THIS JUST IN! TYPICAL PASSED OFF AS NOVEL!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

THE INCREASINGLY USELESS A.P. WANTS TO TREAT AS 'NEWS' THAT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS RISEN 5% IN APPROVAL RATINGS SINCE THE ELECTION.

AN INCREASE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ELECTION AND THROUGH THE INAUGURATION IS TO BE EXPECTED AND ALWAYS HAPPENS FOR THE INCUMBENT.

NEWS WILL BE HOW QUICKLY BARRY O WILL SQUANDER THAT GOOD WILL.  NEWS IS ALSO HOW LOW THE APPROVAL RATING IS.  EVEN THE BUMP DIDN'T CARRY HIM TO 60% AND HE'S A SITTING PRESIDENT.

AS BARRY O GEARS UP FOR A SERIES OF BALLS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GREAT RECESSION CONTINUES AS DOES WAR, LET'S SEE HOW QUICKLY THE POLLS DROP. 


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The press is supposed to want to report. If they can be accused -- collectively -- of a bias its having a desire for conflict because conflict makes news. So explain Qassim Abdul-Zahra's AP story this morning which has only been teased out to a longer story by this afternoon despite it grossly misunderstanding what was stated by Nouri al-Maliki about the country's most recent crisis which Nouri sparked when he sent forces into the disputed regions of northern Iraq. Let's deal first with what actually happened today. All Iraq News notes Nouri held a news conference with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today and Nouri declared that there were proposals (plural) to resolve the current standoff between Baghdad and Erbil. Alsumaria reports Nouri said there were two proposals for ending the military standoff in disputed areas between Nouri's Tigris Operation Command and the Kurdish Peshmerga. One proposal is locals are in charge of security while another proposal is a joint patrol by Nouri's Tigris forces and the Peshmerga. The key on the second proposal would be whether or not the Peshmerga remains under Kurdish control.

 

 

Also today All Iraq News reports Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gave a speech about how this crisis is threatening the security and the peace. Al Mada adds that Talabani declared that threatening language -- a reference to Nouri's speech on Saturday -- has no place in this discussion. And as Thursday ended in Iraq, Alsumaria reported that Talabani met with Ahmed Chalabi who gave his support to Talabani and his efforts to peacefully resolve the crisis. All Iraq News notes that Talabani also met with US Ambassador to Iraq Robert S. Beecroft today and they agreed on the need for a peaceful solution to this ongoing dispute.

 

That's all really basic. Yet this morning, AP wanted to report that Nouri stated an agreement had been reached on how to resolve the crisis. That's not what's reported by Arabic outlets. They report Nouri held a press conferences and talked about proposal(s). They continued to insist an agreement had been reached as the day went along. No agreement's been reached. Jalal Talabani wouldn't have given the speech he did today or met with Chalabi to discuss the crisis if it was resolved.

 

 

 

Let's drop back to the November 26th snapshot:

 

 

 

In a development everyone is trumpeting, representatives from the KRG and the central Iraqi government met in Baghdad today. KUNA notes, "Iraq's federal government and provincial government of Iraq's Kurdistan region reached an agreement in principle stipulating return of all military foces to their previous locations." In principal? And that's the more upbeat version. Isabel Coles and Alison Williams (Reuters) lead with, "Iraqi military leaders agreed on Monday with commanders from the Kurdistan region to defuse tension and discuss pulling their troops back from an area over which they both claim jurisdiction." That's not quite the same thing and when you include a quote from Iraq's "commander in chief of the Iraqi armed forces" (that would be Nouri) that states the two sides will "discuss a mechanism to return the forces which were deployed after the crisis to their previous positions." So they're going to discuss that. And even less has been accomplished according to Almanar, "Top federal and Kurdish security officials agreed in Baghdad on Monday to 'activate' coordinating committees between their forces and work to calm the situation in northern Iraq, a statement said." Almanar also notes that those attending the meeting including US Lt Gen Robert Caslen.

 

 

As we noted the next morning, that story fell apart. AP was one of the outlets that got that story grossly wrong. You'd think they'd have learned and you think the fact that the press feeds on conflict would mean that the same reporters wouldn't repeatedly fall for the same "Everything solved! Nothing here to see!" This morning, we pointed out that if an agreement had been reached, KRG President Massoud Barzani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani would probably be making announcements. That didn't strike AP as strange? That the person who initiated the conflict would be the one to announce it was over?

 

 

 

And if that doesn't seem plausible how about the fact that there's nothing on the KRG website about an agreement being reached? There is this article in Arabic (probably there in Kurdish as well but I can't read Kurdish). It's about today's meeting of Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani and his Cabinet and among the topics discussed was the conflict and the Tigris Operation Command and how the General Command of the Peshmerga states that they are prepared to defend and protect if violence breaks out. Barzani noted that he was speaking with all Kurdish leaders including KRG President Massoud Barzani.

 

 

Seems to me if a deal was reached, KRG President Massoud Barzani would know and I don't see why he'd keep it from the Prime Minister (who is also his nephew). Again, it's just not plausible. Last time when AP and others pulled this nonsense, I didn't name them, I just said outlets. Well I'm sorry this is the second time you're claiming events happened when they didn't, the second time that your 'solution' story tells the world "Look away, nothing to see here." It's a bit hard to excuse it. It goes against what Iraqi outlets are reporting happened, it goes against what's plausible and it goes against the nature of journalism.

 

 

On the standoff, let's note two views of what's unfolding. First, David Romano (Rudaw) offers this take:

 

 

From my perch in the West, far outside the halls of power in Baghdad or Erbil, it's hard for me to know how serious the threat of outright conflict between the Kurds and Maliki has become. As a political scientist, however, I know of too many historical cases where such tensions led to wars that none of the parties intended or really wanted. In other cases, some of those who chose or desired war expected a quick victory, only to become mired in terrible, grinding and long lasting fighting. The region remembers when Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1967 famously took provocative action after action, from threats and blockades against Israeli shipping to demanding the withdrawal of United Nations observer forces from the Sinai. Finally the Israelis attacked, and somehow took him by surprise and then proceeded to defeat the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 6 days. Several years later, Saddam Hussein thought to launch a similar surprise attack on Iran, after its new religious leaders began inciting Iraqi shiites to revolt. Expecting quick victory similar to Israel's lightning war of 1967, he instead condemned Iraq and Iraq to eight years of war, poverty and over a million war dead. The point is that when you overturn the cart, or even threaten to turn it over, no one really knows where its contents will fall.
If serious armed conflict between Maliki and the Kurds does erupt, intentionally or not, the media war of interpretation will undoubtedly rage as well. How such conflict gets framed will likely play a crucial war in determining the winner, in fact. If Mr. Maliki manages to cast the issue as a war between Kurds and Arabs (or "an ethnic war," as he recently referred to a possible conflict), the advantage will go to him. Given how seriously Arabs outnumber Kurds in Iraq, the medium and long-term consequences of such a framing of the conflict would prove extremely disadvantageous to Kurdistan. Mr. Maliki and his "State of Law" Party will tell Iraqis that Barzani is trying to expand Kurdistan's borders at Arab expense. Under such circumstances, it would be hard even for Arabs who oppose Maliki not to rally to his cause of protecting Arabs against Kurdish maximalism. As long as leaders in Kurdistan insist that Article 140 be implemented and the disputed territories be given a chance to join Kurdistan, it will prove extremely difficult to oppose Maliki's framing of the issue as one of "Arab vs. Kurd."

