Friday, August 02, 2013






Today is a new day and, in fact, the first day of August.  Now that July is over, death tolls are being released for the month's violence in Iraq.  Iraq Body Count is missing Thursday the 31st but for the other 30 days, they note their total is 968  AFP offers 875  -- Prashant Rao is not in Iraq currently.  When he's in Iraq, the spreadsheet is done regularly.  The fact that he's been out of Iraq may account for the huge undercount.  Yesterday, Iraq's government ministries released their total:  989.  This morning,  the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued their totals for violent deaths and the number of people left injured in July:

Baghdad, 1 August 2013 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 1,057 Iraqis were killed and another 2,326 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in July.

The number of civilians killed was 928 (including 204 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 2,109 (including 338 civilian police). A further 129 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 217 were injured. 

“The impact of violence on civilians remains disturbingly high, with at least 4,137 civilians killed and 9,865 injured since the beginning of 2013,” the Acting Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq, Mr. Gyorgy Busztin, warned. “We haven’t seen such numbers in more than five years, when the blind rage of sectarian strife that inflicted such deep wounds upon this country was finally abating. I reiterate my urgent call on Iraq’s political leaders to take immediate and decisive action to stop the senseless bloodshed, and to prevent these dark days from returning.”

Baghdad was the worst-affected governorate in July with 957 civilian casualties (238 killed and 719 injured), followed by Salahuddin, Ninewa, Diyala, Kirkuk and Anbar (triple-digit figures).

Babil, Wasit and Basra also reported casualties (double-digit figures).

Since UNAMI began publicly releasing their monthly tolls, this is the quickest they've done so and they accomplished that under the leadership of  Gyorgy Busztin who is serving as the acting UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in Iraq.  In terms of the numbers, many outlets are announcing a Hawija moment, such as Yang Yi (Xinhua), "However, April 23 was a turning point in the Sunnis' protests when security forces backed by helicopters stormed a rally in the city of Hawijah, some 220 km north of Baghdad, killing and wounding dozens of protesters."  The April 23rd massacre of a sit-in in Hawija resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).

The massacre in Hawija was a major event and many outlets and observers have pointed to it as some form of a turning point.  Though it surely hardened resolve against Nouri -- as all governmental  slaughters against innocents hardened opinions against leaders -- the reality is the violence was already on the rise in Iraq.  We'd been noting the increase throughout 2012 and throughout 2013 prior to the April 23rd massacre.  Iraq analyst Kenneth J. Pollack (a centrist) pointed out this week:

2012 saw a 10 percent increase in Iraqi deaths (from 4,100 in 2011 to nearly 4,600 in 2012), the first annual increase since 2006. 3 This year is s haping up to be even worse. Iraq could experience as much as a 100 percent increase in violent deaths over 2012, with roughly 3,000 killed in the first six months of 2013 already -- roughly 1,000 in May alone -- according to the United Nations.

Again, I don't doubt that the massacre on the innocents of Hawija hardened resolve but violence was already increasing before Nouri used his US-trained SWAT forces to attack the people.  This point has been bungled by many (including Thomas E. Ricks).  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) probably puts it better than anyone in the press when observing today, "The killings significantly picked up after Iraqi security forces launched a heavy-handed crackdown on a Sunni protest camp in the northern town of Hawija on April 23. A ferocious backlash followed the raid, with deadly bomb attacks and sporadic gunbattles between insurgents and soldiers -- this time members of the Iraqi security forces rather than U.S. troops."  Reporter Jane Arraf is a longtime observer of Iraq so when she offers an analysis, it's worth considering her judgments.  Today she offers one for the Christian Science Monitor which includes:

Despite the Iraqi government’s attempt to combat a record wave of bombings, the attacks across central and southern Iraq are paralyzing the country, leaving many Iraqis to suffer through a long hot summer with neither public services nor security.
But seven years after an Al Qaeda bombing of a Shiite shrine touched off a civil war, attacks aimed at reigniting a sectarian battle have failed to provoke wider conflict. Although the country continues to reel from the explosions, enough has changed since 2006 that even continued attacks are unlikely to bring Iraq back to the brink of war, officials and many analysts say.

It's really difficult to ascertain what she's saying -- other than she thinks Iraq is not going to move into civil war.  The analysis would have benefited from another page.  Her argument needs more room.

It's especially needs more room since it's contrary to the US government's take -- a take that is neither discussed nor mentioned in passing the column.

Dropping back to the July 23rd snapshot:

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

The same evening, on Nightly News with Brian Williams, Richard Engel reported on Iraq.

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

The US government saying Iraq is in a civil war does not make it so.  (For the record, I happen to agree with the assessment.)  But if Jane Arraf is going to argue a counterpoint a week after the US government's position is known, the column would be stronger if she would acknowledge that.   To provide a counter-argument to that position would be even better but even acknowledging the position would have improved her analysis.  (And her analysis may be 100% correct or a majority correct.  I have no idea.  But I do agree with the assessment of the US government -- and not because "IT'S THE US GOVERNMENT!" -- the US government is often wrong.  But the violence has been on the increase and I'm not a Nouri apologist.  Jane Arraf frequently is.)

Earlier, we were noting Kenneth Pollack on the violence for the last two years.  Pollack made his points earlier this week, when the Brookings Institute released his analysis entitled (PDF format warning) "The Fall and Rise and Fall of Iraq."   Excerpt.

