebari of Lemassa and Albert Bolang of the Legal Aid Institute were accompanying the team as outside observers. Bebari protested, saying that mile 58 was not the place where Murib claimed to have heard the shots. Murib initially told police investigators that he had heard gun shots from his position in between mile 61 and 62.[80] At this spot there was a large pole, shipping containers, and a place to sit.[81] The team then traveled approximately 500 meters up the road and positioned themselves under some umbrellas by the roadside. The pole and shipping containers, from Murib’s testimony, were nowhere in sight. Over four miles of road and the Hanekam tunnel separated Bebari from the site where Murib said he heard the shots.[82] But the military reconstruction team refused to travel further up the road.
Albert Bolang traveled with a separate team, a Brimob mobile police unit, to the site of the shooting at mile 63. Once both teams were in place, 20 bullets were shot in an automatic burst. Radio contact was made between the two groups. The reconstruction team and Bebari did not hear the gunshots. Brigadier General Hendarji, who headed the military reconstruction team, confronted Bebari as they stood on the road immediately after the shooting experiment. Bebari recounted Hendarji saying “Since you did not hear any gunshots then Murib’s testimony about the Timika shooting was a lie.”[83]
Deminikus Bebari told us “Decky might be a drunkard and an opportunist but he was at mile 62. How could we test whether he had heard the shots or not when I was placed four miles away from his position?”[84] In January 2003, Decky Murib was flown to Jakarta by Indonesian military officials.[85] Major General Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, the Indonesian military spokesman, announced on 14 January 2003: “Decky Murib lied.”[86]
The reconstruction took place at the height of President Megawati Sukarnoputri’s effort to restore military ties with the United States. Her chief security minister, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, told reporters, “There are some things that do not match between the investigation results of the police and the results of the TNI internal investigation into the case.” Yudhoyono called for a “synchronization” of the two investigations at “the political level.”[87]
Recovering from her gunshot wounds, and mourning her lost husband, Patsy Spier closely followed the news as police investigators implicated Indonesian military troops in the attack. When the Indonesian military took over the investigation, and promptly exonerated themselves, Spier began her campaign for justice. After making a few tear-choked phone calls to the offices of Washington policy makers, she learned that the US government was poised to fund the controversial International Military Education and Training (IMET) program for Indonesian soldiers. “I just, I just couldn’t believe it,” Spier told ABC reporters, “If the Indonesian police had implicated the Indonesian military, why would my government want to give money to that military?”[88]
The Bush administration made military aid to Indonesia a high priority in the post-September 11th[89] When Spier first came to Capitol Hill in early 2003, human rights groups—Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the East Timor Action Network—were losing a battle to keep restrictions on Indonesian military financing. era. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation in the world. Following the Santa Cruz massacre in East Timor, the U.S. Congress had blocked military aid to Indonesia in 1992. All military assistance to Indonesia had been cut by the Clinton administration in response to the bloodbath during the 1999 independence referendum in East Timor.
Spier’s presentations to lawmakers were well received. She secured meetings with some of the top U.S. government officials: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, FBI director Robert Mueller, key Senators, and Congressmen.[90] Spier also met FBI agents Paul Myers, Brad Dierdorf, and Ron Eowan, men who she came to see as her personal “guardian angels.”[91]
Initially FBI agents were only permitted short visits to Timika. All their interviews of witnesses were, at first, conducted in the presence of Indonesian minders.[92] “We were objective,” said Dierdorf during the interrogation of a witness on 24 February 2005. “Our gut feeling initially leaned away from Papuans,” Dierdorf said. The Australian published a sensational headline on 28 October 2002, “FBI: Army Lied about Papua Ambush.”[93] This story discussed the planting of false evidence and removal of other evidence from the scene of the killing. Despite repeated high-level requests from the U.S. government, including a personal appeal by President Bush, the FBI had continual difficulties in gaining access to witnesses and material evidence.[94]
Spier saw that restricting funds for the Indonesian military would provide a financial incentive for cooperation. Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) later sponsored an amendment to prohibit “normalization” of the U.S.-Indonesia military relationship. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) sponsored a parallel amendment that prohibited the release of $600,000 in IMET military training funds. Both amendments passed in October 2003. Only “full cooperation” with the FBI in its investigation into the Timika ambush would prompt Washington to release these funds to the Indonesian military.
These congressional measures stymied Bush administration efforts to restore full military ties with Indonesia. Edmund McWilliams, formerly a U.S. Embassy political counselor in Jakarta, told us, “The FBI investigation, once it was finally launched, proceeded in the constraining political context of an administration policy which was pressing for rapid expansion of U.S.-Indonesian military ties. I personally observed FBI reluctance to accept or pursue information offered to it that pointed to Indonesian military involvement in the killings.”[95]
Over a two-year period, Elsham’s John Rumbiak presented the FBI with specific details about Wamang’s ties to the Indonesian military.[96] Senator Joseph R. Biden submitted written questions about this case to Dr. Condoleezza Rice during her January 19, 2005, confirmation hearing for the position of U.S. Secretary of State. Dr. Rice responded, “Although the investigation is not complete, the FBI has uncovered no evidence indicating TNI involvement in the Timika murders.” Did FBI investigators brief administration officials about Wamang’s trip to Jakarta and his extensive contacts with military agents? Were U.S. leaders informed about eyewitness reports of a second group of shooters?
Decky Murib was brought as a prosecution witness in the defamation suit against Elsham on 31 March 2004 in Jayapura, the capital of Papua. During the course of the trial, Murib stayed in the personal guest quarters of the Indonesian military commander for Papua. On 14 April 2004, the Elsham legal defense team staged a walk-out because the judges would not give them the opportunity to cross-examine Murib. The Elsham defense team was finally given the opportunity to question Murib on 5 May 2004, but Murib refused to answer any questions. On three separate occasions, Murib made death threats to Bebari, the human rights worker, in front of the court. The Elsham defense team asked that the judges take note of the threats. If bodily harm should come to their witness, the Elsham defense team observed, Murib would be suspected as the perpetrator.
Approximately one month later Bebari’s house was ransacked by an angry mob. A group of men wielding axes entered the house and grabbed Bebari’s wife, Nirmala Ohee, and their three children. The men destroyed books, clothes, and other personal property. They threatened to kill Nirmala Ohee and the children.[97]
On 24 June 2004, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that Antonius Wamang had been indicted for the murders at mile 63. The indictment alleged that Wamang was a guerilla fighter seeking independence from Indonesia. The U.S. Department of Justice did not exonerate the Indonesian military, but the Indonesian military subsequently claimed exoneration.
Less than one week after Wamang’s indictment, the Jayapura district court found Elsham guilty of libel. The rights group was fined 50 million rupiah ($5,300 USD) on 30 June 2004 and ordered to publicly apologize through national print and television media.[98]
Following the indictment, the U.S. Congress dropped provisions that tied military education programs in Indonesia to cooperation in the Timika investigation. Yet, Indonesian authorities failed to capture Wamang. Willy Mandowen, a Papuan politician, began talking with the FBI and U.S. government officials about negotiating Wamang’s surrender. He sent an e-mail to a public discussion forum for Papuan activists on 7 December 2005: “Tomorrow at Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., we are meeting with important representatives of the U.S. Congress who are giving full support to help us resolve our problems in West Papua.”[99] Congressional staffers talked with Mandowen about the possibility that FBI agents might bring Wamang to stand trial in America.[100]
With Willy Mandowen’s help, Paul Myers and Ron Eowan of the FBI coordinated an 11 January 2006 “meeting” at a small hotel in Timika called Amole Dua.[101] Invitations to this meeting were sent to suspects via Reverend Isak Onawame, a local church leader who is known internationally for his work on human rights. The Washington Post reported that the FBI pledged to transport the suspects to the U.S. for trial.[102] At the hotel, the two FBI agents told the 12 men attending the meeting, including Antonius Wamang and Reverend Onawame, to get into the back of a medium-sized truck. The agents reportedly promised to drive the men to the Timika airport and fly them out of Indonesia. Instead of driving to the airport, Myers and Eowan dropped the men at a local police station where Indonesian troops with the elite Brimob unit were waiting.[103]
Reverend Onawame was strip searched, deprived of sleep, and interrogated at the police station along with the other detainees. Another detainee, an elderly man named Jairus Kibak, says he was hit by an Indonesian interrogator on his forehead. Four of the men, who were never charged with any crime, were released the next day.[104]
Reverend Onawame was not released. Denny Yomaki of Elsham Papua, who met with Reverend Onawame in prison, said, “Interrogators extracted a false confession from Reverend Onawame. He told the police that he gave Wamang food.” Antonius Wamang has repeatedly said that Reverend Isak Onawame was not involved in the crime. “It’s fine if I am held responsible,” Wamang said, “but, the Reverend didn’t even help us with logistics.”[105]
The prisoners were soon transferred to the Indonesian Police Headquarters’ detention center in Jakarta. They were not given their own cells to sleep in. Instead they all shared the prison "TV room." Hardi Tsugumol, who was charged with providing Wamang with logistical support, developed serious heart problems in June 2006. His medical treatment was delayed until late August, when he underwent heart surgery. Tsugumol also suffered from hepatitis and HIV/AIDS. One of the prisoners’ lawyers, Riando Tambunan, repeatedly asked the court to attend to Tsugumol’s health problems. But, visits from doctors were infrequent.