 

 

 

And for another view, Qassim Khidhir Hamad (Niqash) speaks with the Islamic Supreme Council's Bashir Adel Gli

 

NIQASH: Despite all this though, it seems that both sides are sending more military into the disputed areas every day. People here in Iraqi Kurdistan are frightened, they think that war is inevitable.

 

 

Bashir Adel Gli: I have no fear. There won't be a war.

 

 

NIQASH: And what makes you so sure of that?

 

 

Bashir Adel Gli: Because al-Maliki has a lot of opponents in Baghdad – such as the Islamic Virtue Party [the Fadhila party], the Islamic Supreme Council, the Sadrists [Editor's note: the latter three are all Shiite-Muslim dominated] and the Iraqiya party. All of his opponents simply won't let this happen. And the Kurdish won't allow the Kurdish military [the peshmerga] to attack the Iraqi army either.

 

 

NIQASH: So what do you think will happen in Iraqi politics in 2013?

 

 

Bashir Adel Gli: I can't really predict that. But I do think it will be the end of al-Maliki. I think if al-Maliki tries to run for the third term, he will find that those opposed to him will multiply.

 

 

On a related note, Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that the National Alliance (Shi'ite political body headed by Ibrahim al-Jafaari) declared that they believe Nouri is attempting to isolate them politically. Dar Addustour notes the talks going on between KRG President Massoud Barzani, Moqtada al-Sadr (cleric and leader of the Sadr movement) and Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi over the current crisis and the belief that Nouri has escalated this.

 

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"AP sucks off Nouri and swallows"
"Nouri mistakes a club for an olive branch"
"4 women, 2 men (and the racism of Lincoln)"
"Random thoughts"
"The never-ending Great Recession"
"revenge"
"Media consolidation"
"Conspiracies do exist"
"I wouldn't notice him either"
"Remember when Bully Boy Bush tried to do this?"
"The November 29th walkout"
"Here comes the war repeat"
"She finds it easier to just make it up!"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALMOST LIKE WRITING!"

THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALMOST LIKE WRITING!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

POOR LITTLE KATHLEEN PARKER, SO MANY WORDS TO COME UP WITH, SO FEW FACTS TO PLAY WITH.

SO SHE 'FUDGES' THEM AND WRITES THINGS LIKE "THE REVISED THREE AMIGOS" OPPOSE SNARLY RICE BECOMING THE NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE.  THE THREE AMIGOS REFERRED TO JOE LIEBERMAN, JOHN MCCAIN AND LINDSAY GRAHAM -- THREE SENATORS.  BUT LIEBERMAN'S RETIRING.  SO KATHLEEN PUSHES THE PHRASE OFF ON MCCAIN, GRAHAM AND SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE AND THEN, WOOPS, REMEMBER SUSAN COLLINS!  BUT SHE SAID 'REVISED' SO IT'S OKAY, RIGHT?

EXCEPT SENATORS BOB CORKER AND JOHN BARRASSO HAVE ALSO COME OUT AGAINST THE POTENTIAL NOMINATION.  AND DID SO DAYS AGO.  SO THAT'S SIX, WOOPS.

POOR LITTLE KATHLEEN PARKER.  IF ONLY THROWING TOGETHER A COLUMN BASED ON CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND ZERO RESEARCH COUNTED FOR WORKING SHE MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING TO POINT TO WITH PRIDE.

INSTEAD HER COLUMNS ARE BECOMING AS BIG A FAILURE AS WAS HER ATTEMPT AT TV STARDOM ON CNN.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

 

Chair Patrick Meehan:  From 2004 - 2007, the insurgency in Iraq produced substantial civilian displacement and emigration from the country.  In response to the growing humanitarian crisis, Congress passed legislation which gave Iraqis who helped the US government or military the opportunity to receive special refugee status and resettlement in the United States.  While the motivation behind creating these special immigrant categories were well intentioned, the fact remains that in May 2011, two Iraqi nationals who were given refugee status and resettled in the US were arrested and accused by the FBI of plotting to send weapons and money to al Qaeda in Iraq.  One of the men arrested had openly discussed his prior experience as an insurgent in Iraq and the IED attacks he participated against US troops.  The fingerprints of the other Iraqi refugee who was charged were traced by the FBI to a component of an unexploded IED that was recovered by US forces in northern Iraq.  In the wake of these arrests, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and others have publicly acknowledged that security screenings have been expanded to the more than 58,000 Iraqi refugees who had already been settled in the United States.

 

US House Rep Patrick Meehan was speaking at the House Homeland Security Subccomittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence yesterday as they explored the topic of refugees.

 

 

The Iraq War created the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1949.  Millions were displaced within Iraq (internal refugees) and millions were forced to leave the country (external refugee).  There's a mistaken impression that the United States government did something wonderful.  They didn't.  The high water mark for Iraqi refugees being admitted into the US was in the year Bully Boy Bush and Barack share.  Under President Barack Obama, the number has gone down each year.  Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009) saw 18,838 Iraqis admitted to the US.  That number dropped to 9,388 in FY2011.  The 2012 Fiscal Year ended two months ago but the government has yet to release figures for the full year.  Through the end of March 2012, the number of Iraqis admitted to the US stood at 2,501. And the number 12,000 was used by Homeland Security officials for FY2012 during yesterday's hearing.   In the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama won a lot of support for promises on Iraqi refugees -- promises that were not kept.

 

Some may look at the case of the two Iraqis Chair Meehan was referring to -- Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanand Shareef Hammadi -- and think the low numbers count as good news.  That's a judgment call.  If that's what you feel, you're entitled to feel that way.  I don't feel that way.  

