Indonesian Supreme Court Clears Militant Cleric Ba'asyir
03:19 PM, December 21st 2006
by Playfuls Team/DPA
A team of Indonesian supreme court judges Thursday cleared Muslim militant cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, alleged spiritual leader of terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), from all charges of involvement in the 2002 Bali and 2003 JW Marriot hotel bombings, his attorney said.
"I have received the news that he is freed from all bombing charges and that his name will be rehabilitated," Mahendradatta, the cleric's lawyer told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa.
"They decided this after hearing all witnesses deny Ba'asyir involvement in the bombings, previous court statements were basically all lies," Mahendradatta told dpa.
The supreme court dismissed the cleric's involvement in the 2003 JW Marriot hotel bombing which left 12 people dead, although a district court had ruled on his involvement in a previous trial.
"Obviously, previous courts made a big mistake," he said.
Ba'asyir, 64, was first arrested one week after the Bali bombings on October 12, 2002. He was put on trial the following year, and lacking enough evidence to prove Ba'asyir was a leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, he was sentenced to 18 months for immigration offences.
Police re-arrested Ba'asyir in late April 2004, immediately after his release from jail, and charged him under Indonesia's new anti- terrorism law, passed in the wake of the 2002 Bali bombings which left at least 202 people dead, mostly foreign tourists.
He was sentenced to 30 months in prison in March 2005 after the court found him guilty of having a role in planning the bombings.
Ba'asyir has consistently denied involvement in terrorism and says he is being victimized because he campaigns for the introduction of strict Islamic law in Indonesia.
The aging preacher walked free in June after completing a 26-month sentence. His original prison term was reduced due to time spent in detention and an additional reduction received on the occasion of Indonesia's 60th independence anniversary in August 2005.
Australian and US officials had criticized Indonesia for giving him a relatively light sentence and for subsequently reducing the term, although some analysts questioned the conviction, arguing that foreign powers had pressured Indonesia into securing it on flimsy evidence.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Somali fighting is 'full scale war' - Islamist
By DPA
Dec 21, 2006, 13:00 GMT
Mogadishu - A leader of Somalia's Islamists has called fighting near the government's base 'a full scale war,' blaming neighbouring Ethiopia for starting the violence.
Fighting between the Islamists and forces loyal to the transitional government continued Thursday, a day after both sides agreed to return to peace talks.
The two sides exchanged missile, artillery and mortar fire for a second day near the interim government's seat of Baidoa about 250 kilometres west of the capital Mogadishu.
'It seems that Ethiopia started the full scale war,' said Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader who is charged by the US of having ties to al-Qaeda. 'The fighting will spark the entire region and it will be disastrous for Ethiopia.'
Several hundred Ethiopian troops were sent to Somalia, said to be training the government troops but the Islamists claim there are thousands of them fighting alongside the government forces. The Islamists have vowed to wage jihad (holy war) on any Ethiopian soldier in Somalia.
Each side blamed the other for intentionally violating a recently announced agreement to de-escalate the violence and attend peace talks without any preconditions, a diplomatic push made by the EU on Wednesday.
'The Islamists started the fighting to violate the EU's peace bid,' said Salad Ali Jelle, the government's Deputy Defence Minister.
On Wednesday, EU envoy Louis Michel met with both sides and convinced them to return to 'unconditional' peace talks.
His visit came after clashes overnight Tuesday and Wednesday in Buulo Jadiid, 20 kilometres east of Baidoa and Idale, 60 kilometres to south-west of the city in which both sides claimed to have killed dozens of enemy fighters. On Wednesday, missiles were fired near Dooynuunay, 20 kilometres east of Baidoa.
Jelle said some 71 Islamic militiamen had been killed and more than 200 wounded in the fighting. Islamist officials said their forces killed 70 Ethiopian troops. These claims had not been independently verified.
Jelle also said two Islamist fighters killed were foreigners.
Ukurey Isaak, a witness from nearby Dinsoor, told Deutsche Presse- Agentur dpa she saw 40 bodies of 'mostly innocent people' in and around Idale.
The clashes broke out overnight Tuesday, a day after a deadline set by the Islamists expired, warning Ethiopia to remove its troops from the country or face attacks.
The fighting came as both sides agreed to restart peace talks, in an effort to bring some sort of stability to the anarchic nation.
Tensions have been high for months, as both sides have been gearing up for a confrontation.
The Islamists, who took the capital Mogadishu in June and now control most of south-central Somalia, seek to establish an Islamic state based on Sharia (Islamic) law. The internationally-backed secular government is limited to its base in Baidoa and has been propped up by Ethiopian troops.
Experts warn an all-out war could break out that potentially escalate into a regional crisis. Ethiopian soldiers in the country are said to be training government forces while neighbouring Eritrea is said to have troops fighting for the Islamists.
The UN agreed to send a peacekeeping mission to the Horn of Africa nation - protection the government has demanded but the Islamists have vehemently opposed.
