Monday, May 29, 2006
News RhetIraq: Conditions in Baghdad
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Quotes: From article titled, "Violence aside, Baghdad is broken
Water runs only an hour a day, power is on for 4 hours, and sewage runs in the streets"
"Leaving aside security," Kassim the carpet salesman asked rhetorically, "when you come home, what do you need?" He ticked off the answers on the fingers on his right hand: "Electricity. Water. Food."
"Getting any of this in Baghdad is a problem," he said.
The Iraqi Shiite's elegant, two-story house in the busy central Baghdad district of Karrada gets power four hours a day -- "one hour on, six hours off," said Kassim, a divorced father of three.
Running water is available for one hour, between 1 and 2 in the morning. Kassim pours the water into giant plastic jugs he stores in his bathroom, kitchen and on the rooftop.
Decades-old water treatment plants that were supposed to have been fixed during postwar reconstruction meet only 60 percent of Baghdad's needs, said Lt. Col. Chris Hall, whose unit, attached to the 101st Airborne Division, is helping Iraqis rebuild power and water facilities.
Garbage chokes the city of 4.5 million people. Trash collection is erratic or nonexistent, depending on which part of the city you live in. Insurgents use heaps of garbage to hide roadside bombs. More than 300 garbage collectors have been killed in Baghdad in the past six months, city officials say. Insurgents target them because they work for the government.
Garbage clogs sewage pipes, causing raw sewage to overflow into the streets and fill the air with the stench of decay. In the Shiite slums of Sadr City in northeastern Baghdad, residents live in dwellings made of bits of corrugated metal, chunks of concrete and rusted oil canisters. Snowy white egrets skim the surface of putrid, greenish-black pools of sewage in the streets.
Throughout the city, scores of gas stations have shut down after suicide bombers began targeting them. Outside stations still open, lines of cars stretch sometimes for more than a mile, waiting for gasoline that has quadrupled in price since before the invasion.
Food, for those who can afford it, is plentiful, but shopping is a risky endeavor. Many shop owners have shut their stores, fearing they would be targeted by religious militias who stage brazen daytime kidnappings and killings for no apparent reason other than their victims' religious roots. Others have joined the mass exodus of Baghdad residents who have moved out of the city to flee the endemic violence.
Lt. Col. Hall hopes the new Iraqi government will help improve matters.
"Since the ministries have been seated, I've seen a greater willingness to partner with the coalition on these issues," Hall said. He said a multibillion-dollar project to repair sewage facilities in Baghdad is under way, and U.S. forces are working on creating power stations in the capital.
But the combination of fear of being associated with an American-led effort, and militant Shiite leaders' attempts to portray it as a failure, complicates reconstruction plans, which have already been plagued by poor security and mismanagement, U.S. military officials say.
Several weeks ago, according to U.S. soldiers, Mahdi Army members cordoned off a medical clinic U.S. contractors were building in Sadr City after U.S. forces said they would not put a marble facade on the structure.
"They would rather have no clinic at all than a U.S.-built clinic that looked like all the other buildings in Baghdad," said 2nd Lt. Jesse Augustine, 24, a civil affairs officer from St. Nazianz, Wis., who is attached to the 4th Brigade Support Troops Battalion of the 506th Regimental Combat Team.
"Any signs of (our) effectiveness would fly in the face of their propaganda," said another civil affairs officer, Capt. Tom Dieirlein, 38, from New York.
On Tuesday, Augustine and Dieirlein were inspecting one of the projects U.S. forces are helping rebuild: the two-story Tamuz clinic in the heart of Sadr City.
Two Iraqi workers were slowly applying a fresh coat of white paint on a first-floor wall, and the marble stairs to the second floor glistened in the bright afternoon sun. Outside the clinic, in the streets where remnants of food rotted in blue and orange plastic bags, impoverished residents piled out of the dilapidated stucco houses to gawk at the Americans.
As the soldiers were leaving, they tossed some peach-colored beanie bears and a blue-and-white soccer ball to the children who had gathered outside.