 

As for the two men making it through the system with one being an obvious mistake -- security concerns should have resulted in his being kicked out of the program.   The fact that he wasn't goes to information sharing and not to the program itself.   As Ranking Member Janice Han pointed out, "In 2005, Alwan's finger print was found on a roadside bomb in Iraq.  This information was in a Department of Defense data base that was not checked during his background investigation when he applied to the refugees admissions program.  This illustrates that  we still have failed to close the remaining information sharing gaps that continue to persist since the September 11th terrorist attacks." So the issue in one of the cases was a failure to utilize information the government already had access to. 

 

Two people isn't enough to alarm me.  That's me.  For others, that number may be way too high.  Regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, it is a serious issue and we'll go into what was said about it during the hearing. 

 

Appearing before the Subcommittee were the State Dept's Director of the Refugee Admissions Office Lawrence Bartlett, Homeland Security's Chief in the Refugee Affairs Division Barbara Strack and Homeland Security's Deputy Undersecretary for Analysis Dawn Scalici.   The hearing covered many aspects.  I sat through it for the issue of Iraqi refugees and that's what we'll focus on.

 

From Barbara Strack and Dawn Scalici's prepared (written) statement:

 

USCIS officers conduct refugee status interviews for applicants from more than 60 countries each year, though the vast majority of these applicants are currently Iraqi, Bhutanese and Burmese nationals.  Refugee processing operations in the Middle East are primarily focused on Iraqi nationals with interviews taking place in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt as well as in-country processing of Iraqi nationals in Baghdad.  Operations in Damascus, Syria, previously a large refugee processing site, have been suspended since March 2011.  In FY2012, over 12,000 Iraqi refugees were admitted to the United States, and since 2007, over 71,000 Iraqi nationals have been resettled, many of whom have ties to the United States through work or family.

 

 

Strack testified that the Iraqi program was modified as it went along, fine-tuned, and that it is now the standard for all refugees (age 14 to 65, Scalici explained) attempting to enter the US regardless of their nationality -- this is the standard across the board whether you're attempting to become a refugee from Eastern Europe or from Iraq. And prior to that?

 

Dawn Scalici:  [. . .] what we have done as an interagency process is to go back and do retroactive checks on those individuals that were earlier admitted to the United States and any relevant information that comes to light is then shared with releveant intelligence community or law enforcement agencies as appropriate.  One other thing I think I would mention as well, not only do we have analysts who are looking at all the relevant intelligence and data at the time that an applicant originally puts forward their application, we review it again before that applicant actually enters the United States in case any derogatory information has arisen in the intervening time. So we do believe, again, this interagency process drawing on more intelligence and data than we ever did before as well as the recurring and retroactive checks has greatly enhanced our ability to identify individuals of concern.

 

Now we're going to an exchange on the same topic.

 

 

Ranking Member Janice Hahn: How did we miss that initial information? And could you speak to what are we doing? I hear vague comments about information sharing but we know that is key as we move forward that was one of the one lessons we learned from 9-11. So what, without divulging any classified information, how did we miss that information the first time around and what can you tell us that will give us some confidence that we really are able to look at all the data available out there to make responsible decisions as we move forward in this refugee program?

 

 

Dawn Scalici: Well for those two individuals of concern that we've been talking about, at the time that they made their original application to enter the refugee program in the United States both their biographic and biometric information that we had available on them at the time and that were used in the screening processes came in clean. So we did not have any derogatory information on those two individuals that we used as part of the screening effort when they entered the United States. And the finger print clearance came through as well from DoD, FBI as well as DHS --

 

Ranking Member Janice Hahn:  Even though their finger prints were found to have been on a roadside bomb?

 

 

Dawn Scalici:  That's what we have learned in the aftermath. I would have to refer to DoD and FBI for any specific information on that but again all the biographic and biometric information as well as the biometric checks that were performed at the time did come back clean. But since that time, as I think we've noted, we've actually enhanced the program and the security checks. We now draw upon a greater wealth of intelligence and data holdings on individuals seeking application to the refugee program which greatly enhances our ability to identify derogatory compared to earlier.

 

Janice Hahn: Anyone else want to comment on that? [The other two witnesses didn't.] So other than the recent Iraqi refugee case, have there been --

 

 

We're cutting Hahn there because our focus is Iraq and she goes on to expand.  We're not including the witness responses because they had no other cases.

 

But before someone e-mails to tell me there may be another terrorist case . . .  Yes, there was a bombing of a Social Securtiy building last Friday in Casa Grande, Arizona.  The suspect is a man the media has identified as Iraqi-American (Abdullatif Aldosary).  When did he come to the US?  Reports differ with some saying before 2008 and some saying 1998.  If he were found guilty -- and currently he has the presumption of innocence -- and he entered the US before Fiscal Year 2007 (so before September 30, 2006), he predates the screening system that was being discussed.  If he were found guilty and he was admitted to the US after October 1, 2006, he would have been admitted under the system that was being discussed. That doesn't mean that, if guilty, he necessarily had any indicators that should have been caught in the screening. 

 

 

Though lumped together, there are actually two groups of Iraqis who can work through the current system. There are the refugees who are threatened and there are also the Iraqis who worked with US forces or US-approved missions. 

 

Chair Chair Patrick Meehan:  Ms. Strack, Ms. Scalici,  could you, identify if you will -- we're talking about those who are eligible for consideration.  There has been the identification of an emphasis on those who have participated in assisting United States efforts -- either in the military, intelligence, otherwise non-governmental organizations -- who then put themselves into some peril.  What is the distinction between those who are humanitarain versus those who have performed to the benefit of our interests and are therefore being given some consideration because of the exposure that may result from that service?

 

Barbara Strack: It's a -- The programs work in several ways to address both humanitarian concerns and those who worked side-by-side, employed directly by the US or with US affiliated organizations, NGOs or media organizations.  The SIV program that we've talked about is often conflated with the refugee program but it's actually distinct so --

 

Chair Patrick Meehan: Could you explain that for me please?  What an SIV stands for --

 

Barbara Strack:  I'm sorry --

 

Chair Patrick Meehan: -- because we've seen this before and I want to see how that's different from the other program?