Dec 21, 2006, 13:00 GMT
Mogadishu - A leader of Somalia's Islamists has called fighting near the government's base 'a full scale war,' blaming neighbouring Ethiopia for starting the violence.
Fighting between the Islamists and forces loyal to the transitional government continued Thursday, a day after both sides agreed to return to peace talks.
The two sides exchanged missile, artillery and mortar fire for a second day near the interim government's seat of Baidoa about 250 kilometres west of the capital Mogadishu.
'It seems that Ethiopia started the full scale war,' said Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader who is charged by the US of having ties to al-Qaeda. 'The fighting will spark the entire region and it will be disastrous for Ethiopia.'
Several hundred Ethiopian troops were sent to Somalia, said to be training the government troops but the Islamists claim there are thousands of them fighting alongside the government forces. The Islamists have vowed to wage jihad (holy war) on any Ethiopian soldier in Somalia.
Each side blamed the other for intentionally violating a recently announced agreement to de-escalate the violence and attend peace talks without any preconditions, a diplomatic push made by the EU on Wednesday.
'The Islamists started the fighting to violate the EU's peace bid,' said Salad Ali Jelle, the government's Deputy Defence Minister.
On Wednesday, EU envoy Louis Michel met with both sides and convinced them to return to 'unconditional' peace talks.
His visit came after clashes overnight Tuesday and Wednesday in Buulo Jadiid, 20 kilometres east of Baidoa and Idale, 60 kilometres to south-west of the city in which both sides claimed to have killed dozens of enemy fighters. On Wednesday, missiles were fired near Dooynuunay, 20 kilometres east of Baidoa.
Jelle said some 71 Islamic militiamen had been killed and more than 200 wounded in the fighting. Islamist officials said their forces killed 70 Ethiopian troops. These claims had not been independently verified.
Jelle also said two Islamist fighters killed were foreigners.
Ukurey Isaak, a witness from nearby Dinsoor, told Deutsche Presse- Agentur dpa she saw 40 bodies of 'mostly innocent people' in and around Idale.
The clashes broke out overnight Tuesday, a day after a deadline set by the Islamists expired, warning Ethiopia to remove its troops from the country or face attacks.
The fighting came as both sides agreed to restart peace talks, in an effort to bring some sort of stability to the anarchic nation.
Tensions have been high for months, as both sides have been gearing up for a confrontation.
The Islamists, who took the capital Mogadishu in June and now control most of south-central Somalia, seek to establish an Islamic state based on Sharia (Islamic) law. The internationally-backed secular government is limited to its base in Baidoa and has been propped up by Ethiopian troops.
Experts warn an all-out war could break out that potentially escalate into a regional crisis. Ethiopian soldiers in the country are said to be training government forces while neighbouring Eritrea is said to have troops fighting for the Islamists.
The UN agreed to send a peacekeeping mission to the Horn of Africa nation - protection the government has demanded but the Islamists have vehemently opposed.
Bum Boys for Bush Bitch
The 42 presidents prior to the Chimp issued over 600 signing statements exempting them fom Congressional laws. Bush has signed 1000. And the sluts rolled over.
---
Bush India statement raises Congress concerns
Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:37am ET
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A statement by President George W. Bush issued in connection with the just-signed U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation law has raised concerns that Bush may try to circumvent some of Congress' intentions, lawmakers and analysts say.
The statement, clarifying Bush's views on law and policy, was issued after he signed new legislation on Monday permitting U.S. sales of nuclear fuel and reactors to India for the first time in 30 years.
In the statement, Bush said his signature "does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy (in the law) as U.S. foreign policy." Also in responding to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider how releasing data requested by lawmakers might "impair foreign relations."
In one of its most controversial directives, Congress stipulated in the law that presidents should report annually on India's cooperation in restraining Iran's nuclear program, which Bush has condemned as a major international threat.
"With his recent signing statement, once again the president has shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution," said Sen. Thomas Harkin of Iowa, a Democrat whose party will control a majority of the new Congress to be sworn in next month.
It was "outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal," Harkin said in a press release.
In the statement, Bush also said he considered as only "advisory" a congressional directive prohibiting nuclear transfers to India that conflict with guidelines of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which the United States helped establish years ago to restrain nuclear trade.
Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts said this shows Bush is "reserving the right to ignore the Nuclear Suppliers Group."
The president is "turning decades of U.S. international policy on its head -- and thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time," added Markey, co-chair of the House of Representatives task force on non-proliferation.
Before U.S. nuclear exports to India can begin, several other approvals are needed, including an NSG decision to change its rules prohibiting trade with India and passage of a second U.S. law.
Reuters Pictures
Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow
Some non-proliferation experts worry that if the United States is unable to win NSG approval -- which must be by unanimous consent -- Bush will let the trade with India go forward.
The White House and State Department rejected such interpretations of Bush's statement.
Asked if Bush might ignore the NSG, a State Department official told Reuters: "No, quite the opposite."
He said that while NSG guidelines are "political commitments," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "has been very clear that we're not going to do the (nuclear) deal without consensus in the NSG."