The problems reemerged after Iraq’s 2010 national elections. Ayad Allawi’s mostly - Sunni Iraqiyya garnered slightly more votes than Maliki’s overwhelmingly Shi’a State of Law coalition. But Maliki refused to believe that he had lost, and refused to allow Allawi to take the first shot at forming a government. He pressured Iraq’s high court to rule that he could get the first chance to form a government.
Rather than insist that Allawi be given the first chance, as is customary in most democracies and was clearly what was best for Iraqi democracy, the United States (and the United Nations) did nothing. Ten months of bickering, backstabbing and political deadlock followed. In the end, the Iranians forced Muqtada as - Sadr to back Maliki, uniting the Shi’a behind him. At that point, the Kurds fell into place, believing that the prime minister had to be a Shi’a, and Iraqiyya’s goose was cooked. But so too was Iraqi democracy.
The message that it sent to Iraq’s people and politicians alike was that the United States under the new Obama Administration was no longer going to enforce the rules of the democratic road. We were not going to insist that the will of the people win out. We were willing to step aside and allow Iraq’s bad, old political culture of pay - offs, log - rolling, threats and violence to re - emerge to determine who would rule the country -- the same political culture that the U.S. had worked so hard to bury.
It undermined the reform of Iraqi politics and resurrected the specter of the failed state and the civil war. Having backed Maliki for prime minister if only to end the embarrassing political stalemate, the Administration compounded its mistake by lashing itself uncritically to his government. Whether out of fear of being criticized for allowing him to remain in office in the first place, or sheer lack of interest and a desire to do what required the least effort on the part of the United States, the Administration backed Maliki no matter what he did -- good, bad or indifferent.

You cannot divorce the violence from Nouri al-Maliki.  Yes, he is prime minister but he's also in charge of more than that.

The 2010 parliamentary elections saw Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya beat Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law.  It was a major (press) upset since so many (in the press) had been saying not only that State of Law would come in first but that it would do so by a huge margin.  NPR's Quil Lawrence could be heard, right after the election, announcing State of Law's victory.

But State of Law didn't win.  Someone might want to ask Quil if he was paid by the hour for that whoring?  What happened was not surprising.  As we've noted repeatedly since the results of 2010 were announced, they confirmed the trend of the 2009 parliamentary elections -- both results were a move against sectarianism towards a broader based Iraqi national identity.   Pollack makes the same assessment in his analysis this week so maybe everyone who wanted to argue that reality with me over the course of the last three years will take Pollack's word for it now? (I'm not referring to drive-by e-mails from visitors, I'm referring to the members of the press who wanted to argue the meaning of the results with me.)

Nouri refused to step down even though, per the Constitution, Ayad Allawi was now supposed to be named prime minister-designate and then, if he could assemble a Cabinet in 30 days, he was to be named prime minister.

But Nouri wouldn't step down.  For eight months he refused to do so.  Prior to the 2010 elections, General Ray Odierno, then the top commander in Iraq, had seen this as a likely outcome and had warned that the US should not only prepare for the possibility but should plan how to ensure democracy triumphed.  But the White House didn't want to listen.  The idiot Chris Hill was in the midst of his disaster turn as US Ambassador to Iraq and Hill was bad mouthing Odierno to the White House and insisting that he needed support (which translated as Hill wanting the White House  to tell Odierno to stop talking to the media -- Hill's real beef was that his own press presence wasn't more important and high profile). As Nouri turned a demand for a recount into a long political stalemate where he would not leave the office he had lost, then-Secretary Robert Gates was made aware of the problems with Hill (who was lazy, too cozy with Nouri, anti-Sunni and more eager to plan 'fun functions' for staff than to do diplomatic work), He went to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with those facts and how Odierno's observations had been ignored.  The two of them then met with US President Barack Obama to explain the problems.  This is when the White House stops backy the idiot Chris Hill and asks for his resignation. Hill did not want to leave. That needs to be underscored because he's repeatedly treated today -- by outlets like NPR -- as if he's some sort of genius on Iraq.

He didn't know the facts about Iraq before he was confirmed for the post.  When Hill was nominated the press was all over itself, licking one another, purring and cooing, humping and moaning.  I had no opinion of Hill until I attended the confirmation hearing (see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th one) and it became very clear that he was uninformed, ignorant and full of himself (with no reason to be).  It was also conveyed to me (as I noted here before the confirmation point) that Hill's own State Dept personnel record made a strong case for him not being named ambassador.  All of this was ignored and, as a result, any headway in terms of diplomacy that Ambassador Ryan Crocker had made in 2008 and early 2009 was lost.  Hill didn't know Iraq, didn't want to know Iraq.  We pointed that all out ahead of his confirmation.

Let's again note John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

If you read that book, you'll find many of the things we pointed out in real time.  Hill's disrespect for the Iraqi people, for example.  We noted it repeatedly here.  The book reveals that it was not just an open secret among the US diplomatic staff (which is why I knew about it) but that Hill even showed the disrespect in front of Iraqis.  At one point, he's trashing the country and its people and doing so in front of an Iraqi.  You think that didn't get out?