 

 

Barbara Strack:  Yes, sir.  It stands for Special Immigrant Visa program.   And so unlike the refugee program, the fundamental focus of the refugee program is on whether someone has been persecuted, have they been persecuted in the past or do they have a well founded fear of persecution in the future based on a protected category: Race, religion, nationality,  political opinion or membership in a particular social group.  The SIV program traditionally is -- Special Immigrant Visa -- is really based on service with the United States.  And this is something Mr. Bartlett is a little bit more of an expert on.  But Congress legislated familiar a program -- Special Immigrant Visas -- to say that those who've worked for the United States government in -- there are actually three sub-categories within the Special Immigrant Visa program.  Initially, it was small: If you were a translator with the military.  But it expanded beyond that to include embassy employees.   And really, for them, it's the fact that their service with the United States that makes them eligible.  And when they come to the United States, its' -- both our agencies -- it is handled through a different bueractric stream,  They don't come as a refugee.  They come as a lawful, permanent resident.  So when they arrive, they get a green card based on their service.  Now there are some individuals who may be eligble to apply for both programs, they may have worked with the US embassy or the US military so they're eligible to apply for an SIV but they may very well be able to articulate a refugee claim because -- because of that service -- they have also faced persecution.  So we work -- we work on the refugee side of the program.  But individuals may choose which of those two avenues is better for them, which they think operates more quickly depending on whether they're in Iraq or somewhere else --

 

Chair Patrick Meehan: Well that's an interesting question.  Do they operate on a parallel track or is there some preference given to somebody who has served as an interpreter for our troops that are, you know, out in the midst of the mountains in Afghanistan?  Do they get a preference or is there not any difference?

 

Barbara Strack:  I can tell you that they do operate on a parallel track so an individual -- an individual who is eligible -- has the opportunity to file for an SIV and, again, that would be filed with the State Department.  And, in the refugee program, having worked with the United States or a US affiliated organization is one of the criteria that can help you get access to the program but it is not the sole criteria.

 

 

It was an informative hearing.  And while the State Dept has yet to release a complete figure for FY2012, again, the number used in the hearing was 12,000 and "over 12,000."

 

That is not in keeping with the promises made in the 2008 campaign.  The International Rescue Committee notes on their Iraq page, "A small number of vulnerable Iraqi refugees are being granted refuge in the United States."  And, as Refugees International observes, "the country continues to face large scale displacement and pressing humanitarian needs.  Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes -- either for safer locations within Iraq or to other countreis in the region -- and are living in increasingly desperate circumstances."  The Iraqi Refugee Assistand Program highlights the Ibrahims with a video of the mother and two of her sons and one of her daughters. 

 

 

Ekhlas Zaky:  My name is Ekhlas Zaky.  I'm from Mosul. I was born in '72. Married with five kids.

 

Mustafa:  Mustafa.  I'm from Mosul.

 

Ekhlas Zaky:  You're in second year.

 

Mustafa:  I'm in second year.

 

Tuhama:  My name is Tuhama.  From Mosul.  Second year.

 

Ekhlas Zaky: Ibrahim doesn't speak.  Our main reason for leaving Iraq was the children.  I'm sure the war is to blame for my children's illness. The doctors talked about the chemicals that had been dropped on Iraq. They said that they affect the kidneys and the heart. So the chemicals affected Tuhama's kidneys.  It's a rare disease. Provision of medical treatment was unreliable.   Most often Tuhama's fits would happen at night.  Getting her to hospital was very difficult. The closest hospital was surrounded by military forces.  So my husband and I had to risk our lives to get her there. Otherwise she would have died in front of our eyes.  Ibrahim is unable to speak.  And he can't see out of one eye.  One day he was with me at the market.  A truck drove in, loaded with melons.  It drove past and then exploded.  Of course Ibrahim is just a child.  The explosion terrified him. He kept screaming and crying. Afterwards, he wouldn't talk so I took him to see the sheiks. They said that the shock had caused him not to speak. Many doctors advised us to seek medical treatment abroad.  There, medicine is more advanced and equipment is more modern.  The doctors said the children would benefit.  Even if they found good reason to deny me and my husband resettlement what about the fate of the children? 

 

 

 

Refugees are people in need.  As Barbara Strack pointed out in yesterday's hearing, "Bad actors will try to take advantage of any admission program to the United States -- whether its visa programs or refugee programs."  Part of the job Strack and others do is determining who meets the criteria and who doesn't.  In many ways, the criteria is a failure.  One example: Iraq's LGBT community is at risk because they have been repeatedly targeted throughout the war.  The Ministry of the Interior targeted them this year alone with 'teach-ins' at schools where they demonized and, yes, justified killing LGBTs.  But Iraq's LGBT community does readily make one of the five categories for refugee status.  They are a targeted group.  Another example of the criteria?  In Iraq, "nationality" -- one of the five at risk categories the US government recognizes -- really isn't an issue.  Religious sect? Yeah.  Nationality, not really.  (Palestinian Iraqis would be one notable exception but the international community has been more than happy to leave them in refugee camps on the outskirts of Iraq for years now.)  At Iraqi Refugee Stories, you can learn about the many reasons Iraqis seek asylum.  And, as Catholic Relief Services notes, making it out of Iraq doesn't mean problems all vanish since "a majority of Iraqi refugees cannot legally work and lack access to basic health, social services and education.  As a result many Iraqi refugees are destitute.  They have depleted all of their savings after several years in exile.  Many suffer from debilitating illnesses, such as diabetes, hypertension, kidney problems and cancer with limited or not access to health care."

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Guess what Nouri's ordered displayed at checkpoint..."
"Nouri tears up, Hero Ibrahim Ahmed tries to heal"
"Curiosity and science"
"1 woman, 5 men"
"He's flexible"
"another good move by hillary"
"Important article on the families of the dead"
"Web irritations"

"How to spoil enthusiasm TV-style"

"Why the Disney deal is dumb"

"Bobby Dumb F**k"
"A sad vote in the Senate"
"Before they hit the streets . . ."
"THIS JUST IN! PIMP CALLS A MEET-UP!"

THIS JUST IN! PIMP CALLS A MEET-UP!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IF THEY WERE JOURNALISTS, IT WOULD BE UNETHICAL. 

BUT THERE'S NO LAW AGAINST A GROUP OF WHORES MEETING WITH THEIR PIMP AND DOING WHAT HE TELLS THEM.

WHICH IS HOW RACHEL MADDOW, AL SHARPTON, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, FATTY ED SCHULTZ AND LARRY O'DONNELL ENDED UP MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O YESTERDAY -- AN OFF THE RECORD MEETING TO LEARN HOW TO SELL BARRY O'S TALKING POINTS TO THE MASSES.