Meanwhile, a White House official said the statement's treatment of the NSG "is not regarding any particular intended course of foreign policy or with any particular practical effect in terms of intended treatment of material (nuclear) transfer."
Rather, the statement is intended to deal with the "domestic issue of government power rather than an issue of international nuclear policy," he said.
Justice Department lawyers were concerned the way the law is written meant that a change in NSG rules would force a change in U.S. law, a U.S. official said.
---
Bush India statement raises Congress concerns
Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:37am ET
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A statement by President George W. Bush issued in connection with the just-signed U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation law has raised concerns that Bush may try to circumvent some of Congress' intentions, lawmakers and analysts say.
The statement, clarifying Bush's views on law and policy, was issued after he signed new legislation on Monday permitting U.S. sales of nuclear fuel and reactors to India for the first time in 30 years.
In the statement, Bush said his signature "does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy (in the law) as U.S. foreign policy." Also in responding to reports mandated by Congress, he would consider how releasing data requested by lawmakers might "impair foreign relations."
In one of its most controversial directives, Congress stipulated in the law that presidents should report annually on India's cooperation in restraining Iran's nuclear program, which Bush has condemned as a major international threat.
"With his recent signing statement, once again the president has shown he views Congress as a nuisance rather than an equal branch of government under the Constitution," said Sen. Thomas Harkin of Iowa, a Democrat whose party will control a majority of the new Congress to be sworn in next month.
It was "outrageous that the president has repeatedly stated the greatest threat to U.S. national security is a nuclear Iran, yet explicitly rejects Congress' declaration that it shall be the official policy of the United States that India will not use its nuclear technology to help develop Iran's nuclear weapons arsenal," Harkin said in a press release.
In the statement, Bush also said he considered as only "advisory" a congressional directive prohibiting nuclear transfers to India that conflict with guidelines of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which the United States helped establish years ago to restrain nuclear trade.
Democratic Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts said this shows Bush is "reserving the right to ignore the Nuclear Suppliers Group."
The president is "turning decades of U.S. international policy on its head -- and thumbing his nose at Congress at the same time," added Markey, co-chair of the House of Representatives task force on non-proliferation.
Before U.S. nuclear exports to India can begin, several other approvals are needed, including an NSG decision to change its rules prohibiting trade with India and passage of a second U.S. law.
Reuters Pictures
Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow
Some non-proliferation experts worry that if the United States is unable to win NSG approval -- which must be by unanimous consent -- Bush will let the trade with India go forward.
The White House and State Department rejected such interpretations of Bush's statement.
Asked if Bush might ignore the NSG, a State Department official told Reuters: "No, quite the opposite."
He said that while NSG guidelines are "political commitments," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "has been very clear that we're not going to do the (nuclear) deal without consensus in the NSG."
Meanwhile, a White House official said the statement's treatment of the NSG "is not regarding any particular intended course of foreign policy or with any particular practical effect in terms of intended treatment of material (nuclear) transfer."
Rather, the statement is intended to deal with the "domestic issue of government power rather than an issue of international nuclear policy," he said.
Justice Department lawyers were concerned the way the law is written meant that a change in NSG rules would force a change in U.S. law, a U.S. official said.
America’s Open Wound: BOB HERBERT
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
America’s Open Wound
By BOB HERBERT
Published: December 21, 2006
The recovery in New Orleans has gone about as well as the war in Iraq.
New Orleans
It's eerie. The air is still. There is no noise. Night is falling.
The five stone steps in front of me once led to a porch, or maybe directly to the front door of a house. There is no way to be sure. The house is completely gone. All that's left are the five steps, one of which is painted with the address, 1630 Reynes St. The steps sit alone, like a piece of minimalist art, at the front of a small vacant lot full of weeds and rubble. Next door is a house that is completely capsized, fallen over on its side like a sunken ship.
Welcome to the Lower Ninth Ward. You won't find much holiday spirit here. In every direction, as far as it is possible to see, is devastation.
On another lot, piled high with the rubble of a ruined house, I saw a middle-aged man standing in the front yard weeping. He wore a dirty white baseball cap and he was sobbing like a child. I walked toward him to ask a question but he waved me away.
Whatever you've heard about New Orleans, the reality is much worse.
--MORE--
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
America’s Open Wound
By BOB HERBERT
Published: December 21, 2006
The recovery in New Orleans has gone about as well as the war in Iraq.
New Orleans
It's eerie. The air is still. There is no noise. Night is falling.
The five stone steps in front of me once led to a porch, or maybe directly to the front door of a house. There is no way to be sure. The house is completely gone. All that's left are the five steps, one of which is painted with the address, 1630 Reynes St. The steps sit alone, like a piece of minimalist art, at the front of a small vacant lot full of weeds and rubble. Next door is a house that is completely capsized, fallen over on its side like a sunken ship.
Welcome to the Lower Ninth Ward. You won't find much holiday spirit here. In every direction, as far as it is possible to see, is devastation.