An elderly woman in a black abaya cloak stretched out her hands toward the humvees, pleadingly, as though a child's toy could make her life in Baghdad easier.
Quotes: From article titled, "Violence aside, Baghdad is broken
Water runs only an hour a day, power is on for 4 hours, and sewage runs in the streets"
"Leaving aside security," Kassim the carpet salesman asked rhetorically, "when you come home, what do you need?" He ticked off the answers on the fingers on his right hand: "Electricity. Water. Food."
"Getting any of this in Baghdad is a problem," he said.
The Iraqi Shiite's elegant, two-story house in the busy central Baghdad district of Karrada gets power four hours a day -- "one hour on, six hours off," said Kassim, a divorced father of three.
Running water is available for one hour, between 1 and 2 in the morning. Kassim pours the water into giant plastic jugs he stores in his bathroom, kitchen and on the rooftop.
Decades-old water treatment plants that were supposed to have been fixed during postwar reconstruction meet only 60 percent of Baghdad's needs, said Lt. Col. Chris Hall, whose unit, attached to the 101st Airborne Division, is helping Iraqis rebuild power and water facilities.
Garbage chokes the city of 4.5 million people. Trash collection is erratic or nonexistent, depending on which part of the city you live in. Insurgents use heaps of garbage to hide roadside bombs. More than 300 garbage collectors have been killed in Baghdad in the past six months, city officials say. Insurgents target them because they work for the government.
Garbage clogs sewage pipes, causing raw sewage to overflow into the streets and fill the air with the stench of decay. In the Shiite slums of Sadr City in northeastern Baghdad, residents live in dwellings made of bits of corrugated metal, chunks of concrete and rusted oil canisters. Snowy white egrets skim the surface of putrid, greenish-black pools of sewage in the streets.
Throughout the city, scores of gas stations have shut down after suicide bombers began targeting them. Outside stations still open, lines of cars stretch sometimes for more than a mile, waiting for gasoline that has quadrupled in price since before the invasion.
Food, for those who can afford it, is plentiful, but shopping is a risky endeavor. Many shop owners have shut their stores, fearing they would be targeted by religious militias who stage brazen daytime kidnappings and killings for no apparent reason other than their victims' religious roots. Others have joined the mass exodus of Baghdad residents who have moved out of the city to flee the endemic violence.
Lt. Col. Hall hopes the new Iraqi government will help improve matters.
"Since the ministries have been seated, I've seen a greater willingness to partner with the coalition on these issues," Hall said. He said a multibillion-dollar project to repair sewage facilities in Baghdad is under way, and U.S. forces are working on creating power stations in the capital.
But the combination of fear of being associated with an American-led effort, and militant Shiite leaders' attempts to portray it as a failure, complicates reconstruction plans, which have already been plagued by poor security and mismanagement, U.S. military officials say.
Several weeks ago, according to U.S. soldiers, Mahdi Army members cordoned off a medical clinic U.S. contractors were building in Sadr City after U.S. forces said they would not put a marble facade on the structure.
"They would rather have no clinic at all than a U.S.-built clinic that looked like all the other buildings in Baghdad," said 2nd Lt. Jesse Augustine, 24, a civil affairs officer from St. Nazianz, Wis., who is attached to the 4th Brigade Support Troops Battalion of the 506th Regimental Combat Team.
"Any signs of (our) effectiveness would fly in the face of their propaganda," said another civil affairs officer, Capt. Tom Dieirlein, 38, from New York.
On Tuesday, Augustine and Dieirlein were inspecting one of the projects U.S. forces are helping rebuild: the two-story Tamuz clinic in the heart of Sadr City.
Two Iraqi workers were slowly applying a fresh coat of white paint on a first-floor wall, and the marble stairs to the second floor glistened in the bright afternoon sun. Outside the clinic, in the streets where remnants of food rotted in blue and orange plastic bags, impoverished residents piled out of the dilapidated stucco houses to gawk at the Americans.