REMEMBER WHEN THOSE OF US ON THE LEFT WERE OUTRAGED BY BULLY BOY BUSH DOING THIS KIND OF CRAP?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

Yesterday evening there was a Bradley Manning Support Network's DC event or, as it turned out, No Gold Star Left Behind.  Everyone gets a prize just for participating.  Before we get to that, Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. 

 

 

 

Some notes.  I attended with a National Lawyers Guild friend.  I'm sure we weren't the only ones rolling our eyes as various 'political prisoners' got name checked and Lynne Stewart was ignored.  We didn't attend expecting to hear Lynne's name but when you've got time to name check others, you've got time for Lynne.  Lynne's always had time for everyone else and, yes, you owe Lynne Stewart.  You might also have included her on the 'great attorneys' of the past list -- but, of course, no women made that list either.

 

There was time to thank reporters, time to mention them by name, time to applaud them, time to weigh in on Subway and working lunches.   As that speech was finally winding down, my friend pointed out, "Now we know why they can't make a credible argument for Assange."  Indeed.  Does no one organize before speaking to an audience?  You're not there to tell the history of time.  You choose a few key points.  You make those points, you're done. It appears presentation has confused with filibuster.

 

At last came David Coombs, Bradley Manning's attorney, and I wrongly thought (yet again), "Okay, get ready to take notes."  Wrong.  Key moment from the speech?

 

Probably when Coombs was climbing the cross to praise himself -- the first time.  Now attorneys tend to have oversized egos, that's not surprising.  But what was surprising was hearing someone self-aggrandize to a packed room about how great they were because they turn down all interview requests.  ("I also avoid any interviews with the media.")  That's not great at all. 

 

You're in a media war, David Coombs, you need to be taking every interview request and then some.  Your failure to do so goes a long, long way towards explaining how Bradley has disappeared from the radar so often.

 

The failure to grasp that this was a press event and not an ABA convention further hurt Bradley.  Going on about how the pre-trial motions blah blah blah, Coombs suddenly declares, "I'm enjoying my opportunity to cross-examine those who had Bradley Manning in those conditions for so many months."  And like dutiful idiots, many of those applauded that crap.

 

Well, hey, then, let's let this trial go on for 30 years.  For those of us who are actually outraged that the US government has refused to provide Bradley Manning with a fair and speedy trial, the 'enjoyment' of the defense attorney really isn't our concern.

 

Here's another tip: "Those people."  No one gives a damn about some free floating, nebulous menace.  Even the idiot Bully Boy Bush knew he had to paint a face on what he dubbed the "axis of evil."  But there was Coombs pontificating endlessly about "those people" who knew Bradley was being wronged but did nothing, could see with their own eyes that Bradley was being wronged but did nothing.  Who are these people?  Do you mean guards?  If so, why can't you say that?

 

"Change"?  Unless you're talking coins, stop using that empty phrase -- especially as a noun.  The 2008 election drained it of all value.  At one point, Coombs wanted to liken Bradley to Daniel Ellsberg.  I'm sorry but I was at rallies for Daniel Ellsberg -- actual rallies -- and this 'presentation' was more self-congratulatory then anything we had for Ellsberg.  Everything is not an applause line and people need to stop applauding themselves.  It's not only immodest, it's counterproductive.  A real discussion could have taken place if everyone hadn't decided that self-suck was more important than addressing reality.  After three solid minutes of various thanks (with no end in sight), my friend leaned over and asked if he did "the E-Z checks plan, will they give me my PBS mug so we can leave already?"

 

I've noted before that Jane Fonda is one of our country's great speakers.  She truly is.  We can all learn and borrow from her.  One of the things she's always been very good at is conveying some nervousness about speaking and growing stronger in her presentation so that the subtext is: This made me stronger.  She embodies that.  She does not stand there yammering on about 'I'm scared but now I'm stronger and blah blah blah.'  If Jane were to put that into words instead of making it the subtext, it wouldn't work.  And Coombs' bad attempt to steal Jane's signature move sank as he verbalized (in a hundred and one words) what she embodies with a gesture, a head tilt and the growing passion in her voice.

 

David Coombs loves the judge, loves the military system, loves the legal system, loves to hear his own voice.  We learned about that and so many more things about David Coombs.  Bradley?  Not so much.  What should have been the strongest moment quickly sank.

 

David Coombs:  Last Tuesday, the President of the United States signed into law The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.  As President Obama was signing this bill into law, Brad and I were in a court room for the start of his unlawful pre-trial motion.  How can you reconcile the two? 

 

Is it possible for Coombs to speak plainly?  "Unlawful pre-trial motion."  Is that a soundbyte outside of a legal journal?  I don't think so.  Nor do I think "Brad and I were in a court room" is appropriate.  Bradley is the targeted one, not David Coombs. 

 

What followed were 'questions' that were written out ahead of time on index cards.  It was as though we were sitting through the press conference Bully Boy Bush held right before starting the Iraq War. 

 

As we were leaving, a reporter I knew stopped us and asked how fair were the questions?  "Off the record," I said, "the whole thing was bulls**t.  Where do we get off on the left refusing to take questions?  Doing pre-screened -- excuse me, 'pre-approved' questions?  I thought the heart of this case was about the need for information to be out there.  Freedom of information died here, somebody call the time of death."  My friend summed it up better, however, "I support Manning 100% but what went on in there was a cross between an Amway convention and a Nuremberg Rally." 

 

My comments above are on the first half of the presentation only.  (In part because I had to step outside to return a few calls including one about last night's snapshot -- it was too long when it was typed up and we had to edit it.)  I was present for the entire presentation and 'question' and answer session with Coombs.  I stepped out right after that.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Rumors swirl that Nouri's set to declare a state o..."
"Keith Olbermann gets into a flame war"
"666 Park Avenue"
"3 women, 3 men"
"The sorry economy"
"the college years"
"A column with more right than wrong"
"Fleetwood Mac to tour in 2013"
"Richard Jackson is full of s**t"
"The Good Wife"
"Media and women"
"Isaiah, Third, WSWS"
"Snarly Rice steamed"
"THIS JUST IN! SNARLY RICE GETS STICKY!"

THIS JUST IN! SNARLY RICE GETS STICKY!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

POOR SCOWLING RICE.  THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS IS SLOWLY LEARNING THAT TREATING PEOPLE WITH CONTEMPT CAN COME BACK TO BITE YOU IN THE ASS.  AND SNARLY RICE IS LEARNING THAT SHE'S NEVER GOING TO SHAKE THE NICKNAME "RWANDA RICE" AFTER THE GENOCIDE SHE HELPED ENABLE.