On another lot, piled high with the rubble of a ruined house, I saw a middle-aged man standing in the front yard weeping. He wore a dirty white baseball cap and he was sobbing like a child. I walked toward him to ask a question but he waved me away.
Whatever you've heard about New Orleans, the reality is much worse.
--MORE--
A Sobering, Agonizing Reality
by: RenaRF
renarf@comcast.net
Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:50:15 PM PST
Sometimes life and the people in kind of slap you back to reality. I had just such an occurrence this past weekend, and truthfully, it has caused me a great deal of distress. This is a real distress - the kind that sometimes makes me stop and feel slightly sick as a human being - over the subject I'm going to discuss.
But I have to share this story. It begins like this: I have a friend who is Iraqi.
I have to be careful about my friend's identity, so some of the contextual (but not necessary) details are going to be vague. It won't be a great story without all the color and background, but it will be a true one.
My friend is Iraqi born and married an Iraqi. I don't know how it happened, but wife is already an American citizen. He is not, though he has told me that he has applied for citizenship and that he doesn't anticipate there will be any issues - it's all a matter of time at this point. They are both professional people - not professional like brain surgeons, but professionals, skilled in what they do.
As with all friendships, getting to know someone entails some mixture of chit chat and polite inquries - you know the kind. You ask if they have children. You ask what they do for a living and whether or not they like it. When you hear them speaking with an accent, you ask where that accent is from. When they tell you they are from Iraq, in light of everything that's going on there, you launch into a new level of questions.
It was those types of questions that let me know him a little better. Some months ago I asked about his family. He has siblings, and all have left Iraq proper for other, safer areas in the middle east. His mother, however, remained in Iraq. At the time, this wasn't a huge issue as she was further to the north in areas that would have been considered, at that time, relatively "safe". All of these details came out very early in my getting to know him. I didn't want to inundate him with sensitive questions about how he felt about the war, and he seemed happy to keep the friendship on the level where it existed.
As life goes, sometimes you just get busy. You have your friends, but you don't necessarily see your friends as much as you would like. It happens - and it happened with my Iraqi friend. Some months went by where we just didn't connect. During those months, the situation in Iraq deteriorated rapidly. The theoretically "safe" northern areas were no longer safe. I thought of my friend and especially of his mother frequently, and wondered how she was doing and whether or not she was safe.
Well, I bumped into him over this past weekend. I went up and shook his hand and let him know I had been thinking about him, and especially about his mother. I told him I wondered often about her safety. He relieved some of these thoughts by letting me know that his mother was not currently in Iraq. She had gone a month or so ago to visit relatives in another country in the region, one that would be considered stable. He was worried, though - it was her intent to return to Iraq, her home, very soon. He wondered aloud if he could get her to come for an extended visit here in the United States... While he was composed, he was also certainly concerned.
Then our friendship took another informational step forward. He let me know that his wife has family, close family, currently in Baghdad. They have been hastily and desperately trying to figure a way to get one family member in particular into the US, sooner rather than later. They had consulted a lawyer who laid out the process at a very high level, but had had to undertake the process on their own due to the prohibitive cost of legal assistance. My friend and his wife are hardworking people, but not the kind with several thousand dollars sitting around idle and unutilized.
This started us on a discussion of the war itself. I'm going to paraphrase the conversation to give you a sense of how it went. I'll call him Joe for the sake of ease, and I'll share that he is Sunni:
ME: Jeez, Joe. I can't believe how badly this has gone. It wasn't a good idea even before we went in there, but now - it's unraveling. I don't think America will see it's good reputation returned in my lifetime. And even though I was against going into Iraq in the first place, I'm an American and to some degree, this has happened in my name.
JOE: You know, a lot of people said many things. They said that Saddam was bad and he was. They went to your Pentagon and they told them 'just go in there and get rid of Saddam'. And your Pentagon, your Rumsfeld, that's what he did. And then Bremmer told your Pentagon to get rid of the Army and the police and the government and that's what he did. And it was not a good thing - not a good idea.
ME: ((sighing)) I know. Ahmed Chalabi, right? [Joe nods] You know, you would think that the American government would have considered the source of all of the information they had. I mean, if they have a guy who's there telling them to 'just get rid of Saddam', that guy has something that he wants. He could be a true nationalist with pure intentions, or he could be politically motivated and trying to seize power. Either way, you'd think they would have stepped back and considered what this guy or anyone else wanted and weigh the information they got against any likely motivations.
JOE: My family in Baghdad - it's bad. They can't go out and go to get food. We call and they are in their house because they can't go out. They have separated Baghdad and put Sunnis in one area and Shi'ia in another. And they have people there to keep them apart. But now with your report, they are going to leave and the Shi'ia are going to come over there. I talked to one family member and he told me 'they are going to kill us when the Americans leave'. They don't want electricity and food and jobs anymore. They just want to be safe. It's the only thing they want. And now the Americans are going to leave.
They just want to be safe. After the conversation, I let myself think about the sheer gravity of that kind of a statement. How emotionally and physically broken do you have to be to be willing to give up everything else for want of safety? I can't really imagine it - I can try, but I can't put myself in his family's shoes. It's very bad, though.