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"1057 violent deaths in Iraq for July, the UN says"
"Temporary asylum for Ed Snowden"
"The real criminal is Barack"
"Dave Lindorff and an Orange Tabby"
"can they just let us have our food?"
"Mistresses' 'All In'"
"Non-expert Elizabeth Dibble lies for the proseuction"
"Few really focused on Brad"
"Mistresses: All In"
"The Nail Biter"
"Ed gets asylum and we get good news at last"
"Princess Barack and the TV"

Thursday, August 01, 2013






Senator Patrick Leahy: Today, the, uh, Judiciary Committee will scrutinize government surveillance programs conducted on the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act or FISA.  In the years since September 11th,  Congress has repeatedly expanded the scope of FISA, has given the government sweeping new powers to collect information on law abiding Americans and we must carefully consider now whether those laws may have gone too far.  Last month, many Americans learned for the first time that one of these authorities, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, has for years been secretly interpreted -- secretly interpreted -- to authorize the collection of Americans' phone records on an unprecedented scale.  Information was also leaked about Section 702 of FISA which authorizes the NSA to collect the information of foreigners overseas.

That was Leahy at this morning's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing -- he is the Chair of the Committee.  From there Leahy embarrassed himself by attacking NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden while not naming him. Let's continue with Leahy.

Senator Patrick Leahy:  Let me make clear that I do not condone the way these and other highly classified programs were disclosed, and I am concerned about the potential damage to our intelligence-gathering capabilities and national security. We need to hold people accountable for allowing such a massive leak to occur, and we need to examine how to prevent this type of breach in the future. In the wake of these leaks, the President said that this is an opportunity to have an open and thoughtful debate about these issues. And I welcome that statement, because this is a debate that several of us on this Committee in both parties have been trying to have for years. Like so many others, I'll get the classified briefings but then of course you can't talk about them.  There's a lot of these things that  should be and can be discussed.   And if we are going to have the debate that the President called for, the executive branch must be a full partner. We need straightforward answers.  Now I am concerned that we are not getting them. Just recently, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March, and his office had to remove a fact sheet from its website after concerns were raised about its accuracy. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about classified programs in public settings, but the American people expect and deserve honest answers. It also has been far too difficult to get a straight answer about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program. Whether this program is a critical national security tool is a key question for Congress as we consider possible changes to the law. Some supporters of this program have repeatedly conflated the efficacy of the Section 215 bulk meta data collection program with that of Section 702 of FISA even though they're entirely different. I do not think this is a coincidence, when we have people in government make that comparison but it needs to stop. I think the patience of the American people is beginning to wear thin.  But what has to be of more concern in a democracy is the trust of the American people is wearing thin.

Leahy is part of the problem.  He had to be shamed into holding this hearing and have it thrown in his face repeatedly that the House Judiciary Committee had held a hearing.  Forced into holding a hearing, note the crap Leahy offers.

He doesn't approve of NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden's actions and "we need to hold people accountable" as he worries about "the potential damage to our intelligence-gathering capabilities and national security."

Contrast that with James Clapper.  Leahy says Clapper "acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March."

I'm sorry, where's your outrage over that?  Where's your statement about the need for accountability for that?

Has Leahy forgotten what perjury and "contempt of Congress" are?

Has he forgotten that is a crime to provide Congress with false testimony?

That's regardless of whether or not the witness is put under oath.

So the way it works is that Leahy is outraged and wants accountability -- done by others.  But Leahy and other members of Congress refuse to exercise their power to punish an official who came before the Congress and lied.

The American people are exhausted, yes.  They are tired of the spying but they're most of all tired of the lazy and useless people they voted into the US Congress who refuse to do their jobs or to honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution.  As Ranking Member Charles Grassley observed, "We have a Constitutional duty to protect American's privacy.  That's a given."

Yes, it is.  And maybe we need Grassley to offer a briefer on that to the Committee?

We should actually thank Leahy because, in his opening remarks, he made it clear that he really didn't give a damn about accountability or Congressional oversight.  He made it clear how useless he and his Committee are.

He did so by fawning over Dianne Feinstein ahead of the meeting, in fact.  The ethically challenged DiFi who has abused her office also heads the Senate Intelligence Committee.  DiFi does a lot.  When not practicing nepotism and worse, she likes to pretend she's governor of California -- an office she's never held.  It's in that delusional capacity that she recently insisted that San Diego Mayor Bob Filner should resign.  That's not her damn business and she needs to take her big nose out of it.  (As noted Monday, that decision is up to the people of San Diego.  I live in District 8, so I offer no opinion on what the 'right' thing to do is.  San Diego needs to be having that conversation with one another and they don't need the rest of us telling them what to do.)

It's amazing that she wants to talk about morals when, had Democrats not controlled the Senate, she would have most likely been censured by the Ethics Committee for her actions in giving her husband -- her War Hawk husband -- government contracts.

I think she a lot of gall even showing up for this hearing.

For those who don't know, Dianne Feinstein is the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So when the NSA spying emerged in May, her tired ass should have been all over this issue with hearings.  How many public hearings has DiFi held on this issue?


She has not called one hearing.  (And she hasn't held a public hearing since March 13, 2013.  Someone needs to ask her what 'sunlight' and an 'informed public' mean to her.)  President Barack Obama claims a national dialogue needs to take place and Dianne Feinstein goes against that.  She's happy to hector and lecture, she just won't due the job required of her and schedule open hearings on this matter.