As the soldiers were leaving, they tossed some peach-colored beanie bears and a blue-and-white soccer ball to the children who had gathered outside.
An elderly woman in a black abaya cloak stretched out her hands toward the humvees, pleadingly, as though a child's toy could make her life in Baghdad easier.
News RhetIraq: Investigating Fake TV News Stories
Source: The Independent UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'"
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.
Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.
The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.
The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.
The controversy over the use of VNRs by television stations first erupted last spring. At the time the FCC issued a public notice warning broadcasters that they were obliged to inform viewers if items were sponsored. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500.
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'"
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.
Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.
The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.
The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.
The controversy over the use of VNRs by television stations first erupted last spring. At the time the FCC issued a public notice warning broadcasters that they were obliged to inform viewers if items were sponsored. The maximum fine for each violation is $32,500.
News RhetIraq: 2 CBS Journalists Killed along with US Soldier
Source: CBS13.com (Sacramento)
Quotes: From article titled, "2 CBS Crew Members, U.S. Soldier Killed In Baghdad"
Two members of a CBS News team were killed and correspondent Kimberly Dozier was seriously injured Monday when the U.S. Army unit in which they were embedded was attacked.
A U.S. soldier was also killed in the attack, and six others were wounded.
The CBS journalists were on a patrol with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, when their convoy was attacked. They were reporting a "routine" story: covering American troops for Memorial Day. The trio was only planning to be out for a few hours, in order to get back to the CBS Baghdad bureau in time to edit their piece.
Veteran cameraman Paul Douglas, 48, and soundman James Brolan, 42, were killed. Dozier, 39, sustained serious injuries and was flown to a U.S. military hopsital inside Baghada's Green Zone, where she underwent surgery. She is in critical condition, but doctors are cautiously optimistic about her prognosis.
Dozier and her London-based crew are among the latest American television journalists to become casualties in Iraq. Former ABC News "World News Tonight" co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt suffered severe injuries in a roadside bombing in Iraq Jan. 29, 2006. Woodruff is still recovering from serious head injuries and broken bones. Cameraman Vogt has returned home to France for more rehab.
Quotes: From article titled, "2 CBS Crew Members, U.S. Soldier Killed In Baghdad"
Two members of a CBS News team were killed and correspondent Kimberly Dozier was seriously injured Monday when the U.S. Army unit in which they were embedded was attacked.
A U.S. soldier was also killed in the attack, and six others were wounded.
The CBS journalists were on a patrol with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, when their convoy was attacked. They were reporting a "routine" story: covering American troops for Memorial Day. The trio was only planning to be out for a few hours, in order to get back to the CBS Baghdad bureau in time to edit their piece.
Veteran cameraman Paul Douglas, 48, and soundman James Brolan, 42, were killed. Dozier, 39, sustained serious injuries and was flown to a U.S. military hopsital inside Baghada's Green Zone, where she underwent surgery. She is in critical condition, but doctors are cautiously optimistic about her prognosis.
Dozier and her London-based crew are among the latest American television journalists to become casualties in Iraq. Former ABC News "World News Tonight" co-anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt suffered severe injuries in a roadside bombing in Iraq Jan. 29, 2006. Woodruff is still recovering from serious head injuries and broken bones. Cameraman Vogt has returned home to France for more rehab.
UN RhetIraq: Iraq Human Rights Report - Mar 1 - Apr 30, 2006
Who: UN Assistance Mission for Iraq
Source: UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (Word File)
Quotes: From report titled, "Human Rights Report; 1 March –30 April 2006"
Summary
The enjoyment of human rights in Iraq continued to be severely undermined by growing insecurity, high levels of violence and a break down in law and order resulting from the action of militias and criminal gangs. The right to life continued to be severely affected by the ongoing insurgency, terrorist attacks as well as by revenge killings and action by armed groups. Women, children and professionals, including academics and judges, were increasingly targeted by the on-going violence.