Yesterday, as I was driving to the DC area Kossack Meetup, I heard John Murtha interviewed on CNN's Situation Room. Here are a few excerpts from that interview:
BLITZER: Congressman, thanks very much for coming in. What do you make of this idea of having a short-term surge, as they're calling it, 20- 30,000 U.S. troops deployed to the Baghdad area to try to bring some sort of stability there?
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Wolf, let's look at the results of what happened. They put 10,000 more troops into the area. They've increased significantly troops in the Baghdad area and it's gotten worse.
The incidents, attacks, I call them, have increased, have doubled. They're up 973 a week now. More Iraqis being killed. More security people being killed. More Americans being killed.
::snip::
BLITZER: The new defense secretary, Robert Gates, said yesterday that failure in Iraq, in his words, "would be a calamity."
Here's the question to you. Has the U.S. already lost in Iraq?
MURTHA: Militarily, we've lost. There's no question about it. We cannot win this militarily.
::snip::
MURTHA: Only the Iraqis can do this. There is in way the United States can solve this problem. We have gotten so far out and we missed our opportunity, if we ever had an opportunity early on, to stabilize Iraq.
Since we didn't do it then, it cannot be done now. I am convinced the best thing for the United States, the best American policy, what's in the best interest of America, and that's to get our troops redeployed out of there.
I have to say that I agree with everything John Murtha said. Yet at the end of the day, to simply pack up and go home means that my friend's in-laws get slaughtered. Literally slaughtered. Whatever tiny semblance of control there is in Baghdad exists at the end of an American rifle. No more Americans, and those people are GONE. How will I look him in the eye, what will I say, when he finally tells me that his wife has utterly lost her family?
Yet at the same time, I feel and have felt strongly that we need to get out of there, not just for the sake of our soldiers, but for the sake of our larger efforts to combat terrorism.
I wish I had answers. I wish I didn't feel so horribly torn in two directions at once. At the end of the day, I blame the Bush administration. Because, as we all know, had we not gone in there in the first place, I wouldn't be wrestling with these questions. And, having decided to go in, had we done so with some semblance of competence, I MAY not be wrestling with these questions.
But that's a hard thing to sell to my Iraqi friend. Because even today, he's sitting in his office worrying about hearing, finally and at last, that his family has fallen victim to the violence. What good will my regrets do him then?
URL
renarf@comcast.net
Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:50:15 PM PST
Sometimes life and the people in kind of slap you back to reality. I had just such an occurrence this past weekend, and truthfully, it has caused me a great deal of distress. This is a real distress - the kind that sometimes makes me stop and feel slightly sick as a human being - over the subject I'm going to discuss.
But I have to share this story. It begins like this: I have a friend who is Iraqi.
I have to be careful about my friend's identity, so some of the contextual (but not necessary) details are going to be vague. It won't be a great story without all the color and background, but it will be a true one.
My friend is Iraqi born and married an Iraqi. I don't know how it happened, but wife is already an American citizen. He is not, though he has told me that he has applied for citizenship and that he doesn't anticipate there will be any issues - it's all a matter of time at this point. They are both professional people - not professional like brain surgeons, but professionals, skilled in what they do.
As with all friendships, getting to know someone entails some mixture of chit chat and polite inquries - you know the kind. You ask if they have children. You ask what they do for a living and whether or not they like it. When you hear them speaking with an accent, you ask where that accent is from. When they tell you they are from Iraq, in light of everything that's going on there, you launch into a new level of questions.
It was those types of questions that let me know him a little better. Some months ago I asked about his family. He has siblings, and all have left Iraq proper for other, safer areas in the middle east. His mother, however, remained in Iraq. At the time, this wasn't a huge issue as she was further to the north in areas that would have been considered, at that time, relatively "safe". All of these details came out very early in my getting to know him. I didn't want to inundate him with sensitive questions about how he felt about the war, and he seemed happy to keep the friendship on the level where it existed.
As life goes, sometimes you just get busy. You have your friends, but you don't necessarily see your friends as much as you would like. It happens - and it happened with my Iraqi friend. Some months went by where we just didn't connect. During those months, the situation in Iraq deteriorated rapidly. The theoretically "safe" northern areas were no longer safe. I thought of my friend and especially of his mother frequently, and wondered how she was doing and whether or not she was safe.
Well, I bumped into him over this past weekend. I went up and shook his hand and let him know I had been thinking about him, and especially about his mother. I told him I wondered often about her safety. He relieved some of these thoughts by letting me know that his mother was not currently in Iraq. She had gone a month or so ago to visit relatives in another country in the region, one that would be considered stable. He was worried, though - it was her intent to return to Iraq, her home, very soon. He wondered aloud if he could get her to come for an extended visit here in the United States... While he was composed, he was also certainly concerned.