THEN AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S HER FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WILL FIND HER NOT BECOMING SECRETARY OF STATE.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This evening Hurriyet news reported that Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani is "accusing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of continually suspecting conspiracies against him" and quotes Barzani stating, "We want to solve issues through dialogue, not through tanks or F-16s. The problems with al-Maliki are not personal.  Most Iraqi factions support us."  What is Barzani talking about?  Nouri has created so many crises in Iraq that it can get confusing.  This one stems from Iraq's law of the land.

 

Iraq's Constitution was written in 2005.  At the time of the writing -- and still today -- there were areas in dispute.  Three provinces are part of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region.  In addition, Kurds feel they have a right to other areas including oil-rich Kirkuk.  The central government out of Baghdad also feels it has a claim to Kirkuk.  What you have is two sides attempting to make historical claims to one piece of land.  That will never resolve the issue, as the writers of the Constitution knew.  So they created Article 140.  It calls for a census and a referdum to resolve disputed areas.  Nouri al-Maliki is installed by the US government as prime minister of Iraq in the spring of 2006.  Article 140 is supposed to be implemented no later than the end of 2007.

Despite having had six years to implement Article 140 (and despite forever promising he was just about to), Nouri has refused to implement it.  The climate was not just one of mistrust on this issue, it was one of Nouri refusing to follow the law.  And he made it worse a few months ago by sending Iraqi forces (Tigris Operation Command) into these disputed areas.  The Kurds fear that he is doing that to 'resolve' the dispute by force.

 

The dispute could have ended last week and it stood a serious chance.  Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot:

Tensions continue between the KRG and the Baghdad-based central government over Nouri sending in the Tigris Operation Command forces into disputed regions, as Martin Kobler noted today when addressing the UN Security Council.  In an interesting development, Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports Nouri is said to be angry because his generals are not providing him with details and summeries of the ongoing negotiations with the Kurdish Peshmerga officials.  If Nouri is really being kept out of the loop, that says a great deal about how much his power has faded in the last weeks.  Even more surprising since the Peshmerga has published the main points the two sides agreed upon:

1. Forming an operational mechanism, principles of cooperation and joint committees in the disputed regions. The joint operations in the disputed regions of Kurdistan will remain unchanged but the mechanism of operation will be revitalized between the federal forces and the forces of the Kurdistan Region.

2. The meetings of all the joint operations committees will be rescheduled to once a month. This will be increased if deemed necessary, especially for meetings of the SAC.

3. The location of the meetings and coordination for the meetings will be organized by the command of the Iraqi Armed Forces who will work as a coordinator for the work of the committees, especially the SAC.

4. A follow-up procedure will be conducted for the work and the decisions of the joint committees and punitive measures will be taken against any defaulting party or individual.

5. Any party or individual will be punished in case of reporting misleading information to their superiors in order to create problems and crisis at any level.

6. The SAC must be immediately informed about any problems that arise in the disputed areas in order to immediately work on solving them.

7. The agreements must be honored and the commanders, officials and individuals who violate the terms of the agreements will be punished.

8. Forming a quick mechanism to pull out all the forces of both sides that were mobilized to the region after Nov. 16, 2012. Pulling out these forces must be transparent, truthful and supervised by the supreme committee members after the consent of the SMC.

9. Reconsidering the decision of forming operations command in the region, especially the Tigris Operations Command, and giving back the authority of security in Kirkuk to the police, Asayish and internal forces.

 

This could have been the first step in resolving that crisis.  Instead, Nouri nixed the deal and uncorked the crazy.  And he was spewing it on Saturday.  Al Mada reported the prime minister made a public statement in which he attacked Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds, stated that those attempting to withdraw confidence for him should be warned and floated "arrests" as part of his threats.  It was a very disturbing speech.  In the speech he made a demand that everyone attend a meet-up.  All Iraq News notes that the Kurdistan Alliance has already: They won't be attending.  They issued a statement explaining Nouri has refused to be practical and resolve the crisis (he created).  While the Kurds willingly met with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi in good faith, Nouri blew off the exchange.  When the Iraqi military and the Peshmerga came up with a 14-point plan to resolve the latest crisis (created by Nouri), Nouri said it would not be allowed.

Dar Addustour added that Nouri declared in his speech that the Kurds don't believe in the Constitution and that efforts at a no-confidence vote in him will be met by actions that have never been taken before.  In addition, he announced he wants to arrest members of Parliament who raised the torture of Iraqi women in prisons.  He also made a number of statements involving President Jalal Talabani which appear to be that the same people who put him (Nouri) in power put Jalal in power and if Nouri goes down so does Jalal.  Al Rafidayn emphasized the attacks on Jalal Talabani in Nouri's remarks.  Today the Iraq Times reports MP Amir al-Kanani, with Moqtada al-Sadr's political bloc, states that Nouri's speech was in response to the loss of popularity for his political party Dawa as a result of his attempts to end the food ration card system and as a result of the Russian arms deal that fell apart.  Dawa is Nouri's political party.  His political slate that he ran with in 2010 is State of Law.  Provincial elections are supposed to take place in April which could be behind any concern about the popularity of Dawa.   All Iraq News notes that State of Law was supposed to meet this evening in Nouri's offices to prepare their strategies for the upcoming elections.

 

Al Mada notes that the religious authorities in Najaf are said to be troubled by the escalation of the conflict.  They're not the only ones troubled.  Wael Grace (Al Mada) notes that the actions are troublinging investors and would-be investors dismaying the business community in Iraq.  Also watching the situation closely is the government of Turkey.  Rudaw reports, "Turkish officials say they are following recent tensions between the Kurdistan Region and the Iraqi government with concern."  Alsumaria reports Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi declared today that Nouri al-Maliki's actions have been an assault on the Kurdish region.  It's noted that Allawi has spoken via telephone with both Barzani and Talabani about the issue already today.  The Iraq Times notes that Allawi is scheduled to visit Erbil on Wednesday.  Iraqiya is the political slate that came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections.

 

 

 

Earlier today Alsumaria reported that a large number of Peshmerga are moving towards Kirkuk.  The Iraq Times reports that they arrived with tanks by afternoon.  Nouri called the move "irresponsible escalation."  Meanwhile Alsumaria notes Talabani was returning to Baghdad today in an attempt to re-start a dialogue on the issues.

How serious is the above?  Not at all serious to the reporters covering the US State Dept.  Despite the fact that a press conference was held today, no one asked spokesperson Mark Toner one question about Iraq. 