Today, she fawned over the unconstitutional spying and she also offered a disturbing series of remarks that indicated even she doesn't listen when she speaks.

Senator Dianne Feinstein:  Yesterday, at the Intelligence Committee,  I outlined some changes that we might consider as part of our authorization bill and let me quickly run through them.  Uh, uhm, the number of American phone numbers permitted as queries on a regular basis annually from the data base, the number of referrals  made to the FBI each year based on those queries and how many times the FBI obtains probably cause warrants to collect the content of a call which we now know is very few times relatively, the number of times a company, this is at their request -- from the high tech companies -- that any company is required to provide data pursuant to FISA's business record's provision.  As you know, the companies who provide information are seeking to be able to speak more publicly about this and I think we should.  There's some changes we can make to the business records section.  We're looking at reducing the five year retention period that NSA keeps phone records in its data base down to two or three years.

And Sarah Palin was ridiculed for how she spoke?  Sarah Palin was mocked in a Saturday Night Live skit for how she spoke?  I found that disturbing in real time -- and noted in real time that if you attended Congressional hearings, Palin's manner of speaking wasn't that surprising when compared to other politicians (changing topics -- or subjects or verbs -- mid-sentence, for example).  From those remarks above, let's highlight Dianne Feinstein saying this:

Uh, uhm, the number of American phone numbers permitted as queries on a regular basis annually from the data base, the number of referrals  made to the FBI each year based on those queries and how many times the FBI obtains probably cause warrants to collect the content of a call which we now know is very few times relatively, the number of times a company, this is at their request -- from the high tech companies -- that any company is required to provide data pursuant to FISA's business record's provision. 

Those aren't "changes."  They might be 'topics,' but what the hell she's saying who knows?

What's really disturbing is that those remarks weren't made in response to a question from Katie Couric.  DiFi made them herself, reading from a list, and never grasped that they didn't make sense.  Behavior like that, in our state of California (Dianne and mine), would mean she wouldn't get her driver's license renewed.

Along with her not making sense in the middle of a Senate hearing, there's also the reality that, if she wanted a debate on these topics yesterday, she should have chaired an open hearing and not the closed one Tuesday afternoon

Do we need to speak more slowly for Dianne?

Above you have Dianne Feinstein making ridiculous statement's.  It's not until the last sentence quoted that she finally does what she said she was going to do share "outlined" changes.
 At the age of 80, would you honestly let her drive the family car on a road trip or even a trip to the grocery store?

No, you probably wouldn't.

So why do we let her remain in the Senate, let alone give her the position of Chair.  This dying -- of old age -- in office really needs to be addressed by the Senate.  It's time for either term limits or age limits.  I do not trust the 80-year-old Dianne Feinstein to chair a Committee on anything.

"I think they will come after us," the dottering and aged fool insisted -- never defining who "they" were but making the case for putting her into assisted-living facilities.  We don't need the shut-in CBS viewers in charge of our rights?  We don't the need reactionary, elderly -- already spooked by societal changes -- determining what will keep us safe. Repeating: It's time for term limits or its time for age limits.  At 80, her fears falling out like busted sofa, Dianne Feinstein is too old to be a Chair of anything and should not be in the US Senate.

Dianne's way of fixing things is to insist that the actions continue but -- embrace this consolation -- the records from the spying will be held "two or three years" and not five.

"I read intelligence regularly, she insisted "and I believe we would place this country in jeopardy if we eliminated these two programs."

Though this morning's hearing served as a setting for various senators to make spectacles of themselves, there were actual witnesses offering testimony.  Appearing before the Committee were two panels.  The first was made up of Dept of Justice's James Cole, NSA's John Inglis, Office of the Director of National Intelligence's Robert S. Lift and the FBI's Sean Joyce.  The second panel was Judge James G. Carr, the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer and the woefully ignorant Stewart Baker.

Meta data, James Cole wanted to insist, is not classified information.  It is private information.  Many of us are aware, for example, that in the early hours of Marilyn Monroe's death, the Secret Service grabbed the meta data (then known as "toll slips") from the phone company.  So JFK deserves privacy but the American people don't?

Did anyone on the Committee not self-disgrace, is there any member of the Committee do anything worthy of applause?  Al Franken.

Senator Al Franken:  I want to be clear at the outset, I think that these programs protect our country and have saved lives.  But I do think there is a critical problem at the center of this debate and that's the lack of transparency around these programs.  The government has to give proper weight to both keeping America safe from terrorism and protecting American's privacy.  But when almost everything about these programs is secret and when the companies involved are under strict gag orders, the American public has no way of knowing whether we're getting that balance right.  I think that's bad for privacy and bad for democracy.  Tomorrow, I'm introducing a bill to address this, to fix this.  It will force the government to disclose how many Americans have had their information collected under key authorities in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and it will give force -- it will also force the government to disclose how many Americans have had their information actually reviewed by federal  agents.  My bill would also allow private companies to disclose aggregate figures about the number of FISA orders they're receiving and the number of their users that these orders have effected.

That may not be enough for you.  Sitting through the hearing -- the awful hearing -- you can argue lowered my expectations.  But I don't think so.