Judicial proceedings in Indonesia differ markedly from the United States, where Wamang thought he would be tried when he surrendered to the FBI. In Indonesia evidence is not evaluated by a jury, but instead by a government appointed team. The role of "prosecutor" and "judge" (hakim) are not easily distinguished. In Indonesia, hakim who do not toe the government line have been assassinated. Evidence of Indonesian military involvement in the murder was not presented to the court by the defense team who represented Wamang and the other defendants. The defense team did not have funding available to conduct proper discovery research.
Antonius Wamang was sentenced to life in prison by a Jakarta court on 7 November 2006. Two other defendants, teenagers Johny Kacamol and Yulianus Deikme, were sentenced to seven years in jail, while the other four, including Reverend Onawame, Hardi Tsugumol and the two church workers, were sentenced to 18 months.[106] Tsugumol died on December 1st.
No charges have been brought against Sergeant Puji, the police officer who Wamang has fingered as supplier of the bullets used in the attack. Evidence of the reported involvement of Kopassus military agents—Captain Margus Arifin, First Lieutenant Wawan Suwandi, Second Class Sergeant I Wayan Suradnya, and First Class Private Jufri Uswanas—has not been heard by a court of law. Agus Anggaibak, who reportedly inspired Wamang’s attack and helped him get bullets, is now a member of the government regional assembly in Timika.
The FBI does not yet consider this murder case closed.[107] Despite the inconclusive outcome of this investigation, the Bush administration has launched aggressive new military aid programs for Indonesia. Earlier last year a new Pentagon program was announced that will provide up to $19 million in additional funds for building Indonesian military capacity. The same day that Wamang was sentenced to life, Washington signaled a “new era of military co-operation” with Indonesia.[108]
***
This report is based on interviews with Antonius Wamang, Decky Murib, Patsy Spier and more than 50 other sources in Timika, Jayapura, Jakarta and Washington DC. It is sponsored by the Joyo Indonesia News in New York and Pantau media group in Jakarta. S. Eben Kirksey is completing his doctorate at the University of California in Santa Cruz about the idea of freedom (merdeka) in Papua. Andreas Harsono is a Pantau journalist, currently writing his book, “From Sabang to Merauke: Debunking the Myth of Indonesian Nationalism.”
[1] Antonius Wamang, tape-recorded interview with SEK on 25 March 2005 in Kwamki Lama, Timika; interview with AH on 8-9 October 2006 in Jakarta.
[2] S. Sularto, 'Mereka yang Terpaksa Mengungsi', Kompas (Jakarta), 28 November 1977, pp. 7-8; Carmel Budiardjo and Liem Sioe Liong, West Papua, pp. 119-20; Robin Osborne, Indonesia's Secret War, p. 145.
[3] Budiardjo and Liem, West Papua, pp. 119-24.
[4] Wamang, 25 March 2005; John Rumbiak, SEK interview, 24 February 2005, Washington DC.
[5] Janes Natkime, AH interview 6 November 2006. Original quote: “Agus Anggaibak yang atur, lobby tentara, Agus yang setel semua, atur uang.”
[6] An activist attended the meeting and copied the specifications of the gun down in his notebook. SEK saw this notebook, 24 March 2005 in Timika.
[7] Wamang, 25 March 2005; John Rumbiak, 24 February 2005.
[8] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika; Deminikus Bebari interview with AH 13 October 2006 in Jakarta.
[9] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[10] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[11] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[12] Herry Blaponte and Mahmud Trikasno, AH interview, 6 November 2006. Police chief commissioner Dzainal Syarief, who headed the Indonesian police investigation on the Mile 63 case, declined to comment for this story. AH showed Wamang’s photo to five other hotel employees. None remembered his face. They said they have many guests. The guest book does not show either Wamang’s name nor his alias P. Amug.
[13] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika
[14] John Rumbiak, SEK interview, 24 February 2005. Wamang, 25 March 2005.
[15] Eltinus Omaleng, AH interview in Jakarta, 6 November 2006.
[16] Like Papua, Aceh is an Indonesian province seeking independence from Indonesia. It declared independence in December 1976. Aceh guerilla fighters regularly attacked Indonesian military positions. In 2001, some of the worst attacks happened in Aceh. Arms circulated easily in Aceh. Only in August 2005, the Free Acheh guerillas agreed to sign a peace agreement with Jakarta.
[17] Wamang, 25 March 2005; 8-9 October 2006.
[18] Wamang, 25 March 2005; 8-9 October 2006. Indonesian original: “Harus kami jual ke Aceh.”
[19] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[20] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[21] Interview Antonius Wamang with SEK on 25 March 2005, Timika and with AH on 9 October 2006, Jakarta. Also Yulianus Deikme with AH 9 October 2006 in Jakarta.
[22] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika and 9 October 2006, Jakarta.
[23] Deminikus Bebari, “Kesaksiaan Saudara Hardi Tsugumol Tentang Pelaku Penembakan di Mill 63.”
[24] Hardi Tsugumol, 22 March 2005, interview with SEK in Timika.
[25] Bebari, “Kesaksiaan Saudara Hardi Tsugumol Tentang Pelaku Penembakan di Mill 63,” Original reads: Hardy Tsugumol sangat sibuk dengan persiapan rencana aksi damai di sekitar terowongan ruas jalan Timika-Tembagapura, menyangkut : BAMA (Bahan Makanan) serta kelengkapan lainnya. Menghubungi teman-temannya anggota (Militer) untuk membeli Amunisi yang berjumlah 300 Butir, dengan harga Rp, 600.000 melaui salah satu temannya yang anggota Kopassus.” AH checked this information with Bebari in Jakarta, 13 November 2006.
[26] Bebari, “Kesaksiaan Saudara Hardi Tsugumol Tentang Pelaku Penembakan di Mill 63,” Original reads: Mereka dijemput oleh Mobil PT. Freeport Indonesia yang digunakan oleh Department Army (EPO) di Kompleks Pompa Dua Kwamki lama.
[27] AH interview with Lexy Lintuuran and Saul Tahapary, respectively PT Freeport Indonesia’s senior manager on corporate security and security consultant, in Jakarta on 6 November 2006.
[28] Kwamki Lama neighborhood is located near Timika. One has to pass five checkpoints manned by Freeport’s security and the Indonesian military to reach Mile 63. The five checkpoints include Mile 28, Mile 32, Mile 34, Mile 50 (one of the strictest) and Mile 58.
[29] “Kesaksian Deky Murib di Polda Papua Tentang Penembakan di Mile 62-63 Tembagapura”, Polda, Jayapura, 18 September 2002. “Saran Tindak Lanjut BAP Saksi Sdr Decky Murib (TBO Kopassus)”, Timika, 28 September 2002.
[30] PT Freeport Indonesia Corporate Communications Department, Pedoman Kunjungan, Jakarta, August 2005. This manual prints a map of the mining area with the military posts or “Milpos.”
[31] Lintuuran, AH interview in Jakarta, 6 November 2006. Original quote: “Mereka seenaknya saja, mereka masa bodoh. Yang tidak bisa kita kendalikan hanya mobil-mobil keamanan.”
[32] Lintuuran, AH interview in Jakarta, 6 November 2006.
[33] Patsy Spier in AH interview in Jakarta, 13 October 2006.
[34] Dana Priest, “Nightmare and a Mystery,” Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01.
[35] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika. Original reads: Kalo bunyi sama-sama, berarti tidak bisa dengar... Kalau saya duluan berarti, itu bisa.
[36] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[37] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika. Surat Dakwaan, Kejaksaan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, Juni 2006
[38] Patsy Spier in AH interview in Jakarta, 13 October 2006. Patsy drew the seating positions inside the two vehicles. It is consistent with previous media reports, such as, “Freeport victim's quest for answers leads to Australia” in the Sidney Morning Herald, 27 February 2003.
[39] Patsy Spier in AH interview in Jakarta, 13 October 2006.
[40] Priest, “A Nightmare, and a Mystery,” page A01.
[41] Dudon Satiaputra, “Rahasia: Laporan Hasil Sementara Pemeriksaan TKP Penembakan Kary. PT. Freeport,” Jakarta, 19 December 2002.