 

In violence, Alsumaria reports a Kirkuk mortar attack injured a police officer.  Also in Kirkuk, Alsumaria reports a 20-year-old man shot dead his 2 brothers and 1 sister behind the Dawa Party's offices and he shot his parents as well but they were left injured, not dead.  All Iraq  News notes 1 person was shot dead in Mousl.  Friday ended the month of November.  Iraq Body Count counted 244 deaths from violence in the month.  AFP reports the government ministries (under)count 166 deaths.  The outlets notes this is an increase from the government's claims of only 144 deaths in October.

 

As noted above, Nouri's threatening to arrest members of Parliament who spoke publicly about the abuse Iraqi women are suffering in prisons.  The BRussels Tribunal has a very important article on this torture.  We're going to highlight a little from their report each snapshot this week and hopefully include the entire thing that way.  Here they are on the starting point:

 

The torture journey starts when security forces raid and search the houses, through random raids or ordered raids. The Fourth Commander of the Second Brigade – Team 6, Major Jumaa Al-Musawi, has confirmed this information. This man has a criminal record, and he was assigned to this position by the American Forces during their first training courses in intelligence gathering. He used to live in Al-Thawra (now called Sadr City) / Sector 87.  In his own words:

"When we receive the raid and search orders from the Brigade Intelligence, we usually start with a little party and drink alcohol, or take some drugs. We choose the most cruel soldiers to carry out such operations. The first thing we do is to lock the men and youngsters in a room, and the women and children in another room. We start to steal what can be taken fast, like jewelry, and we mess up the house, like throwing the women's underwear here and there; some soldiers even steal some of this underwear. After that, we start to do a body search on the women, and having fun touching their private parts or breasts. We threaten them to arrest the men in the house when they refuse to be touched. If those women are pretty, we usually rape them immediately, and leave the house when we find no weapons or incriminating material. In case we find some weapons, every man and youngster in the house will be arrested, and if there are no men at home, we arrest all the women instead. This is totally according to the orders we receive."

What follows is one of many stories about the crimes committed by these corrupt creatures, who shamelessly brag about their misdeeds to each other. Al-Musawi and his assistant Lt. Rafid Al-Darraji (another criminal who was imprisoned in Abu-Ghraib and sentenced to death, but was released by the Americans, using him as a guardian, along with their own guard dogs, giving him the Lt. rank. He used to live in Al-Nuariyah District. Here is what they state:

"In July 2006, we received an order to raid and search the house of one of the fabric merchants in Karradah (his name is not mentioned). When we reached his house at 1:00 a.m., we didn't find the man, we only found his wife and his 17 year old son. During the search we found a rifle, which – according to our law – is permitted for the personal protection of civilians. But we threatened the woman that we would arrest her son if she didn't let us rape her. So, we handcuffed the son and locked him in a room, and one soldier after the other raped the lady in the other room. The other soldiers stole what they could find, then we headed to a well-known brothel in Al-Doura District in Um Alaa's house to enjoy the rest of the night there."

They continue: "The first thing we do when an arrested woman is being transported to the detention location, is that every part of her body is touched by all the soldiers in the vehicle, while using dirty language. When we reach the detention facility, we leave her in the investigation room, supervised by the intelligence officer and his assistants. They directly take all her clothes off, blindfold her, handcuff her, then the intelligence officer starts to rape her with his assistant. And later they ask her some questions: if she's guilty or innocent and so on. Then they blackmail her, saying that she should be cooperative and give important information about the District where she lives, otherwise they would distribute photos of her while she was naked and being raped. They would accuse her of false charges if she would file a complaint about harrassment and torture. If she receives a "guilty" verdict, she usually stays in the same location for a period of one to three months, in order to finish the procedures of her "case", to be sent to the headquarters. During these months, every single intelligence officer and soldier in the Brigade will rape her. After that, she will be sent to Al Tasfeerat Prison in Shaab Stadium, or to Al-Muthanna Airport Prison. Sometimes the prisoner is transferred to the facility of the Chief Commander's Office in the Green Zone, which is a cellar under the building of the Baghdad Operations Headquarter, supervised by Major General Adnan Al-Musawi. This place is one of the most dangerous, dirtiest prisons of Al-Maliki.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED:

• Iraq snapshot
• Nouri's crazy hits the fan
• Announcements are news . . . only sometimes
• Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Nation Bul...
• Hejira

• Iraq falls over the cliff as Nouri lets the crazy ...
• I Hate The War

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Did the AP forget journalism?
• Media: Losing big in the court of public opinion
• How NPR Silences Women (Ann, Ava and C.I.)
• The UN again forgets women
• Kennedy still stands for sexism
• Look who's playing politics with Benghazi!
• Senator Murray calls for a DoD suicide prevention ...
• State of the left, state of the country
• Workers shut down Port of Oakland
• Highlights

• Cedric's Big Mix

  3 ring circus

  2 days ago
• The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! BUY PEANUTS FOR THE CIRCUS!

  2 days ago

THIS JUST IN! BUY PEANUTS FOR THE CIRCUS!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IF YOU THOUGHT HE LEARNED A DAMN THING FROM HIS FIRST TERM, YOU WERE WRONG.

PICKING A CABINET IS JUST AS CONFUSING FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THIS GO ROUND AS IT WAS LAST.

IF WE CAN ALL SET ASIDE CONCERNS FOR THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY, WE CAN JUST SIT BACK AND LAUGH AT THE INEPTITUDE AND THE INABILITY TO LEARN FROM MISTAKES AS WE GO FROM THE GIDDY HIGH OF ONE FAILED NOMINATION TO THE NEXT.

WHO BROUGHT THE POPCORN?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

Today is the 921st day Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning has spent in military custody.  Today, he again spoke in court and we start with that because the US military has yet again demonstrated it is a culture that refuses to adapt and is so rooted in the status quo that it is responsible -- continues to be responsible -- for the deaths of its own.

 

Background, Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. 

 

 

Bradley appeared in military court yesterday and we'll note various details about the case itself.  But the most important detail is one that effects all serving and veterans who have served -- as well as their family members.

 

Leave it to the Associated Press to miss what's right before its own eyes: "His pretrial testimony appeared to support the military's argument that it was trying to protect Manning from harming himself by keeping him in strict isolation, taking away his clothes and shakling him when he was outside his cell."  Did it?

 

No, it did not.  AP, from time to time, exists solely to keep Dorothy Parker's adage alive: You can lead a whore to culture but you cannot make her think.