Then our friendship took another informational step forward. He let me know that his wife has family, close family, currently in Baghdad. They have been hastily and desperately trying to figure a way to get one family member in particular into the US, sooner rather than later. They had consulted a lawyer who laid out the process at a very high level, but had had to undertake the process on their own due to the prohibitive cost of legal assistance. My friend and his wife are hardworking people, but not the kind with several thousand dollars sitting around idle and unutilized.
This started us on a discussion of the war itself. I'm going to paraphrase the conversation to give you a sense of how it went. I'll call him Joe for the sake of ease, and I'll share that he is Sunni:
ME: Jeez, Joe. I can't believe how badly this has gone. It wasn't a good idea even before we went in there, but now - it's unraveling. I don't think America will see it's good reputation returned in my lifetime. And even though I was against going into Iraq in the first place, I'm an American and to some degree, this has happened in my name.
JOE: You know, a lot of people said many things. They said that Saddam was bad and he was. They went to your Pentagon and they told them 'just go in there and get rid of Saddam'. And your Pentagon, your Rumsfeld, that's what he did. And then Bremmer told your Pentagon to get rid of the Army and the police and the government and that's what he did. And it was not a good thing - not a good idea.
ME: ((sighing)) I know. Ahmed Chalabi, right? [Joe nods] You know, you would think that the American government would have considered the source of all of the information they had. I mean, if they have a guy who's there telling them to 'just get rid of Saddam', that guy has something that he wants. He could be a true nationalist with pure intentions, or he could be politically motivated and trying to seize power. Either way, you'd think they would have stepped back and considered what this guy or anyone else wanted and weigh the information they got against any likely motivations.
JOE: My family in Baghdad - it's bad. They can't go out and go to get food. We call and they are in their house because they can't go out. They have separated Baghdad and put Sunnis in one area and Shi'ia in another. And they have people there to keep them apart. But now with your report, they are going to leave and the Shi'ia are going to come over there. I talked to one family member and he told me 'they are going to kill us when the Americans leave'. They don't want electricity and food and jobs anymore. They just want to be safe. It's the only thing they want. And now the Americans are going to leave.
They just want to be safe. After the conversation, I let myself think about the sheer gravity of that kind of a statement. How emotionally and physically broken do you have to be to be willing to give up everything else for want of safety? I can't really imagine it - I can try, but I can't put myself in his family's shoes. It's very bad, though.
Yesterday, as I was driving to the DC area Kossack Meetup, I heard John Murtha interviewed on CNN's Situation Room. Here are a few excerpts from that interview:
BLITZER: Congressman, thanks very much for coming in. What do you make of this idea of having a short-term surge, as they're calling it, 20- 30,000 U.S. troops deployed to the Baghdad area to try to bring some sort of stability there?
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Wolf, let's look at the results of what happened. They put 10,000 more troops into the area. They've increased significantly troops in the Baghdad area and it's gotten worse.
The incidents, attacks, I call them, have increased, have doubled. They're up 973 a week now. More Iraqis being killed. More security people being killed. More Americans being killed.
::snip::
BLITZER: The new defense secretary, Robert Gates, said yesterday that failure in Iraq, in his words, "would be a calamity."
Here's the question to you. Has the U.S. already lost in Iraq?
MURTHA: Militarily, we've lost. There's no question about it. We cannot win this militarily.
::snip::
MURTHA: Only the Iraqis can do this. There is in way the United States can solve this problem. We have gotten so far out and we missed our opportunity, if we ever had an opportunity early on, to stabilize Iraq.
Since we didn't do it then, it cannot be done now. I am convinced the best thing for the United States, the best American policy, what's in the best interest of America, and that's to get our troops redeployed out of there.
I have to say that I agree with everything John Murtha said. Yet at the end of the day, to simply pack up and go home means that my friend's in-laws get slaughtered. Literally slaughtered. Whatever tiny semblance of control there is in Baghdad exists at the end of an American rifle. No more Americans, and those people are GONE. How will I look him in the eye, what will I say, when he finally tells me that his wife has utterly lost her family?
Yet at the same time, I feel and have felt strongly that we need to get out of there, not just for the sake of our soldiers, but for the sake of our larger efforts to combat terrorism.
I wish I had answers. I wish I didn't feel so horribly torn in two directions at once. At the end of the day, I blame the Bush administration. Because, as we all know, had we not gone in there in the first place, I wouldn't be wrestling with these questions. And, having decided to go in, had we done so with some semblance of competence, I MAY not be wrestling with these questions.
But that's a hard thing to sell to my Iraqi friend. Because even today, he's sitting in his office worrying about hearing, finally and at last, that his family has fallen victim to the violence. What good will my regrets do him then?
URL
Bush Devil
PHOTO : I so horny.
Wed Dec 20, 3:42 PM ET
President Bush gestures during a news conference in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 20, 2006. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
'We are facing the hardest Christmas yet'
Israeli road obstacles rise by 40% in a year, strangling the Palestinians, says UN
Rory McCarthy
Thursday December 21, 2006
The Guardian
Bethlehem is suffering from 65% unemployment and government workers have gone unpaid for four months.