[42] Patsy Spier in AH interview in Jakarta, 13 October 2006.
[43] Bebari, “Kesaksian Saudara Yonan Jikwa dan Kamame Mom Tentang Aksi Pnembakan di Mill 63 Ruas Jalan Timika-Tembagapura.”
[44] Patsy Spier in AH interview in Jakarta, 13 October 2006.
[45] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[46] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[47] Priest, “A Nightmare, and a Mystery,” page A01.
[48] Lintuuran, AH interview in Jakarta, 6 November 2006.
[49] Priest, “A Nightmare, and a Mystery,” page A01.
[50] Dudon Satiaputra, “Rahasia: Laporan Hasil Sementara Pemeriksaan TKP Penembakan Kary. PT. Freeport,” Jakarta, 19 December 2002.
[51] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika.
[52] Surat Dakwaan Antonius Wamang, Kejaksaan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, Juni 2006
[53] Dudon Satiaputra, “Rahasia: Laporan Hasil Sementara Pemeriksaan TKP Penembakan Kary. PT. Freeport,” Jakarta, 19 December 2002.
[54] Dudon Satiaputra, “Rahasia: Laporan Hasil Sementara Pemeriksaan TKP Penembakan Kary. PT. Freeport,” Jakarta, 19 December 2002.
[55] Wamang, 25 March 2005, Timika. 8-9 October 2006.
[56] Quoted in Priest, “A Nightmare, and a Mystery,” page A01.
[57] Quoted in “Paying for Protection: The Freeport Mine and the Indonesian Security Forces”, a report by Global Witness, July 2005, p. 4. Captain Margus Arifin, the leader of the rogue soldiers at the scene of the crime according to Decky Murib, received USD$46,000 in March 2002 according to Global Witness.
[58] “Paying for Protection: The Freeport Mine and the Indonesian Security Forces”, a report by Global Witness, July 2005, p. 4.
[59] “Ringkasan Laporan,” Elsham Papua, 14 August 2003.
[60] “Ringkasan Laporan,” Elsham Papua, 14 August 2003.
[61] “Peristiwa 1 September 2002,” internal document, Polda Papua.
[62] “Ringkasan Laporan,” Elsham Papua, 14 August 2003.
[63] “Peristiwa 1 September 2002,” internal document, Polda Papua, Original reads: “MR. X diduga bukan TSK pelaku yg sebenarnya di TKP Mile 62.” “Audiensi Team Investigasi Els-Ham Papua Dgn Polda Papua,” Kantor Polres M-32, Mimika, 11 September 2002.
[64] Dudon Satiaputra, “Rahasia: Laporan Hasil Sementara Pemeriksaan TKP Penembakan Kary. PT. Freeport,” Jakarta, 19 December 2002.
[65] Elsham Papua, “What Happened at Freeport”, September 26, 2002.
[66] Andi Imran to Yohanis Bonai, “Somasi”, 15 November 2002.
[67] Alberth Rumbekwan, “Kronologi Peristiwa Pembongkaran Kantor Perwakilan Elsham Papua di Jakarta”, sent to westpapua@topica.com on 16 October 2002.
[68] “Office of Rights Group Probing Papua Shootings Attacked”, The Jakarta Post, 28 October 2002.
[69] Nethy Dharma Somba, “Wife of Human Rights Activist Shot at Papua-PNG Border”, The Jakarta Post, 29 December 2002.
[70] “Shooting of Papuan Human Rights Activist’s Family May Be Related to Timika Incident”, Tempo Interactive, 28 December 2003 20:54:13 WIB.
[71] Soal Penembakan Di Timika Belum Ada Bukti Keterlibatan TNI, 09 Jan 2003, Available online: http://www.tni.mil.id/news.php?q=dtl&id=232
[72] Dudon Satiaputra, “Rahasia: Laporan Hasil Sementara Pemeriksaan TKP Penembakan Kary. PT. Freeport”, Jakarta, 19 December 2002. “Police say Indonesian Army Behind Papua Ambush”, Agence France Presse, 26 December 2002.
[73] Tom Hyland “Police Blame Army for Papua Ambush”, The Age, 27 December 2002; “Police say Indonesian Army Behind Papua Ambush”, Agence France Presse, 26 December 2002.
[74] Interview Saul Tahapary with AH 6 November 2006 in Jakarta. Original quote: Mas, negara ini khan punya kita semua. Kalau demi bangsa dan negara, ya kasih tahu dulu, supaya kita ini tidak repot semua.” According to Tahapary, Pastika made this statement to Maj. Gen. M. Yasin (deputi Menko Polkam bidang Politik Dalam Negeri), Brig. Gen. Mamat Rachmat and Drs. Yudho of Coordinating Minister on Security and Politics Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s office.
[75] Saferstien, Richard. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, 7th Edition. Prentice Hall (2001), p. 69.
[76] Decky Murib, tape-recorded interview with SEK on 26 March 2005. Indonesian original: “Bapa mau temabak saya, silahkan.”
[77] “Saran Tindak Lanjut BAP Saksi Sdr Decky Murib (TBO Kopassus)”, Timika, 28 September 2002.
[78] Decky Murib, tape-recorded interview with SEK on 26 March 2005.
[79] Decky Murib, tape-recorded interview with SEK on 26 March 2005.
[80] “Berita Acara Pemeriksaan (BAP) Saksi Penembakan di Mile 63 Ruas Jalan Timika-Tembagapura 31 August 2002”, report on interview with Decky Murib by Lemassa, 7 September 2002.
[81] “Kesaksian Deky Murib di Polda Papua Tentang Penembakan di Mile 62-63 Tembagapura”, Polda, Jayapura, 18 September 2002.
[82] Deminikus Bebari, “Kronologi Pemeriksaan Saksi (Decky Murib) oleh Puspom TNI atas Aksi Penembakan Mill 63 Ruas Jalan Timika-Tembagapura”, 6 January 2003.
[83] Deminikus Bebari, “Kronologi Pemeriksaan Saksi (Decky Murib) oleh Puspom TNI atas Aksi Penembakan Mill 63 Ruas Jalan Timika-Tembagapura”, 6 January 2003.
[84] Deminikus Bebari interview with AH, Jakarta, 13 November 2006.
[85] Deminikus Bebari interview with AH, Jakarta, 13 November 2006.
[86] Kapuspen Tni : Kesaksian Decky Murib Bohong, 14 Jan 2003, Available on-line: http://www.tni.mil.id/news.php?q=dtl&id=239
[87] Tom Hyland “Police Blame Army for Papua Ambush”, The Age, 27 December 2002.
[88] Anthony Balmain, “Ambush in Papua”, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 7 August 2004.
[89] Dana Priest, “Nightmare and a Mystery”, Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01.
[90] Tim Shorrock, “Murder, She Said”, Mother Jones, March-April 2004.
[91] Patsy Spier, personal communication, Santa Cruz, 22 May 2004.
[92] Dana Priest, “Nightmare and a Mystery”, Sunday, 22 June 2003; Page A01.
[93] Don Greenlees, “Army Lied about Papua Ambush”, The Australian, 28 October 2002.
[94] Matthew Moore, “Find Freeport Killers, Bush Tells Megawati”, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 December 2002.
[95] Ed McWilliams, “FBI”, e-mail sent to SEK on 4 November 2006.
[96] John Rumbiak, SEK interview on 5 February 2005.
[97] Deminikus Bebari, SEK interview on 24 March 2005 in Timika and 20 July 2005 in Washington D.C.
[98] “Rights Group Loses Libel Suit, Fined Rp 50m” The Jakarta Post, 1 July 2004.
[99] Willy Mandowen, “Kami Tidak Berpesta Atas Keringat Orang!”, sent to komunitas_papua@yahoogroups.com from wmandowen@yahoo.com on 7 December 2005. Indonesian original reads: Sekedar info bahwa esok 08 Desember 2005 pukul 16:00 bertempat di capitol hill Washington DC kami akan bersua dengan wakil-wakil penting Kongres AS yang telah memberi dukungan terhadap penyelesaian secara menyeluruh dan manusiawi masalah Papua Barat.”
[100] Octovianus Mote, SEK interview, 11 January 2006.
[101] Ellen Nakashima, “FBI Said Involved in Arrest of 8 Indonesians”, The Washington Post, 14 January 2006.
[102] Ellen Nakashima, “FBI Said Involved in Arrest of 8 Indonesians”, The Washington Post, 14 January 2006.
[103] Raymond Bonner, “Indonesian Man Links Military to Shooting of U.S. Teachers”, The New York Times, 14 January 2006.
[104] Ellen Nakashima, “FBI Said Involved in Arrest of 8 Indonesians”, The Washington Post, 14 January 2006.