Recommend: "Iraq snapshot"
"Tough Talk For The Left (Ava and C.I.)"
"Who is Bradley Manning?"
 "The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing"
"Blumenthal disappoints (Ava)"
"David Westin is a creep"
"Leahy and Feinstein are disgraces"
"The embarrassing Bob Orr of CBS News"
"The Constitution has been shredded"
"Cancel Parks and Recreation already"
"C.I.'s coverage of the House Judiciary Committee hearing"
"Ron Wyden"
"Punchline: US Senate"

Wednesday, July 31, 2013










Starting in the United States where a verdict has been declared in the court-martial of an Iraq War veteran.  Military judge Colonel Denise Lind has declared Barack guilty of all but two of the 21 charges but, Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) notes, the charge of aiding the enemy wasn't one of the 19 charges Lind found him guilty of.  Michael Sherer (Time magazine) points out, "A military judge, Col. Denise Lind, rebuked the prosecutors claims Tuesday by ruling that Manning was not guilty of the government’s most serious charge against him, aiding the enemy, in a decision that amounts to a victory for Manning and his supporters by sparing him an immediate life sentence without the possibility of parole." Jes Burns (Free Speech Radio News) adds that Brad still  "faces lengthy jail time.Dorian Merina (also Free Speech Radio News) observed that Brad "could now face more than 100 years in prison."

Aiding the enemy?  Who was the enemy?  Apparently WikiLeaks.     Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released  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. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor."  February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks.  And why.

Bradley Manning:   In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

For truth telling, Brad's being punished by the man who fears truth: Barack Obama.  A fraud, a fake, a 'brand,' anything but genuine, Barack is all marketing, all facade and, for that reason, must attack each and every whistle-blower.  David Delmar (Digital Journal) points out, "President Obama, while ostensibly a liberal advocate of transparency and openness in government, and of the 'courage' and 'patriotism' of whistleblowers who engage in conscientious leaks of classified information, is in reality something very different: a vindictive opponent of the free press willing to target journalists for doing their job and exposing government secrets to the public."

Bradley Manning had a laughable defense provided by David Coombs.  Early on, in pre-court-martial appearances, he argued that Bradley was transgendered and then largely ignored that defense until the prosecution used a photo of Bradley taken shortly after he leaked to WikiLeaks -- in the photo, Brad was smiling and in drag.  The prosecution argued that the photo meant that Brad was not troubled by leaking and glad to have leaked while Coombs countered that the photo just suggested Brad was -- in drag -- at last comfortable with who he was.  Other than that, the transgender issue was largely ignored and you had to wonder why Coombs raised it and ticked off a number of Brad's defenders who were uncomfortable with the transgendered?  The assertion was also disputed by some in the LGBT community.  Lou Chibbaro Jr. (Washington Blade) notes:


Transgender advocates have also expressed skepticism of a claim by one of Manning’s defense attorneys that his action was due, in part, to his personal struggle over his gender identity. The attorney and others who know Manning noted that he referred to himself for a short period of time with a female name and downloaded information over the internet about gender identity disorder.
“I don’t see that his identity has anything to do with what he did,” said Maryland transgender advocate Dana Beyer. “His sexual identity, however you want to define it, is completely irrelevant.”

There was never method to Coombs madness and Brad's guilt was determined when the decision was made to forgo a military jury and allow a judge to determine guilt or innocence.

As we've long noted, when you go with a judge (especially in a military court), you're not making a hearts and flowers appeal.  A military judge will blow off such a defense (and a female military judge might find it offensive and assume that the defense is making that argument due to some stereotypical notion they have of women).  With a judge determining guilt or innocence, you lead them into the maze that is the legal system -- where this law conflicts with that law.  You present them with a mess and an attitude of: "Please, Judge, in all your training and wisdom, figure this out."  This appeals to the judge's vanity.  In closing arguments, Coombs appeared to grasp that notion.

Coombs failed Brad with witnesses as well.  Every witness in the chain of command that was called to testify should have been asked -- by Coombs -- what their punishment was.  If this was truly the biggest and most shocking crime that the prosecution repeatedly argued it was, then why is Brad the only one punished?  In the military, there is responsibility up the chain of command.  That means Brad's superiors share guilt if Brad is guilty.  By pointing out (repeatedly) who was not punished, Coombs would have underscored that this was not a case of the military seeking justice but of the US government lashing out at Brad.

The verdict was announced at 1:00 pm EST and Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! did a special broadcast on this (this is in addition to Democracy Now!'s regular broadcast this morning).  The Nation's Greg Mitchell told Amy during the broadcast that the decision that Brad was not aiding the enemy  was very important.

Greg Mitchell:  Well it's extremely significant, both for Manning and for journalists and whistle-blowers and people who really care about this everywhere.  But, of course, it probably gets him off the hook for the most serious sentencing -- which the process does begin tomorrow -- which was life in prison.  The other charges and the 19 charges -- whatever the final total is -- of course, will mean he will spend many years in prison, no doubt.  But the aiding the enemy was the most serious for him.  And, in terms of others, it -- if he'd been convicted of that -- it certainly threatened journalists everywhere and, of course, whistle-blowers.  Amy, as many of your listeners know, this kind of charge was unusual in this case and it would put in danger people who disseminate, publish, leak or make public important information for the public that could be or ended up in the hands or was cited by some unknown enemy abroad which would mean that, you know, any kind of information that you could charge that someone, somewhere -- one of our alleged enemies -- made us of, you could then be brought up on this charge to face, you know, to face life in prison or whatever.