On a map the route looks straightforward enough. From Nazareth, amid the ploughed brown farmlands of northern Israel, Highway 60 travels south for nearly 100 miles, winding down through the mountains of the West Bank, through the heart of central Jerusalem and into the narrow streets of Bethlehem.
This is the direct route from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the closest approximation to the journey described in the Bible when Joseph and Mary travelled south to register for taxes in the time of Caesar Augustus.
But to travel the route today is to go through the geographical and political labyrinth of the Middle East conflict, through occupied land, restricted roads, military checkpoints, heavily guarded Israeli settlements, strongholds of Palestinian militancy and the West Bank barrier.
Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, and other church leaders from Britain will visit Bethlehem.
Nazareth sits above a broad plain dotted with Arab villages and long plastic greenhouses. A few minutes' drive south the road crosses the 1967 boundary dividing Israel from the occupied West Bank. The Green Line, as it is known, is invisible on the ground and not shown in Israeli school textbooks. The road crosses at the Jalama checkpoint, a large set of yellow metal gates guarded by a two-storey concrete watchtower. A picture of a reindeer has been spraypainted on a wall of army concrete blocks nearby.
At this point the West Bank barrier runs along the Green Line, although for much of its half-completed route it crosses into the West Bank. When finished it will put 10.17% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the barrier and the Green Line, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Mark Regev, Israel's foreign ministry spokesman, said the system of checkpoints and closures across the West Bank was based on security concerns. "It is an unfortunate necessity. Hopefully it won't be forever. But this is the reality of the situation," he said.
"In 2006 we had less suicide bombings than we had in one week in 2002 and this is largely because of the measures Israel has taken to prevent suicide bombings and checkpoints are part of that." He said the West Bank barrier had made a significant impact reducing attacks inside Israel. "Where the fence is an issue of quality of life for the Palestinians, for the Israelis on our side of the fence it is an issue of life or death itself."
Cars with yellow Israeli number plates are not allowed to cross Jalama into the West Bank. The road heads into Jenin, one of the main cities of the West Bank, a stronghold of some of the most extreme Palestinian militant groups, including those responsible for suicide bombings. The Israeli military sometimes imposes age restrictions at certain checkpoints, which make it difficult for young men from Jenin to leave the city.
In the centre of town, Sami Jowabri, 44, runs his own taxi company. His drivers have become experts in monitoring the system of checkpoints, road closures and barriers that dot the roads of the West Bank. The number of Israeli military obstacles has risen by 40% in the past year. There are now 528 physical obstacles, the UN said in September. It said closures were a primary cause of the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.
"It's affected our work a lot," said Mr Jowabri. "We have drivers who spend so long at checkpoints they have to sleep in their cars. They tell us it's for security, but I don't think it's about security. If people really want to set off bombs they find a way around the checkpoints."
From Jenin the highway runs down through winding hills and then suddenly runs up against a large series of plastic barriers blocking the road. There is nothing to explain the closure, except a passing Israeli army jeep and the concrete walls of the Shave Shomeron settlement, just north of Nablus.
All the other Palestinian cars on the road turned off a few minutes earlier, avoiding the roadblock as well as a checkpoint nearby at Anabta. Instead, the drivers cross an unofficial dirt road through several fields and over steep ditches. It comes out on a rerouted Highway 60, this time with the occasional car with Israeli plates, driven by residents of the several nearby settlements - settlements considered illegal under international law.
A little further on is a checkpoint. All the Palestinian cars, with their green plates, queue to be checked. The settlers, in their Israeli plated cars, can drive by without stopping.
Soon there is the city of Nablus, closed in by checkpoints where again the Israeli military sometimes imposes age restrictions and where queues at the checkpoints are frequently long and hot-tempered. "It's a humiliation, like we're still living in the 2nd century, not the 21st," said Ali Hassan Ali, 57.
Just before the entrance to Jerusalem, all the Palestinian cars turn off the road. For those West Bank Palestinians who do not have the identity cards needed to enter Jerusalem, they must travel a long and circuitous route along an old British army supply road that runs near Jericho and skirts around the eastern edge of Jerusalem. It takes more than an hour if there are no hold-ups at checkpoints.
Ahmad Shahab, 51, an Islamic studies schoolteacher, is heading from Ramallah to Eizariya, halfway to Bethlehem. "Are these restrictions because they are afraid of attacks? But a person like me over 50, what threat am I for them?"
In Bethlehem itself, Victor Batarseh, the mayor, looks from his office into the doorway of the Church of the Nativity. He blames the checkpoints and closures for the economic crisis that has shaken his town. Unemployment is 65%, large parts of the town's farmland have been taken up by the West Bank barrier, and a financial boycott on the Palestinian Authority has meant no salaries have been paid at the municipality for four months.
"This year is I think the hardest Christmas we are facing," he said. "The wall is turning this city into a big prison for its citizens. There is confiscation of land, closure of the main entrances to the city. All this has a physical and a psychological effect. We can only hope for change."
Rory McCarthy
Thursday December 21, 2006
The Guardian
Bethlehem is suffering from 65% unemployment and government workers have gone unpaid for four months.