[105] Wamang interview with AH, 9 October 2006
[106] “Wamang Divonis Seumur Hidup” Pikiran Rakyat, 8 November 2006.
[107] Patsy Spier e-mail to SEK on 2 December 2006.
[108] “US: Washington Signals New Era of Military Co-operation”, Radio Australia, 11 November 2006.
see also U.S.-Indonesia Military Assistance page
Radio special: The Wire: Timika Killings
Download Timika Killings in MP3 format Part A, Part B
Produced by Erica Vowles
A new report looking into the killings of two US civilians and one Indonesian near the Timika Freeport mine in West Papua in 2002 presents strong evidence of involvement by the Indonesian military in the killings. Seven West Papuans were convicted last November for the murders. But University of California academic Eben Kirksey and Indonesian journalist and author Andreas Harsono, are raising concerns about not only the rule of law in Indonesia but also the continued power of the military to act with impunity. They provide fresh insights from Freeport mine employees and human rights workers involved in the case plus new evidence that the Indonesian military may have known about a planned attack near the Freeport mine a year before the deaths. Their views will undoubtedly put pressure on the Indonesian government to reopen the case. This exclusive report by Erica Vowles begins with former US political secretary to the US Embassy in Jakarta, Edmund McWilliams, who now works within the NGO community.
Government Predicts 'Millions to Rebel' in Britain Over ID Cards
From
April 8, 2007
‘Millions to rebel’ over ID cards
The government is predicting that some 15m people will revolt against Tony Blair’s controversial ID card scheme by refusing to produce the new cards or provide personal data on demand.
The forecast is made in documents released by the Home Office under the Freedom of Information Act. The papers show ministers expect national protests similar to the poll tax rebellions of the Thatcher era, with millions prepared to risk criminal prosecution.
Opposition MPs said the new documents proved their case that the programme would never work. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: “This will cripple the system. Fifteen million is a massive number. What the Home Office is accepting in private, but refuses to accept in public, is that a massive number of ordinary law-abiding citizens simply will not go along with their scheme.”
Davis, whose party’s policy is to scrap the cards, added: “This will render it completely useless as a security or check mechanism of any sort.”
The documents, quietly released during parliament’s Easter break, also show that the government is planning to make ID cards compulsory in 2014, despite the expected revolt.
The first cards are due in 2009, alongside new passports. Labour has said it will make the scheme compulsory if it wins the next election.
EU: Shopping list could make you 'a terror suspect'
Related
27 April 2002: Eurofile: £33m budget passed for Euro-CIA
---
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
27 April 2002: Eurofile: £33m budget passed for Euro-CIA
---
By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 1:10am BST 09/04/2007
The European Union's privacy watchdog has given warning that new access for Europol to personal data could lead to individuals being labelled as terror suspects based on hearsay or records of their shopping habits. The warning, from the head of the European Data Protection supervisor, comes amid moves to allow the EU police agency to process so-called "soft data" in search of relevant information for its criminal investigations. Peter Hustinx said that moves to give Europol the power to gather intelligence on "people who have not (yet) committed a crime" are without privacy safeguards. He told The Daily Telegraph: "The proposal does not specify what data could be used in criminal investigations. It could be everything. It could be a vital detail such as an insurance company about a stolen car. But it could also be soft data, behavioural data." The information could include statements of hearsay given to a local police force or data on personal shopping habits from a supermarket loyalty card, he said. Under the new Europol rules, expected to be agreed by governments later this year, people will be unable to find out what information is held on them unless all 27 EU police forces unanimously grant permission. Sayed Kamall, the Conservative Euro-MP, shares the watchdog's fears and is concerned that "behavioural data" will lead to ethnic profiling. "For example, someone who purchases kosher meat and never shops on the sabbath, or who buys halal meat but not alcohol, can easily be categorised and every purchase scrutinised, no matter how innocent it may be," he said. Mr Hustinx, a Dutchman with decades of experience as a national privacy watchdog and data protection at the European level, is worried at the absence of proper safeguards to ensure the reliability of "soft data". He said that individuals could easily be identified as suspects, giving the example of someone seen standing next to a terror suspect at a bus stop and becoming labelled "a facilitator for terrorism". Max-Peter Ratzel, Europol's director, said that European law enforcers needed to update and extend the scope of intelligence gathering - which is unchanged since the EU police agency was set up in the early 1990s. "Our databases are on organised or serious international crime so I would assume that ordinary citizens would not have any possibility of being there," he said. |
Another Enemy of the People? : Prof who criticised Bush put on Terror Watch List
Another Enemy of the People?
Mark Graber
I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people."On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."
"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."
"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "
"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."
"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."
"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "
Posted 11:17 AM by Mark Graber [link]
Gonzales Crams for a Senate Grilling; Can't Keep His Story Straight
Gonzales Crams for a Senate Grilling
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
April 16, 2007 issue - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has virtually wiped his public schedule clean to bone up for his long-awaited April 17 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee—a session widely seen as a crucial test as to whether he will survive the U.S. attorney mess. But even his own closest advisers are nervous about whether he is up to the task. At a recent "prep" for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales's performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances. During the March 23 session in the A.G.'s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers—including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan—about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and "getting his timeline confused," said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting. His advisers finally got "exasperated" with him, the source added. "He's not ready," Tasia Scolinos, Gonzales's public-affairs chief, told the A.G.'s top aides after the session was over, said the source. Asked for comment, Scolinos told NEWSWEEK: "This was the first session of this kind that we'd done."
One problem is that Gonzales is increasingly isolated. Top DOJ lawyers have decreed he can't talk about the U.S. attorney firings with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and his staff, who are key witnesses in an internal Justice inquiry into whether DOJ officials misled Congress. (Any consultation could be viewed as an attempt to "coordinate" their stories.) With his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, forced to resign, Gonzales has no trusted aide who both knows the facts about the firings and has political skills, according to a top DOJ official who asked not to be named talking about internal matters. Courtney Elwood, a former deputy to Dick Cheney's chief counsel David Addington, who is now working for Gonzales, has taken on a bigger role, shutting down responses to most inquiries from Congress and the news media because she views the firings flap as a purely "legal" issue. "There's nobody quarterbacking this," said another frustrated administration official, who asked not to be identified for the same reasons. "The department is in a state of paralysis." But Gonzales remains determined to make his case. He is spending hours alone in his office, poring over documents and calling members of Congress; his staff is planning "murder board" sessions later this week where outsiders may be brought in to play the roles of Judiciary chair Sen. Patrick Leahy or Sen. Chuck Schumer. Gonzales is likely to start out next week's hearing with a more expansive mea culpa. "The attorney general definitely regrets how this situation has been handled," said Scolinos. "But he firmly believes that nothing improper was done."
Iraqi Gov Insider Blasts US Occupation As "Corroded, Inefficient, Incompetent And Corrupt"
[April 8, 2007, 10:00 pm]
"(AP) Iraqi Insider Details U.S. Mismanagement"
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
NEW YORK
In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country _ a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."
"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.
Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.
The U.S.- and British-educated engineer and financier is the first senior Iraqi official to look back at book length on his country's four-year ordeal. It's an unsparing look at failures both American and Iraqi, an account in which the word "ignorance" crops up repeatedly.
First came the "monumental ignorance" of those inWashington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.
What followed was the "rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance" of the occupation, under L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which took big steps with little consultation with Iraqis, steps Allawi and many others see as blunders:
_ The Americans disbanded Iraq's army, which Allawi said could have helped quell a rising insurgency in 2003. Instead, hundreds ofthousands of demobilized, angry men became a recruiting pool for the resistance.
_ Purging tens of thousands of members of toppled President Saddam Hussein's Baath party _ from government, school faculties and elsewhere _ left Iraq short on experienced hands at a crucial time.
_ An order consolidating decentralized bank accounts at the Finance Ministry bogged down operations of Iraq's many state-owned enterprises.
_ The CPA's focus on private enterprise allowed the "commercial gangs" of Saddam's day to monopolize business.
_ Its free-trade policy allowed looted Iraqi capitalequipment to be spirited away across borders.
_ The CPA perpetuated Saddam's fuel subsidies, selling gasoline at giveaway prices and draining the budget.
In his 2006 memoir of the occupation, Bremer wrote that senior U.S. generals wanted to recall elements of the old Iraqi army in 2003, but were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Bremer complained generally that his authority was undermined by Washington's "micromanagement."
Although Allawi, a cousin of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister in 2004, is a member of a secularist Shiite Muslim political grouping, his well-researched bookbetrays little partisanship.
On U.S. reconstruction failures _ in electricity, health care and other areas documented by Washington's own auditors _ Allawi writes that the Americans' "insipid retelling of `success' stories" merely hid "the huge black hole that lay underneath."