Amy Goodman:  Now Greg, we're reading the Tweets as we talk to you.  This is a live broadcast on the day of the verdict.  The most serious charge -- aiding the enemy -- Bradley Manning has been aquitted of.  Alexa o'Brien now writes:

  1. Spec 9, Charge II GTMO File 793(e) Espionage GUILTY (10 Years MAX)

Amy Goodman (Con't): Kevin Gosztola writes:

  1. Manning was found GUILTY of wantonly causing to be published intelligence on the Internet

Amy Goodman (Con't):  Explain.

Greg Mitchell:  Well these are the long list of charges -- many of which, or some of which -- he had pleaded guilty to quite some time ago.  The judge today had to affirm them so they're included as if he hadn't really pleaded to them but they're part of the charges he is now found guilty of and, you know, the array of charges against him, you know, was espionage, was use of a computer to leak information, leaking the videos.  I haven't quite -- I haven't seen the verdict on the Granai video -- this is not the Collateral Murder video which I believe he did admit to but the other video which was a mass slaying abroad.

Mitchell is referring to the May 4, 2009 US airstrike on Granai in Afghanistan in which close to 150 innocent civilians were killed.  Brad stated he had leaked that video to WikiLeaks as well.  (WikiLeaks has since lost the video.)

Mitchell (and others) are right that Lind not finding Brad guilty of aiding the enemy is important but there's also a self-serving manner in the coverage. I'm not referring to Mitchell or anyone highlighted above or below.  I am referring to cable TV coverage which left at least two people convinced Brad was acquitted of the charges against him.  We were discussing the verdict with a group of students -- fairly well informed ones taking summer semester classes -- and two who had caught cable TV coverage were convinced Brad had been acquitted of all charges.

The press is thrilled that aiding the enemy was tossed.  But that really isn't about Brad -- their excitement. It's about what it would have possibly meant for them if Brad had been found guilty of it.  Brad did a great thing when he exposed what was taking place and had taken place.  And while he had entered a plea on many of the other charges, that doesn't change the fact that Brad was found guilty and that this wasn't a good thing.  He first raised the issue of War Crimes with a superior who blew him off.  He then leaked evidence of War Crimes.  He should be applauded for that.  The US government is supposedly against War Crimes so Brad's actions should be seen as a good thing and his conviction on any charges -- let alone ones that potentially add up to a lengthy prison sentence -- is nothing to be thrilled about.  Alexa O'Brien has posted the document listing the charges Brad was convicted of.   An exception in the MSM coverage may have been Jim Miklaszewski's report for NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams who observed legal experts predict Manning's convictions will have a chilling effect on future leakers." Newsday's editorial notes:

President Barack Obama has gone overboard in his crackdown on leakers. The administration has brought seven cases under the Espionage Act against CIA and FBI employees and contractors accused of leaking national security information -- more than all previous administrations combined.
And Obama's Justice Department has clumsily entangled journalists in its net. Federal prosecutors, investigating a leak that intelligence officials had warned Obama about North Korea's plan to conduct a nuclear test, labeled James Rosen of Fox News a "co-conspirator" after he reported the story in 2009. And prosecutors are still demanding that New York Times reporter James Risen testify at the espionage trial of a former CIA official accused of leaking information in 2003 about the U.S. effort to disrupt Iran's nuclear weapons program.

On The NewsHour (PBS -- link is audio, text and video) this evening,  Jeffrey Brown moderated a debate on the convictions -- the Center for Constitutional Rights' Michael Ratner debated form CIA official Jeffrey Smith.  Excerpt.

MICHAEL RATNER, Center for Constitutional Rights: I think it's probably one of the greatest injustices of our decade.
Here you have man who who's revealed very important information about war crimes, whose information actually sparked the Arab spring, and you have him being convicted of 20 charges that can carry 134 years. And you have to people who were engaged in the criminality he revealed not being investigated at all.
Bradley Manning is a whistle-blower. He shouldn't be prosecuted. The people who committed the crimes ought to be prosecuted.

Other NewsHour coverage includes:

Mike McKee is with the Bradley Manning Support Network and he told Free Speech Radio News that he and others gathered at Fort Meade to show their support, "We had about between 50 or 60 people here today as well as a rather revved up media presence as well, both representatives of American media and foreign as well. We’ve held a vigil on the first day of each week of court proceedings, attendance fluctuates, this was certainly one of the larger ones although the numbers weren’t totally uncommon. You saw a good variety of home-made signs as well as banners that people have made for various events and demonstrations that have been had for Bradley over the past year."