 

Taking away his clothes was never about his protection.  And, at Third, we noted that as soon as those details became public and we pointed out that there were non-cloth items he could be provided with to wear if it really was about his safety.  (And didn't the military then suddenly discover that to be true?)  It was not about his protection.

 

 

Bradley being forced to sleep in the nude -- nude and on full display -- is not normal, it is not therapeutic and for the AP to suggest that it is is as offensive if they started running "She asked for it" columns on rape.

 

If the US military wasn't trying to punish Bradley (I believe they were trying to humiliate him, my opinion), their actions do not suddenly become 'good.'  It goes to the larger issue that you have a  lot of idiots who don't know what they're doing.

 

Forcing anyone to be on public display is humiliating and counter-productive enough, adding nudity to it? 

 

Immediately after he was taken into military custody, Bradley was transferred from Iraq to Kuwait.  He was not told what was taking place or if he would stay there or be moved.  Extraordinary rendention was already well known and discussed in the press.  When Jane Mayer was an actual reporter and not the partisan hack she's since morphed into, you could read all sorts of tales by her about what the US government was allowing to be done in the name of 'interrogation.'

 

In such a climate, a very young man, already under stress, was taken into military custody.  He had no idea what would happen to him.  In Kuwait, at one point he made a knoose.  He's called it that in his testimony.  The artist rendering of what prosecutor held up is not actually a knoose.  It's a sheet with a series of knots in it. 

 

The military prosecution is attempting to assert that this knoose or 'knoose' along with another statement is why certain measures were taken with Bradley.  The AP apparently feels it is their job to make the military's case for them as opposed to being a skeptical press.

 

The statement?  Arriving at Quantico, he was admitted.   When he was being admitted into Quantico, Bradley wrote on a form, in response to a question about suicide, "always planning and never acting."

 

Are you telling me that the US military didn't have a follow up?

 

If there was a follow up verbal question, then there was a follow up verbal response.  Why isn't that noted?

 

Because it wouldn't back the military's assertion?  Possibly.

 

That's disturbing.  More disturbing would be that there was no verbal follow up to a statement like that on a form. 

 

To be clear, that statement is perfectly 'normal.'  At different points in their lives, many Americans will consider suicide.  Maybe for a few seconds each time they do, maybe in an elaborate fantasy that has actually deals with something other than suicide.

 

The statement is not 'troubling.'  For a number of reasons.  One, it is an opening to discuss a serious issue and, two, it demonstrates that the person being assessed has some comfort level discussing the issue.  Someone being admitted who was planning to kill themselves and wanting to kill themselves once admitted to a facility, most likely would be close-lipped about any sucidal thoughts.

 

The narrative that the military prosecutor presented to the military court is that Bradley arrived back in the US and wrote during the intake assessment that he was "always planning and never acting" upon.  "Planning" should have resulted in Bradley being asked to define "planning."  Is that thinking, is that an abstract, is that an elaborate plan?  If you were to take your own life, how would you do it?  A whole string of questions were prompted by "always planning and never acting."

 

Where were those questions?

 

Was someone too uncomfortable to ask?  Was a medical professional not present at intake?  That seems strange considering the high-profile nature of Bradley's case even then; however, I would assume the military would train those working at Quantico or any other brig on suicide.

 

What it appears is that, at best, Bradley suffered because the military is not training those required to do supervision on issues like suicide.  

 

Dropping back to November 16th:

 

 

Yesterday, the Defense Dept released the US Army's suicide numbers for last month: "20 potential suicides: five have been confirmed as suicides, and 15 remain under investigation" which is an increase of five from September's numbers.   DoD notes that 2011 resulted in 165 deaths confirmed as suicides and that 2012 has seen 105 confirmed and 61 which are still being investigated.  So if all under investigation currently were to be ruled suicide, October will be the month that 2012 surpassed 2011 for number of army members taking their own lives (166 is the number of suicides if the 61 under investigation end up determined to be suicides).  With two months of data remaining for the calendar year, it is likely 2012 will see an increase in the number of suicides.

 

 

Quantico brig would be a natural location for potentially at-risk persons.  Those working at Quantico should have a minimum level of training.  That minimum level should have included staff providing direct supervision -- eyes on -- of Bradley being alarmed over what public nudity might do to the mental well being of a supposed suicide risk.

 

There was nothing healthy about what was done to Bradley.  If the military's narrative, as presented by the prosecution, is correct, then the Defense Dept is the cause of suicides.  It's not merely failing to provide assistance, it's creating an unhealthy environment that encourages and assists suicides via its own ignorance and negligence.

 

This is not an abstract.  There is a suicide crisis in the military today.

 

Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  This week, she proposed that the Defense Authorization Bill be expanded so that it will "require DoD to create a comprehensive, standardized suicide prevention program."

 

 

Senator Patty Murray:  Time and time again, we've lost servicemembers and veterans to suicide.  But while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have taken important steps towards addressing this crisis, we know more must be done.  We know that any solution depends upon reducing wait times and improving access to mental health care; ensuring proper diagnosis; and achieving true coordination of care and information between the Departments.  This amendment would require a comprehensive, standardized suicide prevention program across the DoD.  It would require the use of the best medical practices, in suicide prevention and behavioral health programs to address serious gaps in the current programs.

 

Murray's remarks appear in full in the November 28th snapshot.  I strongly support Murray's proposal.  Not only that, I hope attorneys around the country start thinking class-action lawsuit against DoD.  A huge number of veterans and servicemembers have taken their own lives.  They've often done so because the help they needed was not present and the people who should have seen the risks weren't trained to see the risks.

 

If the military is going to stand by the assertion that what Bradley experienced -- the 'diagnosis' and the 'treatment' -- was standard and humane military treatment, then it's really time for lawyers to start filing law suits against the DoD and the VA regarding suicides.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Ali al-Dabbagh refuses to fall on Nouri's sword" "Bradley Manning" "Enchilada Bake in the Kitchen" "Doesn't it make you sick?" "Sophia A. Nelson: Bitch" "Stop sulking" "3 women, 4 men and the awful film Lincoln" "2 women, 2 men" "give it up for the amazing shonda rhimes" "deeply disturbing news" "Rock Hudson" "Unsuitable Susie" "Spoiled child Barbra Streisand" "The real UN slogan" "Homophobic Rice?" "Car of my dreams" "99 River Street" "Arrow" "Barry & Bully" "The always disgusting Nate Silver" "Nikita: The Swords Edge" "Nikita back with new episodes Friday night" "He's on fire" "THIS JUST IN! JAMIE FOXX IS BURING UP!"