Especially after the 22 February bombing against the Al Askari shrine in Samarra, sectarian killings, intimidations and threats have become one of the most significant forms of human rights violation. As a result, the number of internally displaced persons has increased considerably, affecting many communities and creating further tensions and socio-economic problems.
On-going military operations, especially in western and central Iraq, have also severely affected the enjoyment of human rights and have resulted, at times, in the loss of life of civilians.
Efforts in the rule of law sector aimed at establishing an independent national human rights commission have met broad support from the Iraqi ministries concerned and the judiciary, donor countries and UN agencies and programs. However, delays in government formation have put on hold required urgent action, especially with respect to internal regulations and accountability systems in the administration of justice, notably within the police.
PROTECTION
Situation of human rights
Extra-judicial executions, targeted and indiscriminate killings
The Government has not made available precise figures regarding the number of civilian casualties. However, hundreds of civilians are reported killed or wounded weekly, including women and children, as targeted or unintended victims of violent attacks. The Medico Legal Institute in Baghdad issued 1,294 death certificates in March and 1,155 in April. Most of those bodies, who include only individuals who have not been identified or whose death is violent or suspect, died as a result of shot wounds.
Targeted assassinations continued to take place aiming at politicians, members of the public administration including police, army and judges, professionals and those perceived to be associated with the Multinational Forces (MNF), affecting also the functioning of key institutions, such as the judiciary.
Particularly disturbing is also the recent spike in assassinations of politicians’ relatives. On 13 April, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmed al-Hashemi, brother of Mr. Tariq al-Hashemi, was also killed by unknown gunmen in the centre of Baghdad. On 17 April, the body of Mr. Taha Mutlaq, brother of the Mr. Saleh Mutlaq, General Secretary of the National Dialogue Front, was found dead in Western Baghdad. Mr. Mutlaq had been kidnapped by unidentified persons in later March 2006. He had been reportedly shot several times and appeared to have been tortured before he was killed. On 27 April, Ms. Maysoon Ahmed Al Hashimi, sister of Mr. Tariq Al Hashimi, leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party and appointed Vice-President of Iraq, was killed with her driver outside her home in Hay Al- Ilaam, an area in Al Saidyia neighbourhood in Baghdad.
Sectarian violence
Increased efforts need to be undertaken by the Government of Iraq, political parties, religious and tribal leaders and civil society to bridge the sectarian divide in the country, which was dangerously fomented following the 22 February 2006 bombing in Samarra. Civilians continued to be targeted by terrorist attacks or killed as unintended victims by insurgent, militia or criminal activities. HRO received numerous documents and testimonies indicating that Shi’a and Sunni civilians are being intimidated, threatened or killed in order to cause their displacement. HRO has also received credible and consistent reports of summary or extrajudicial executions that have taken place only on the basis of the victim’s name. As a result, Iraqis are reportedly resorting to changing their names in order to avoid being identified as belonging to any particular community.
Numerous terrorist attacks killed and maimed civilians and targeted also cultural symbols, mosques and churches of different denominations, with the clear intent of fomenting sectarian animosity.
On 13 and 14 April, HRO recorded an alarming increase in violence in Basra. Over 40 people were reported killed, half of whom were said to be members of the Basra Sunni community. In the morning of 13 April, the Basra-based construction company “Al Fayhaa” was raided by armed men wearing Iraqi police uniforms and driving the same type of vehicles used by the Iraqi police. Sunni and Shi'a employees were apparently separated and seven Sunni were summarily executed. Their killing was interpreted by the construction company as a retribution for their company’s earlier association with the Ba’ath party.
Human Rights Defenders
Criminal actions have also affected human rights defenders. Dr. Ahmed Al-Mosawi, the head of the Iraqi Human Rights Society and well known national personality, was kidnapped on 6 March from the headquarters of his organization. On 22 March, 49 non-governmental organizations issued a press release demanding his immediate release. However, no information regarding his whereabouts has been received so far.