For their part, U.S. officials have often largely blamed Iraq's explosive violence for the failures of reconstruction and poor governance.
The author has been instrumental since 2005 in publicizing extensive corruption within Iraq's "new order," including an $800-million Defense Ministry scandal. Under Saddam,he writes, the secret police kept would-be plunderers in check better than the U.S. occupiers have done.
As 2007 began, Allawi concludes, "America's only allies in Iraq were those who sought to manipulate the great power to their narrow advantage. It might have been otherwise."
Copyright 2007 by the Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
"(AP) Iraqi Insider Details U.S. Mismanagement"
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
NEW YORK
In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country _ a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."
"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.
Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.
The U.S.- and British-educated engineer and financier is the first senior Iraqi official to look back at book length on his country's four-year ordeal. It's an unsparing look at failures both American and Iraqi, an account in which the word "ignorance" crops up repeatedly.
First came the "monumental ignorance" of those inWashington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.
What followed was the "rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance" of the occupation, under L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which took big steps with little consultation with Iraqis, steps Allawi and many others see as blunders:
_ The Americans disbanded Iraq's army, which Allawi said could have helped quell a rising insurgency in 2003. Instead, hundreds ofthousands of demobilized, angry men became a recruiting pool for the resistance.
_ Purging tens of thousands of members of toppled President Saddam Hussein's Baath party _ from government, school faculties and elsewhere _ left Iraq short on experienced hands at a crucial time.
_ An order consolidating decentralized bank accounts at the Finance Ministry bogged down operations of Iraq's many state-owned enterprises.
_ The CPA's focus on private enterprise allowed the "commercial gangs" of Saddam's day to monopolize business.
_ Its free-trade policy allowed looted Iraqi capitalequipment to be spirited away across borders.
_ The CPA perpetuated Saddam's fuel subsidies, selling gasoline at giveaway prices and draining the budget.
In his 2006 memoir of the occupation, Bremer wrote that senior U.S. generals wanted to recall elements of the old Iraqi army in 2003, but were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Bremer complained generally that his authority was undermined by Washington's "micromanagement."
Although Allawi, a cousin of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister in 2004, is a member of a secularist Shiite Muslim political grouping, his well-researched bookbetrays little partisanship.
On U.S. reconstruction failures _ in electricity, health care and other areas documented by Washington's own auditors _ Allawi writes that the Americans' "insipid retelling of `success' stories" merely hid "the huge black hole that lay underneath."
For their part, U.S. officials have often largely blamed Iraq's explosive violence for the failures of reconstruction and poor governance.
The author has been instrumental since 2005 in publicizing extensive corruption within Iraq's "new order," including an $800-million Defense Ministry scandal. Under Saddam,he writes, the secret police kept would-be plunderers in check better than the U.S. occupiers have done.
As 2007 began, Allawi concludes, "America's only allies in Iraq were those who sought to manipulate the great power to their narrow advantage. It might have been otherwise."
Copyright 2007 by the Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
An Israeli Refusenik’s Good Fight
Features > April 6, 2007
One of Shapira's last flights in the Air Force in September 2003.
In September 2003, in the midst of Israel’s campaign of targeted assassinations against Palestinian terrorists, a 31-year-old Black Hawk helicopter pilot named Yonatan Shapira terrorized Israel’s military high command without committing a single act of violence.
In the Pilots’ Letter of Refusal that he authored and 26 other pilots signed, these historic words were written: “We, who were raised to love the state of Israel and contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in Air Force attacks on civilian population centers. … These actions are illegal and immoral, and are a direct result of the ongoing occupation which is corrupting all of Israeli society.” Reading those words to an audience of progressive Jews, he added, “We will continue to serve the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), but not the Israeli occupation forces.”
It wasn’t the first time Israeli soldiers refused to serve—dissident soldiers forged a movement called Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit) during the first Lebanese war in the early ’80s. Shapira’s letter, however, did mark the first time that pilots, the elite of the military and the darlings of society, defied military orders for reasons of conscience. They were promptly dismissed from the Air Force.
Shapira, the son of an Israeli pilot from an Ashkenazi family, is currently living with his girlfriend in Brooklyn and finishing his thesis for the European Center For Peace and Conflict Studies in Austria. His subjects are the Israeli pilots with whom he conducted countless hours of interviews.
How did the Israeli public react to you and to the other pilot-refusers?
There was a big uproar in the entire country. We had many supporters, and many opponents, of course. Yedioth Aharonoth, the biggest newspaper in Israel, and Channel Two, the popular TV station, presented the statements, the interviews, the filming we prepared with them in advance. It was a scoop.
We had a lot of support within the Air Force. Many pilots who didn’t agree to sign gave us moral support. The opposition, including Zionist leftists, called us traitors. People condemned us, but we were convinced, and still are, that we did the right thing for the country.
And those who ruled the country?
We made them feel afraid, vulnerable and weak, because we broke ranks, because we touched the very nerve of the system. It can’t work without obedience. That’s why the support we got from many pilots disturbed the Air Force and the government.
Following your own refusal, you called upon other pilots to say no to being pilots of the occupation. Didn’t that put you at risk of doing major jail time?
I understood by then that they would not imprison us, or put us on trial, because that would serve our interests. We don’t shoot or attack anyone. Our ammunition is public attention. We would have welcomed being charged with acting against an illegal and immoral occupation.
Tell me about Combatants For Peace, the group of former Israeli and Palestinian fighters that you belong to.
Early in 2005, my brother Zohar made contact with Sulaiman Al Hamri, a former Fatah fighter, in Bethlehem. Some weeks later a meeting took place between Israeli refuseniks and Palestinian ex-prisoners and fighters. We were suspicious of each other at first, but by telling our stories, we created a bond. We agreed that we should meet, dialogue, struggle together against the occupation. One of our actions was to help rebuild a Palestinian house that was destroyed by the army. Last April, we had a public lunch in a schoolyard in Anata, which was cut in two by the wall—60 Israeli and 60 Palestinian former fighters. We were joined by members of the European Parliament, even by members of the Knesset. The army fired a shock grenade over our heads.
Many in the Israeli peace movement supported the war in Lebanon. Why did they support it and you did not?
I think what differentiated us from groups like Shalom Achshav [Peace Now] was that, unlike them, we spent a lot of time in the occupied territories with the Palestinians, and with their suffering. We lost faith in our government and in the army. Many of my friends are against the occupation, but they still have faith in the government. They allowed themselves to be manipulated by the government. What was involved was a combination of basic fears, because we were attacked, and their buying into the idea that we could destroy Hezbollah.
What do you think about Defense Minister Amir Peretz, the former Labor Party leader whose name will forever be linked with the war in Lebanon?
Amir Peretz was a very sad example of someone in whom we had great hope, because he was not from the typical Ashkenazi [European Jewish] leftist background. Unfortunately, he was easy for the army to manipulate. He made an impressive statement before the elections: “There is no difference between a child in Gaza and a child in Sderot.” He was a lefty leader who spoke of peace and social justice, and was one of those responsible for the absolutely crazy war in Gaza, and the war in Lebanon after that. I guess it was smart of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to make him defense minister and ruin him completely.
What is known about the morale of Israeli soldiers who fought in Lebanon?
There was a lot of confusion in the way the war was conducted. Soldiers were fighting a guerrilla war that they were not prepared or trained for. Many had previously manned checkpoints or roadblocks in the occupied territories. Their experience was in policing the West Bank. Pilots complained that their targets were not well-chosen. Moshe Yaalon, the former chief of staff, has said that some of the operations, especially those at the end of the war, when many soldiers were brought in, were carried out to make it appear to the public that we had won a victory.
My brother Itamar was called up and refused to go to war. As a citizen, he felt the best way to protect his country was to try to prevent this war, to demonstrate against it, and to try to convince other soldiers not to go. He was jailed for eight days. Others were put in jail for four weeks. Some soldiers refused, but not publicly. I have a friend who called in to refuse. They told him, “OK, call us next week, and we may ask you to come in and talk with your commander.” He didn’t call, and nothing happened. But he was ready to go to jail.
What accounts for you and your brothers all being public dissidents?
We are just acting on the values we were raised with: democracy, equality, justice, caring about those who suffer. That’s what we were taught at home, that’s what we learned at school. Those values have been eroded by 40 years of occupation. But in the case of my brothers and I, and thousands of refusers and conscientious objectors, they are the values we live by.
Have you been threatened in Israel or the United States for speaking out?
I haven’t been seriously threatened in Israel and certainly not here.
Yes, I received threats in Israel. One veteran right wing pilot said that people like me who disobey orders in wartime should be “put against the wall.” But people these days are for the most part indifferent. And the foreign ministry said that our actions, and the fact that we weren’t punished, shows that Israel is a democracy. Politically, they made it work to their advantage.