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"The Fall and Rise and Fall of Iraq"
"'I have absolutely no faith in Eric Holder, the At..."
"Julie Borowski's comedic take on the unconstitutio..."
"The offensive Chris Christie"
"Skip silly Atkins, read Jane Fonda's latest instead"
"anthony weiner"
"s Matthew Rothschild insane?"
"On writing"
"Cable's lack of interest in the Bradley verdict"
"Do I hate Batman?"
"The verdict"
"I don't see this as a victory"
"He loves campaigning, hates working"

Tuesday, July 30, 2013







Iraq is bleeding.  Nathan Morely (Vatican Radio) notes, "A relentless campaign of bombings and shootings has killed nearly 4,000 people in Iraq since the start of this year -- that's according to the violence monitoring group Iraq Body Count.  The violence has raised fears of a return to full-blown conflict in the country where Kurds, Shia and Sunni Muslims have yet to find a stable way of sharing power."   Salam Faraj and Ahmed al-Rubaye (AFP) note, "More than 800 people have now been killed in violence so far this month, according to AFP figures based on security and medical sources - an average of upwards of 27 a day."   Iraq Body Count counts  831 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month through Sunday and  violence continues to slam Iraq.  Today's violence led acting head of UNAMI Gyorgy Busztin to declare, "I am deeply concerned about the heightened level of violence which carries the danger that the country falls back into sectarian strife.  Iraq is bleeding from randmo violence, which sadly reached record heights during the Holy month of Ramadan."

 This morning,  Duraid Adnan (New York Times) counted 15 car bombings throughout the country with a death toll of 46 and over a hundred left wounded.. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) reports the death toll from the car bombings has already reached 60. Sofia News Agency offers, "The Baghdad bombs, hidden in parked cars, hit markets and car parks in several areas of the city, police say. The deadliest was said to have hit the eastern Shia district of Sadr City."  The car bombings in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kut, Samawa and elsewhere were not the only acts of violence in Iraq today -- nor were they the only acts of violence that resulted in loss of life.  For example, the National Iraqi News Agency reports 1 person was shot dead in Baquba.  As if often the case when Iraqi violence gets significant press attention, the press tends to focus on areas with a high volume of deaths.  That's why 28 deaths spread out around the country with 2 here, 3 there, etc -- especially with the bulk outside of Baghdad -- rarely results in intense press coverage and why the rising death toll tends to creep up on (and surprise) many press outlets.

Yang Yi (Xinhua) notes, "Monday's bombing spree came after 14 people were killed in attacks across the country on Sunday.  Last week, dozens of gunmen stormed Taji and Abu Ghraib prisons, respectively north and west of Baghdad, in an attempt to free prisoners."  For the BBC, Rami Rhuayem addressed the violence today (link is video).  Excerpt.

Rami Ruhayem:  It's been going on for a long time but, as you said, this is a marked increase in violence.  And this time it appears it might be on the verge of causing political problems.  You might think it should have caused political problems a long time ago, but actually the government has been able -- with a very complex range of tactics -- to deflect blame and to escape the kind of public anger directed against it  which such violence would cause in other places.  However, now -- and after the prison break just over a week ago in which hundreds of prisoners -- high value, dangerous prisoners -- escaped -- there were cracks within the government and people were asking "Why?"  Which is your question and which I cannot answer but which the government is now under increasing pressure to answer: Why can you not stop all these car bombs from entering Baghdad when you know that people are trying to do this?   How come you cannot guard high-value prisons when you know that people are trying to get the prisoners out? 

Deutsche Welle observes that tensions have been mounting for some time in Iraq as evidenced by the ongoing protests, "Protests broke out in Sunni-majority areas at the end of 2012 and are still ongoing. Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority has argued that the Shiite-led government was failing to address its concerns, instead marginalizing and targeting their community with unwarranted arrests and terrorism charges."   Arthur Bright (Christian Science Monitor) points out:

The string of car bombs is just the latest event in Iraq's ongoing sectarian conflict, which has flared in recent months. The BBC reports that April, May, and June of this year each saw more than 700 people, mostly civilians, killed in Iraq, with a high of some 1,045 dead in May, according to United Nations figures. July has already surpassed the 700-dead mark, with Reuters putting the tally at 810 so far. Iraq Body Count, an independent watchdog tallying the conflict's death toll, put July's total at 831 before today's attacks.

A statement issued today by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon observed, "Iraq is at another crossroads.  Its political leaders have a clear responsibility to bring the country back from the brink, and to leave no space to those who seek to exploit the political stalemate through violence and terror."

All Iraqi News notes the Sunni Endowment has condemned the attacks as has the European UnionKUNA notes that the United Kingdom also condemned today's attacks.  And credit to US Ambassador Robert Beecroft and the US Embassy in Iraq for immediately releasing a statement condemning the violence:

The United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal terrorist attacks that killed and injured dozens of innocent Iraqis across the nation today. We deplore the senseless loss of life caused by these attacks and offer our sincere condolences to the families of the victims, and hope for the quick recovery of those injured. The United States stands firmly with Iraq in its fight against terrorism.

Not long ago, a self-righteous prig in the media was mocking the statements such as the above.  'What good do they do?' huffed the idiot.  Well they don't do you much good, but they're not aimed at you.  They acknowledge an attack, they express condemnation and this is aimed at the Iraqi people the same way, for example, statements immediately following 9-11 were aimed at the American people to let them know that they were not alone.  The statements do matter.  They especially matter when there are repeat attacks and people, such as the Iraqis, see France and England repeatedly condemn the attacks while the US is silent.  That has been the case for some time.   It sends a message to the Iraqi people and its a message in conflict with the 'aid' (military and diplomatic) that the US continues to send supposedly to improve Iraq.

This morning, we asked: Will Iraq come up in the State Dept press briefing today?  And we noted: It generally does not.  When it does, the press tends to be asking about Iran or Syria.  Despite the huge death tolls in Iraq of the last months, Iraq really hasn't been seen as a topic to explore in the briefings -- despite the billions of US tax dollars the State Dept is now given each year to spend in Iraq.