On a map the route looks straightforward enough. From Nazareth, amid the ploughed brown farmlands of northern Israel, Highway 60 travels south for nearly 100 miles, winding down through the mountains of the West Bank, through the heart of central Jerusalem and into the narrow streets of Bethlehem.
This is the direct route from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the closest approximation to the journey described in the Bible when Joseph and Mary travelled south to register for taxes in the time of Caesar Augustus.
But to travel the route today is to go through the geographical and political labyrinth of the Middle East conflict, through occupied land, restricted roads, military checkpoints, heavily guarded Israeli settlements, strongholds of Palestinian militancy and the West Bank barrier.
Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, and other church leaders from Britain will visit Bethlehem.
Nazareth sits above a broad plain dotted with Arab villages and long plastic greenhouses. A few minutes' drive south the road crosses the 1967 boundary dividing Israel from the occupied West Bank. The Green Line, as it is known, is invisible on the ground and not shown in Israeli school textbooks. The road crosses at the Jalama checkpoint, a large set of yellow metal gates guarded by a two-storey concrete watchtower. A picture of a reindeer has been spraypainted on a wall of army concrete blocks nearby.
At this point the West Bank barrier runs along the Green Line, although for much of its half-completed route it crosses into the West Bank. When finished it will put 10.17% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the barrier and the Green Line, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Mark Regev, Israel's foreign ministry spokesman, said the system of checkpoints and closures across the West Bank was based on security concerns. "It is an unfortunate necessity. Hopefully it won't be forever. But this is the reality of the situation," he said.
"In 2006 we had less suicide bombings than we had in one week in 2002 and this is largely because of the measures Israel has taken to prevent suicide bombings and checkpoints are part of that." He said the West Bank barrier had made a significant impact reducing attacks inside Israel. "Where the fence is an issue of quality of life for the Palestinians, for the Israelis on our side of the fence it is an issue of life or death itself."
Cars with yellow Israeli number plates are not allowed to cross Jalama into the West Bank. The road heads into Jenin, one of the main cities of the West Bank, a stronghold of some of the most extreme Palestinian militant groups, including those responsible for suicide bombings. The Israeli military sometimes imposes age restrictions at certain checkpoints, which make it difficult for young men from Jenin to leave the city.
In the centre of town, Sami Jowabri, 44, runs his own taxi company. His drivers have become experts in monitoring the system of checkpoints, road closures and barriers that dot the roads of the West Bank. The number of Israeli military obstacles has risen by 40% in the past year. There are now 528 physical obstacles, the UN said in September. It said closures were a primary cause of the Palestinian humanitarian crisis.
"It's affected our work a lot," said Mr Jowabri. "We have drivers who spend so long at checkpoints they have to sleep in their cars. They tell us it's for security, but I don't think it's about security. If people really want to set off bombs they find a way around the checkpoints."
From Jenin the highway runs down through winding hills and then suddenly runs up against a large series of plastic barriers blocking the road. There is nothing to explain the closure, except a passing Israeli army jeep and the concrete walls of the Shave Shomeron settlement, just north of Nablus.
All the other Palestinian cars on the road turned off a few minutes earlier, avoiding the roadblock as well as a checkpoint nearby at Anabta. Instead, the drivers cross an unofficial dirt road through several fields and over steep ditches. It comes out on a rerouted Highway 60, this time with the occasional car with Israeli plates, driven by residents of the several nearby settlements - settlements considered illegal under international law.
A little further on is a checkpoint. All the Palestinian cars, with their green plates, queue to be checked. The settlers, in their Israeli plated cars, can drive by without stopping.
Soon there is the city of Nablus, closed in by checkpoints where again the Israeli military sometimes imposes age restrictions and where queues at the checkpoints are frequently long and hot-tempered. "It's a humiliation, like we're still living in the 2nd century, not the 21st," said Ali Hassan Ali, 57.
Just before the entrance to Jerusalem, all the Palestinian cars turn off the road. For those West Bank Palestinians who do not have the identity cards needed to enter Jerusalem, they must travel a long and circuitous route along an old British army supply road that runs near Jericho and skirts around the eastern edge of Jerusalem. It takes more than an hour if there are no hold-ups at checkpoints.
Ahmad Shahab, 51, an Islamic studies schoolteacher, is heading from Ramallah to Eizariya, halfway to Bethlehem. "Are these restrictions because they are afraid of attacks? But a person like me over 50, what threat am I for them?"
In Bethlehem itself, Victor Batarseh, the mayor, looks from his office into the doorway of the Church of the Nativity. He blames the checkpoints and closures for the economic crisis that has shaken his town. Unemployment is 65%, large parts of the town's farmland have been taken up by the West Bank barrier, and a financial boycott on the Palestinian Authority has meant no salaries have been paid at the municipality for four months.
"This year is I think the hardest Christmas we are facing," he said. "The wall is turning this city into a big prison for its citizens. There is confiscation of land, closure of the main entrances to the city. All this has a physical and a psychological effect. We can only hope for change."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)