What is your perspective on Israel since the war in Lebanon, which many believe Israel lost?
I had the feeling at the end of this war that something good may come out of this loss. We have been trained and educated to think that winning wars is always good, and that’s wrong. Having the strongest army, and being the most aggressive country, will not help us survive forever. To survive, we have to make peace with the Palestinians, with Syria, with Lebanon. I think this current generation of leaders will not lead us to that peace. That will happen only with massive international pressure, and when we have a new generation of leaders less controlled by fears and Holocaust syndromes. I see great potential in many of the young people now graduating high school, some of whom are going to jail instead of going into the army.
Also, you had reservists who came back from the war very disillusioned. They protested against Olmert, Peretz and IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, demanding that they resign. But at the same time, Israel is becoming more and more nationalistic. A Nazi commander at the Nuremberg trials said, it’s not hard to get people to go to war, just tell them they are being attacked. That’s what happened here. Even the Labor Party, with its “peace agenda” agreed to remain in the government when Olmert made Avigdor Lieberman, the head of the extreme right wing Yisrael Beiteinu [Our Home], deputy prime minister.
What can be done here in the United States to pressure Israel to end the occupation?
First of all, the military aid to Israel has to stop. This coming year [2007??] it will amount to $2.4 billion. Products from the settlements, and official representatives of the Israeli government should be boycotted. AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], which works against the interests of my country, should be replaced by more moderate Jewish organizations.
The majority of Jews in America must start to act and stop worshipping the State of Israel like it was God. Some people say it’s like the worship of the Golden Calf in the Bible. Idolatry.
By Robert Hirschfield
Robert Hirschfield is a New York-based writer who covers Israeli and Palestinian peace activists. He has written for The Progressive, The National Catholic Reporter and Sojourners.Giuliani: More Trouble for Kerik
Newsweek
April 16, 2007 issue - Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has issued apologies for recommending that the White House nominate Bernard Kerik as Homeland Security secretary. But the apologies have not staunched the flow of embarrassing revelations.
New questions have surfaced about why Kerik's nomination was withdrawn less than a week after it was announced. The White House said a "nanny problem" killed Kerik's nomination because Homeland Secretary is the nation's top immigration law enforcer. But nonpublic law-enforcement records obtained by NEWSWEEK suggest that Kerik was worried about other issues: around the time of his nomination, Kerik spoke by phone with two people with whom he had a potentially embarrassing history. According to the records, on Dec. 2, 2004, one day before President George W. Bush announced Kerik's nomination, three phone calls were logged between Kerik and New Jersey businessman Frank DiTommaso. A few weeks earlier, DiTommaso's construction firms had been described in court testimony as mob connected. (DiTommaso and his company have denied wrongdoing.)
Shortly after the nomination, Kerik exchanged several phone calls with Jeannette Pinero, a New York prison guard with whom he had an affair. "I don't know what they were discussing," says Pinero's lawyer, Andrew Laufer. "They were friends." At the time, both Kerik and Pinero were about to give depositions in a lawsuit which accused Kerik of retaliating, while serving as New York City prison chief, against a guard who crossed Pinero. Similar calls were made before the Dec. 10 announcement that Kerik's nomination would be canceled. Two days before the withdrawal, Kerik and DiTommaso exchanged three calls. On the day the nomination crashed, Kerik and Pinero exchanged three calls; the last one was about an hour before the White House pulled Kerik's nomination. The records also show more than a dozen calls between DiTommaso and Kerik after the withdrawn nomination.
Federal prosecutors in New York have informed Kerik that he is a "target" of a criminal investigation into possible tax problems, illegal wiretapping and making false statements in an FBI questionnaire connected to Kerik's nomination. Earlier this year, said two legal sources (who asked for anonymity due to the ongoing investigation), Kerik's lawyers agreed with prosecutors to extend the statute of limitations for the Kerik probe until next October. A lawyer for Kerik said he couldn't comment, a spokesperson for Giuliani had no comment and a lawyer for DiTommaso couldn't be reached for comment.
Cost Of Iraq War Filters Down To States And Cities
Apr 8, 2007 3:33 pm US/Mountain
by Steven K. Paulson, AP Writer
(AP) DENVER The cost of the Iraq war is filtering down to state and local budgets, forcing cuts in transportation funding, Medicaid, education and other federally subsidized programs, according to analysts and lawmakers.
Just how big that impact has been is unclear. What state lawmakers do say is that the $456 billion already spent or appropriated for the war could have gone a long way toward helping them balance their own budgets.
In Colorado, lawmakers expect to lose about $200 million in federal funding for the next fiscal year, forcing the state to cut back on programs that receive federal money.
"These are funds that we aren't going to receive. Low Energy Assistance Program, $9.8 million, gone. Head Start, $3.7 million, gone. Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1.1 million. Community Development Block Grant, $13.5 million. Special Ed, $8.8 million," House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said during a debate Thursday over a state resolution opposing the escalation of the war in Iraq.
"Also, we're not going to get the Criminal Alien Assistance Program to house criminal aliens, $5 million that was promised and now isn't coming," Madden said. "This is why it's important to take a stand. The more money that's spent over there means our citizens in this state aren't going to get services they need."
Joy Wilson, director of health policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C., said the war in Iraq is affecting state and local government spending, but it's impossible to tell how much. She said other factors are influencing the federal budget, including President Bush's pledge to balance the budget by 2012, rising health care and fuel costs, and tax cuts that Bush has refused to rescind.
"That said, Iraq is certainly a part of the mix," Wilson said, noting other states are also being forced to cut back because domestic spending has been almost flat for the past two years.
According to the Colorado Municipal League, Bush's proposed 2008 budget includes only a 1 percent increase in nonmilitary and homeland security programs. The league said the budget proposal cuts Community Development Block Grants nationwide by $735 million, education by $1.5 billion, the Individuals with Disabilities Education act by $291 million, and $107 million from Head Start. Social Services block grants would be cut nearly in half to $1.2 billion, and Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance would see a $400 million cut.
The league said funding for the Department of Homeland Security would be slashed, including a 63 percent cut for training and exercises, while federal assistance to state and local law enforcement would be cut by more than half. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund would be cut $312 million over the previous year.
Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, said 24 hospitals in Colorado risk losing federal funding after Bush issued an executive order changing the definition of public hospitals to reduce Medicaid spending, cutting $128 million in federal aid that could force a major hospital in Denver to close. The Colorado Legislature is debating a resolution asking Bush to restore that funding.
Keller said the state also is losing about $48 million in federal funds for transportation, money the state was promised.
She said the cost of the war is trickling down to local governments, with cuts to federal funding for homeland security.
"We're bearing the brunt of the federal cuts. There's no other reason than the war," Keller said.
House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, disagreed.
"She can't draw a direct connection to that. Federal funds go up and down every year," May said.
May said transportation funding is based on a formula, and funds for homeland security were cut because huge startup grants were no longer needed.
He said every department in state government had an increase in federal funding and that it was the increases that were cut back.
(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
by Steven K. Paulson, AP Writer
(AP) DENVER The cost of the Iraq war is filtering down to state and local budgets, forcing cuts in transportation funding, Medicaid, education and other federally subsidized programs, according to analysts and lawmakers.
Just how big that impact has been is unclear. What state lawmakers do say is that the $456 billion already spent or appropriated for the war could have gone a long way toward helping them balance their own budgets.
In Colorado, lawmakers expect to lose about $200 million in federal funding for the next fiscal year, forcing the state to cut back on programs that receive federal money.
"These are funds that we aren't going to receive. Low Energy Assistance Program, $9.8 million, gone. Head Start, $3.7 million, gone. Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1.1 million. Community Development Block Grant, $13.5 million. Special Ed, $8.8 million," House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said during a debate Thursday over a state resolution opposing the escalation of the war in Iraq.
"Also, we're not going to get the Criminal Alien Assistance Program to house criminal aliens, $5 million that was promised and now isn't coming," Madden said. "This is why it's important to take a stand. The more money that's spent over there means our citizens in this state aren't going to get services they need."
Joy Wilson, director of health policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Washington, D.C., said the war in Iraq is affecting state and local government spending, but it's impossible to tell how much. She said other factors are influencing the federal budget, including President Bush's pledge to balance the budget by 2012, rising health care and fuel costs, and tax cuts that Bush has refused to rescind.
"That said, Iraq is certainly a part of the mix," Wilson said, noting other states are also being forced to cut back because domestic spending has been almost flat for the past two years.