The State Dept has had its press briefing today.  Neither spokesperson Jen Psaki nor the reporters present bothered to raise the issue of Iraq.  How very telling. Iraq was also ignored at the White House press briefing by Josh Earnest today.  Please note, Ernest felt the need to touch on such 'pressing issues' as "some grilled chicken, some pasta jambalaya" and other nonsense but neither he nor the reporters present felt the need to mention Iraq.  Not everyone was silent on Iraq today.  One journalist had a conversation with himself on the topic.    Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) played Socrates as he provided answers to a series of questions he asked himself:  We'll note this one.

Q: What are the political implications of the attacks for Iraq?

Maliki doesn't even lead a unified Shiite bloc in government. The political movement of the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr frequently opposes Maliki's initiatives, and Maliki appeared to blame the Sadrists for assisting the Al Qaeda jailbreak in a television address. He said the guards who collaborated with the attackers were directed to do so by a militia linked to Mr. Sadr.
That claim is evidence of deep political tensions inside Iraq that have been threatening to boil over for months.

 While Dan Murphy aims high with the Socratic method, Alexander Besant takes Global Post into the gutter by seeking out the 'thoughts' of "Middle East analyst' Jared Levy. Levy's showboated stupidity can be seen in the following exchange:

What was the protest encampment in Hawija about and why did the government crack down so hard?

JL: I think the government made the decision to clear the protest camp for two reasons. First, it was a response to a recent incident of individuals connected to the protest movement in Hawija attacking security forces in the area. Second, at that phase of the protest movement, I think the central government wanted to take a stand that they weren’t going to allow sustained financially disruptive activity, such as permanent encampments, or protracted blocking of major highways.

 It should be noted that Besant is a big dumb ass for reprinting that garbage.  First off, Liar Levy (or maybe just stupid, he does seem to think that recent bachelor degree made him an expert on something) is referring to the April 23rd massacre  --  when Nouri's federal forces stormed a sit-in and killed adults and children.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. UNICEF informed the world that 8 of the dead were children and twelve more children were left injured.  The world largely shrugged.

Let's deal with his claims and I'm not in the mood to spoon feed today.  He claims the massacre was a response to "individuals connected to the protest movement in Hawija attacking security forces in the area."  That is a claim.  It's not a convincing one.  The Friday before the Tuesday massacre, there was violence in Hawija.  Check that day's snapshot if you're late to the party.  One protester was killed.  By security forces.  Away from the protests, a figure seen darting through the street, would attack security forces (killing one).  That took place after the fact and away from the protest area.  The claim that it was a protester has never been established.

Second, Hawija, April 23rd, had to be stopped so Nouri could say they "weren't going to allow sustained financially disruptive activity, such as permanent encampments, or protected blockings of major highways"?  But they had already allowed just that.  Is Levy so ignorant that he's unware of that?  Has he never heard of Anbar Province?  Has he missed the blocking of the international highway in the seven months of protests?  A blocking that started months before the April 23rd massacre?

Nothing Levy says makes sense because he doesn't know the facts.  It's embarrassing.  It's also outrages that Global Post allows a massacre of a sit-in to be talked about in such terms.  Shame on them.  They have blood on their hands -- including the blood of children.  They allow idiot Levy to pontificate on how Sadr might respond -- "" -- which is only more problematic since Sadr called for protests against Nouri's handling of the security situation (mishandling) Sunday, July 21st -- not Sunday yesterday, two Sundays ago:

 All Iraq News notes cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr is calling for the people to protest the government's lack of response to the violence and sttes, "The silence of the people concerning the terrorist bombings, the people of other countries would revolt and call for toppling the government if their countries witnessed such bombings.  We witness strange silence over these bombings and we cannot grant the government another chance to improve the situation."

 The next day, World Bulletin interpreted Moqtada's statements as calling for the overthrow of Nouri al-Maliki.  A week later, 'expert' Levy shows up to tell the world that the worsening security situation might lead Moqtada to criticize Nouri.  What an idiot.  'Predicting' the past for too many years to count, Jared Levy.

As he provides cover for Nouri al-Maliki, Levy becomes an increasingly sidelined observer.  Today, the editorial board of the Guardian points out:

 But the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has proved to be a disastrous leader, subverting the constitution to concentrate power in his own hands, to exclude the Sunni minority and potentially to threaten the so far peaceful Kurdish north. The resulting Sunni backlash, exploited by al-Qaeda, is the background to the latest violence. The situation has been made worse by recent breakouts from the Abu Ghraib and Taji prisons, which returned veteran extremists to the fray and which suggest that the government may be as incompetent as it is dictatorial. Security, after all, is supposed to be Maliki's forte.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"UN: Iraq is bleeding"
"Bradley Manning is waiting"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Jobs""
"Kat's Korner: Ebony Bones' Sonic, Nocturnal Myster..."
"The destruction of the country"
"Ebony Bones and spying"
"The failed economy"
"ed snowden"
"The illegal spying"
"Ebony Bones and Peter Dale Scott"
"Pretty Major"
"The Wolverine (Part II)"

"Comey, Comic, Iraq and Third"
"Who failed to give them what they deserved?"