In Diyala activists working through NGOs are afraid to hold activities because of the multiplication of security incidents in April. During the first half of April, Mr. Zuhair Yaseen member of the Prisoners of War Organization was assassinated in front of his home in Baquba and another member was injured in the same incident. Around the same time, Mr. Mehdi Mchaitheer Al-Azawi, Director of Association of Disabled Females was assassinated by an armed group in front of his home.
Military operations
In Baghdad and central areas of the country, where military operations have continued by the MNF and Iraqi forces, severe disruption to civilian life continues to take place. In Ramadi, where clashes are reported daily between insurgents and Iraqi and MNF, civilian casualties, damage to civilian property and extreme hardship to civilians are commonplace also due to the actions of the insurgency and the resulting use of force by the military. In the outskirts of Al-Iss Haqi District in Balad (Salah-El-Din Governorate), during the early morning of 15 March, an MNF raid caused the death of several civilians, including women and children. The MNF has announced that it is investigating the incident. Medical and other sources from Ramadi reported that 11 civilians, including children, were killed in the city following aerial bombings on 22 April. HRO could not independently verify this allegation.
In March, the MNF announced that they were opening an inquiry into the incidents occurred in November 2005 in western town of Haditha. Residents accused US marines of killing 15 civilians after a marine was killed by a roadside bomb. The MNF had originally reported that the civilians had been killed by the bomb blast but a film produced by a local NGO suggested that the civilians died of gunfire and in their homes.
Indiscriminate attacks against civilians
The United Nations utterly condemns all attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. Such attacks are not only illegal under international humanitarian law but also create unnecessary suffering for the civilian population.
RULE OF LAW
Behaviour of security forces
HRO continues to receive reports of kidnappings and killings carried out by militias, alone or allegedly in association with forces of the Ministry of Interior. Most of the cases relate to actions by armed individuals wearing black clothes abducting young men, who are executed and then left at the morgue or on the streets. Some of the extra-judicial executions are said to be a form of “setting of scores” or revenge killings.
A new brand of violence has emerged, a mix of organized crime and sectarian killings, increasingly attacking businesses. Gunmen often wearing police uniforms have stormed numerous businesses since the beginning of March resulting in of workers being kidnapped or killed and money being stolen.
Militias
As previously reported, the actions of militias, armed and vigilante groups, and their alleged implication in human rights violations, remain a cause of great concern. Reports indicate that such groups have increased their activity in central and southern areas of the country. Allegations that sectors of the new security forces have been infiltrated by militias responding to parallel structures have continued to be voiced by Iraqi NGOs, politicians, including members of the Government, and the international community.
During the reporting period, there has apparently been no action taken to effectively address this problem thus increasing a perception of growing impunity. As a result, many continue to express the view that new militias need to be created in order to guarantee personal or group safety.
HRO receives increasing reports about mosques and other religious sites allegedly being used as secret prisons and even operating as illegal courts. On 22 March, HRO received information that three men may have been detained inside Almuhsin mosque, allegedly used by Al-Mahdi militia to “investigate and try” individuals. The three men worked in a vegetable market next to Sadr-city and were allegedly executed after being tortured. Summary trials and execution-style have been reported as being used by Sunni groups.
Impunity
It is of grave concern that numerous cases of assassinations, torture, abuse of detainees, and intimidations are frequently inadequately investigated and therefore unpunished. Such a situation may encourage further acts of violence and crime. It is however often reported that neither the Iraqi judiciary nor the police yield much success investigating crimes perpetrated by numerous well established militias. The investigative capacity of the State remains limited because of security conditions as well as for lack of adequate resources and the limited number of investigative judges. Allegations made that some sectors of the security forces are colluding with armed militias or other armed groups risk eroding support for the security forces and increase the perception that the impunity gap in Iraq is growing.
Existing mechanism for redressing violations are insufficient. Many individuals and organizations reported their distrust to contact authorities whenever there is a security risk.