According to the Colorado Municipal League, Bush's proposed 2008 budget includes only a 1 percent increase in nonmilitary and homeland security programs. The league said the budget proposal cuts Community Development Block Grants nationwide by $735 million, education by $1.5 billion, the Individuals with Disabilities Education act by $291 million, and $107 million from Head Start. Social Services block grants would be cut nearly in half to $1.2 billion, and Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance would see a $400 million cut.
The league said funding for the Department of Homeland Security would be slashed, including a 63 percent cut for training and exercises, while federal assistance to state and local law enforcement would be cut by more than half. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund would be cut $312 million over the previous year.
Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, said 24 hospitals in Colorado risk losing federal funding after Bush issued an executive order changing the definition of public hospitals to reduce Medicaid spending, cutting $128 million in federal aid that could force a major hospital in Denver to close. The Colorado Legislature is debating a resolution asking Bush to restore that funding.
Keller said the state also is losing about $48 million in federal funds for transportation, money the state was promised.
She said the cost of the war is trickling down to local governments, with cuts to federal funding for homeland security.
"We're bearing the brunt of the federal cuts. There's no other reason than the war," Keller said.
House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, disagreed.
"She can't draw a direct connection to that. Federal funds go up and down every year," May said.
May said transportation funding is based on a formula, and funds for homeland security were cut because huge startup grants were no longer needed.
He said every department in state government had an increase in federal funding and that it was the increases that were cut back.
(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Patterns of War Shift in Iraq Amid Buildup of U.S. Force
BAGHDAD, April 8 — Nearly two months into the new security push in Baghdad, there has been some success in reducing the number of death squad victims found crumpled in the streets each day.
And while the overall death rates for all of Iraq have not dropped significantly, largely because of devastating suicide bombings, a few parts of the capital have become calmer as some death squads have decided to lie low.
But there is little sign that the Baghdad push is accomplishing its main purpose: to create an island of stability in which Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds can try to figure out how to run the country together. There has been no visible move toward compromise on the main dividing issues, like regional autonomy and more power sharing between Shiites and Sunnis.
For American troops, Baghdad has become a deadlier battleground as they have poured into the capital to confront Sunni and Shiite militias on their home streets. The rate of American deaths in the city over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period, though it has stayed roughly the same over all, decreasing in other parts of the country as troops have focused on the capital.
FINKELSTEIN DENIED TENURE AT DEPAUL: FINKELSTEIN CONFIRMS
SPME LEARNS FINKELSTEIN DENIED TENURE AT DEPAUL: FINKELSTEIN CONFIRMS
By Allyson Taylor and John Wilson
| Published in: www.collegefreedom.org | April 1, 2007 |
( Allyson Taylor, formerly of American Jewish Congress and StandWithUs.com has sent SPME a copy of an email from Norman Finkelstein to her that this article by John Wilson "is correct." SPME is waiting for official confirmation.)
I've heard reports that DePaul assistant professor Norman Finkelstein has been recommended for denial of tenure by the dean of liberal arts and sciences. The Political Science department voted 9 to 3 in favor of granting tenure, with three members making a minority report. The five-person College Personnel Committee was unanimous in favour of granting tenure. It appears that the primary reason given for Finkelstein's denial of tenure was his meanness to his critics in the tone of his scholarship, which is a particularly disturbing attack on academic freedom. But the real reason for denying Finkelstein tenure is likely to be the campaign by conservatives, led by Alan Dershowitz. I have previously written about the Finkelstein/Dershowitz dispute .
It will be interesting to compare this case with that of Thomas Klocek, the adjunct professor at DePaul who was suspended after getting in an argument with Palestinian students. Will the conservatives who rightly defended Klocek make a similar argument against denying Finkelstein tenure for the crime of being rude? Of course, as a tenure-track professor, Finkelstein has far greater protections, so perhaps he will prevail against the conservative forces who want to get rid of him. But the principle that politeness should not be imposed on campuses is at stake here.
RelatedZionism Vs Anti-Zionism: Dershowitz Tries To Get Finklestein Fired ...
6-Year-Olds Under Arrest: BOB HERBERT
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By BOB HERBERT
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
By BOB HERBERT
Published: April 9, 2007
An outlandish trend of criminalizing very young children has spread to many school districts and law enforcement agencies across the country.
Avon Park, Fla.
When 6-year-old Desre’e Watson threw a tantrum in her kindergarten class a couple of weeks ago she could not have known that the full force of the law would be brought down on her and that she would be carted off by the police as a felon.
But that’s what happened in this small, backward city in central Florida. According to the authorities, there were no other options.
“The student became violent,” said Frank Mercurio, the no-nonsense chief of the Avon Park police. “She was yelling, screaming — just being uncontrollable. Defiant.”
“But she was 6,” I said.
The chief’s reply came faster than a speeding bullet: “Do you think this is the first 6-year-old we’ve arrested?”
Democrats back away from Iraq troops withdrawal demand
April 8
Also on the Sunday shows: Gingrich says it's best for Gonzales to Go; Huckabee says he's the man to take on Clinton; Thompson lists Iraq principles
For the second straight weekend, top Senate Democrats shrunk further away from core principles they had set out in the Iraq war debate, signaling Sunday that they were prepared to drop a timetable mandating the withdrawal of U.S. troops, should President Bush fulfill his vow to veto current war funding legislation.
Last Sunday, senior Democrats said that they would not hold back funding for the war if the president vetoed a bill including an Iraq withdrawal timetable. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, reiterated that point on ABC's "This Week." He said, "We're not going to vote to cut funding, period."
Sen. Carl Levin (AP Photo/ABC News, Lauren Victoria Burke)
After a veto, he said, "there's a number of options. Either we can keep the benchmarks part of the bill without saying that the troops must begin to come back." And if that doesn't work, "what we will leave will be benchmarks, for instance, which would require the president to certify to the American people if the Iraqis are meeting the benchmarks for political settlement, which they, the Iraqi leaders, have set for themselves."
Democrats also suggested their strategy would be to portray Bush as the one who is denying funds to the troops.
"Should he veto this bill, which means he will be vetoing the money for the troops, we will try to come up with a way, ... trying to compromise with the White House, that both supports the troops and yet changes the strategy in Iraq, which we feel is misguided," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on "Fox News Sunday."
"And by the way, 70 percent of the American people feel it's misguided. If a change in strategy means not supporting the troops, then 70 percent of the American people don't support the troops."
The House and Senate have both passed $100 billion spending bills to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan. The House bill would require U.S. combat troops to leave by Sept. 1, 2008, while the Senate bill asks that troops begin to leave in 120 days, a process to be completed by March 31, 2008. House and Senate negotiators are to work on a compromise bill to send to the president when the House comes back from recess in a week.
Some Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), have vowed to pursue legislation that would cut off funds for combat operations on March 31, if Bush continues to keep a large troop presence there. That would go much further than the bills currently being considered, which Democrats have emphasized would not cut funding.
Levin suggested that the more far-reaching bill, co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would not go anywhere if it contains measures to cut funding. "Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen. He has a personal position, which he said was not the caucus position. He was very clear when he joined a bill which would cut off funding under certain circumstances."
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Republican Conference, said the Congress should send the president a war spending bill without conditions. "The point here is that when you send the president a bill that has a big poison pill in it like that ... he's going to veto it. This is a very risky strategy," Kyl said on ABC's "This Week." "Every day of delay is a day when we're not sending troops the body armor they need, the humvees that they need and all of the other things that they need.
Also on the foreign policy front this morning:
-- On Fox, Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.),who is mulling a presidential bid, had harsh words about the response to Iran's seizure - and return - of 15 British Navy personnel: "The West was humiliated. The British were humiliated. The Europeans were humiliated. The United Nations was humiliated. ... We should be actively seeking to replace that government by bringing every kind of non-military pressure to bear we can, to destabilize that government and help the people of Iran, replace it with a moderate government."
-- On CNN, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, switched partisan roles discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's recent visit to Syria, in spite of administration wishes.
"She has a very prominent constitutional role in determine what's going to happen in the Iraqi war. Syria is very much involved with respect to the funding," Specter said.
Lieberman disagreed: "Her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because Syria -- we're in a war. We're in a war against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism."
U.S. Attorney Firings: No lenience for Gonzales
This morning, it became pretty clear that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is lucky Gingrich is no longer the speaker of the House of Representative.
Gingrich suggested that it would be best if Gonzales resigned in the mounting congressional probe into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys,
Newt Gingrich (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
"I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration," the former speaker said. "Thanks to our good friends in the Senate side, they're going to be involved in endless hearings, which is going to take up an immense amount of time and effort. I think the country, in fact, would be much better served to have a new team at the Justice Department, across the board."
Campaign 2008: Mike Huckabee
On this relatively quiet Easter Sunday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee , a Baptist pastor running for the GOP presidential nomination, had his time under the sun as the sole guest on CBS's "This Week." And he spoke with sky-blue clarity about his political positions on abortion, the role of Christian conservatives in American politics and Iraq.
Mike Huckabee(AP)
When the topic came to the reality of running a presidential campaign, however, the discussion got a little more muddied. Host Bob Schieffer asked about the "obscene" amounts of campaign cash the three leading GOP hopefuls raised in the first three months of the year -- nearly $50 million combined, or 100 times the half-million Huckabee took in.
"This is a time when people are talking about $100 million before the end of the year. If that's the case, do you really want someone in charge of the federal treasury who burns $100 million before the first vote is cast?" Huckabee said.
Huckabee said the real question is how much he can raise in the future, perhaps using a bit of hyperbole to suggest what's possible. "This is the kind of environment in which a candidate can catch fire, and people go to the Web site that he has and make contributions over the Internet. And I could raise $20 million overnight if everyone watching this show just simply went and said, I'll make a $100 contribution. The point is that things can change so rapidly."
Schieffer interrupted, "That's kind of a big if. I mean, you know, they always say, you know, the dog could have caught the rabbit if he hadn't stopped to make that phone all. ... You're going to have to have a tremendous s of money to even have a chance. I'm not saying that's fair. ... It's simply the golf course that politics is played on these days. It's not clear to me how you can get from there to here."
Huckabee said, "Well, again, if I thought that I had raised all the money I was going to realistically raise, I'd be out of it today. But what I'm telling it is that we're on the front end of our fund- raising, not on the back side."
Schieffer also asked about laudatory comments Huckabee made of one of the Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) - that she's focused, disciplined and brilliant.
Was he angling for a cabinet post in a Clinton administration? Schieffer wondered.
Huckabee said he's not - "I don't think I'd accept" - but he did say he knows her the best of the GOP candidates and "that's why I'm the best candidate on the Republican side."
"I know ... how dangerous she can be as a candidate," Huckabee said. "That's one of the reasons that I believe my candidacy offers the clearest contrast, and an opportunity for America to have maybe a real, solid choice."
Other notes from Huckabee:
-- He thinks Christian conservatives should engage Republicans and Republican politics with the same critical eye on social and family issues they did President Clinton in the 1990s.
-- He thinks displays or religion on public property - the nativity scene on Capitol grounds, for example - are just fine.
-- He thinks the United States must win in Iraq and doesn't think a timetable for removing troops is a good idea.
Campaign 2008: Tommy Thompson
Another GOP presidential hopeful, four-term former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson , spent a few minutes on CNN.
He said his strategy for Iraq has four parts: 1. Protect the troops. 2. The Iraqi government must have a vote on whether the U.S. should stay in the country and the U.S. should follow whatever they say 3. The 18 territories in Iraq should elect their own leaders and operate like U.S. states. He didn't get to the fourth part. 4. An equitable distribution of oil revenues.
The health and human services secretary during Bush's first term, Thompson also said he's pro-life and would like to see the federal government regulate nicotine as it does so many other drugs.
By Zachary Goldfarb | April 8, 2007; 3:06 PM ETA Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs
A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs
High-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
---
Fug these idiots. Thought police we don't need. And screw the NYT for publishing this idiocy.
Ex-Tenn. Lawmaker Faces Corruption Trial
Monday April 9, 2007 12:01 PM
By WOODY BAIRD
Associated Press Writer
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) - For years, John Ford was one of Tennessee's most powerful state senators, as well as a member of one of the state's most politically active families. The former lawmaker could now face prison time if convicted in a bribery and extortion trial starting Monday.
His trial is expected to be the most insightful courtroom drama so far in the FBI's statewide corruption investigation, code-named Tennessee Waltz after one of the official state songs.
Ford, 64, is one of five current or former state lawmakers charged in the investigation. He is accused of taking $55,000 in bribes from E-Cycle Management, which supposedly was in the business of buying and reselling used government computers.
The jury being chosen this week will hear several secretly recorded tapes of Ford's conversations with undercover agents and see at least two video clips showing him stuffing his pockets with cash.
Ford, a Democrat who represented his Memphis district for 31 years, is part of a black political dynasty. His nephew is Harold Ford Jr., a former congressman and U.S. Senate candidate; his brother is Harold Ford Sr., who represented Memphis in the U.S. House for 22 years.
Ford and his lawyer, Michael Scholl, have refused to discuss defense strategy, but Ford is expected to argue he was a business consultant for E-Cycle who was paid for his legislative advice.
The tapes record Ford helping write proposed legislation that would have given E-Cycle a nearly exclusive shot at buying used computers and other electronic equipment from state agencies and local governments across Tennessee.
``Now you got to be creative,'' Ford says, boasting about his ability to tailor legislation for his friends.
Ford began working with E-Cycle in 2004 and was indicted the following year. He resigned from the Senate two days later.
He dealt mainly with an FBI agent identified publicly using the undercover name L.C. McNiel. McNiel is shown on at least two videotapes handing money to Ford. In one recording, sitting across a desk from Ford, McNiel slowly counts out what the government says is $10,000.
McNiel: ``You should have 10 there.''
Ford: ``OK.''
Ford stuffs the money in his pockets and says he will be the primary Senate sponsor for E-Cycle's legislation.
Ford is the second lawmaker to go to trial in the Tennessee Waltz scandal.
Former state Sen. Roscoe Dixon was convicted in November and is serving a five-year sentence. Former state Rep. Chris Newton pleaded guilty to bribery and served a nine-month sentence.
Two others are awaiting trial.
Overall, the ongoing investigation has led to criminal charges against 11 defendants, including several local officials in Memphis and Chattanooga. Three of the accused have been convicted at trial and four have pleaded guilty.Hundreds of thousands turnout for anti-US rally
Huge turnout for anti-US rally
Staff and agenciesMonday April 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Iraqi Shia supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr wave the Iraqi national flags during an anti-US rally in Najaf. Photograph: Qassem Zein/AFP
Hundreds of thousands of supporters of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr took to the streets of two Shia holy cities in Iraq today and protested against "US occupiers".
The rally was called by Mr Sadr, who said in a statement yesterday that his militia followers should redouble efforts to drive US forces out of Iraq, describing them as "your arch-enemy".
Today, clad in Iraqi flags, demonstrators marched from the city of Kufa to neighbouring Najaf, which is 100 miles south of Baghdad, shouting "we obey your call" and other slogans against the US "occupiers".
BBC News reported that up to 1 million Shias were expected to take to the streets in Najaf.
Yesterday thousands of residents in Baghdad's largest Shia slum, Sadr City, boarded buses and minivans bound for Najaf for today's rally, which was choreographed to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall.
Leaflets fluttered through the breeze reading: "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Moqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."
The demonstration was peaceful, with two cordons of Iraqi police lining the route. Two ambulances could be seen moving slowly with the marching crowd, poised to help if violence or stampedes broke out.
Mr Sadr commands an enormous following among Iraq's majority Shia population and has close allies in the Shia-dominated government.
As he marched, politician Nassar al-Rubaie, head of Mr Sadr's bloc in parliament, said: "The enemy that is occupying our country is now targeting the dignity of the Iraqi people ... After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded."
Mr Sadr's statement yesterday called for Iraq's army and police to join him in defeating the US.
Today some Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd, which was led by at least a dozen turbaned clerics - including one Sunni.
Many marchers danced as they moved through the streets.
Security was tight across Iraq, with vehicles banned from the streets in areas affected by the protest march and in Baghdad.
Reacting to the plans for the rally, the government had quickly reinstated today as a holiday, just a day after it had decreed that April 9 no longer would be a day off.
Mr Sadr had reportedly ordered his militia to disarm and stay off the streets during a Baghdad security crackdown by the US and Iraqi forces that began February 14.
However, the cleric has nevertheless recently issued a series of sharp anti-American statements, demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops.
US officials have said Mr Sadr left Iraq for neighbouring Iran after the start of the Bush administration's "surge" of almost 20,000 new troops in the capital, but his followers say he is in Iraq.
Yesterday's statement from the cleric was apparently issued in response to three days of clashes between his Mahdi army militiamen and US-backed Iraqi troops in Diwaniya, which is 80 miles south of Baghdad.
American troops continued operations in Diwaniya today, detaining four guards at a the office of a Shia political party and scouring two neighbourhoods in the city's northern and eastern sections, Iraqi police said. At least 24 suspects were detained, police said.
Also yesterday, Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, warned that Iraq should not become a crucible for the US and its regional foes Iran and Syria. He said Iraq's security should be the "only issue on the agenda" of a major international conference aimed at finding ways to stabilise the strife-torn country.
Sweet Little Lies: PAUL KRUGMAN
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Sweet Little Lies
By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: April 9, 2007
Before 9/11, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.
Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.
But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.
For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush’s credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn’t believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.
Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