Death penalty
As previously stated, the United Nations deeply regrets the reinstatement of the death penalty by the Government of Iraq in 2004 which the UN rejects in all circumstances, including cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations has consistently encouraged States to abolish the death penalty, and called on States to introduce a moratorium on executions.
Detainees
The number of detainees held in the country continues to remain high and a source of discontent for the population at large. According to the Ministry of Human Rights, as of 30 April 2006, there were a total of 28,700 detainees. In relation to January – February 2006, the figures indicate a decrease in the overall number of detainees, especially in Iraqi facilities. However, there has been an increase of 7.5 percent in the number of detainees in the custody of the MNF in comparison to the end of February figures.
The general conditions of detention in Iraqi facilities are not consistent with international human rights standards. Prisons and detention centres are overcrowded (with pre-trial detainees and convicted being mixed) and often lack food, hygiene and medical treatment.
Torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment are allegedly common practice in some facilities run by the Ministry of Interior. It should be emphasized that under Iraqi Law, the Ministry of Justice is the only institution habilitated to hold detainees. The Ministries of Interior and Defense can only hold individuals in accordance with the short delay prescribed by law. In addition, those two ministries do not have funds or the appropriately trained staff to run detention centers.
The poor detention conditions are revealed during joint MNF-Iraqi inspections in places of detention under the control of the Ministry of Interior, Defence and Special Forces throughout the country. Those inspections were established after the great outcry created by the discovery of the Al-Jadiryia’s bunker and are led by Iraqi representatives of relevant Iraqi Ministries, supported by the MNF. UNAMI encourages this process and calls for the reports resulting from those inspections to be made public. The Al-Jadiryia’s report is however unlikely to be published before the formation of the new Government.
The Human Rights Office (HRO) is particularly concerned by reports that judicial release orders are often not respected in detention facilities. Militias allegedly close to the Ministry of Interior have been reported as able to detain and/or free specific individuals at their own discretion.
The lack of judges, and investigative judges in particular and their lack of access to detention centres and prisons, the lack of enforcement of judicial release orders by law enforcement authorities, remain the major hurdles to an effective judicial oversight.
Women and Children
Women and children continue to pay a heavy price as a result of the conflict in Iraq. According to a study conducted by the University of Baghdad, at least 9 women become widows every day as a result of the violence and an increasing number of children become orphans. The prevailing violence also increases the vulnerability of women, children and the elderly, hampers access to health and education and affects negatively their living standards. Children and schools have also become victims of the sectarian conflict. With crimes against children and attacks against schools on the rise and a high level of general violence, school attendance levels have decreased.
UNAMI continued to receive reports from individuals and NGOs that women face harassment and intimidation if they are less inclined to conform to traditional dressing. “Honour crimes,” including domestic violence and killings, as well as kidnappings are reportedly increasing. The Kurdish Regional Government recently confirmed that 534 women may have been victims of so-called “honour killings” since the beginning of 2006. Although the practice has been outlawed, police do not enforce legislation or tends to be lenient towards offenders. Women activists and women NGOs have reported several cases of domestic violence in which victims were hesitant to seek help from the police out of fear for their lives.
There have also been reported cases where women were used by the Iraqi security forces to pressure their male family members to turn themselves in.
Minorities
HRO is particularly concerned about the treatment of ethnic and religious minorities in the country, as well as individuals because of their sexual orientation.
Members of the Christian community have lodged complaints with the HRO regarding the treatment and intimidation of the Christian community in the North, and reported that in Mosul alone, some 400 families migrated from the city to other villages with Christian majority within the Governorate. The persecution of minorities seems to continue in the Basra province.
UNAMI held several meetings with representatives of the National Council of Minorities, a group representing most minority groups in Iraq. They argued, for example, that only parties or coalitions with more than ten seats in the Council of Representatives could obtain membership in the newly created Political Council for National Security, thus effectively excluding minority parties from it.
During an informal meeting between the HRO and a member of the Iraqi Jewish community, it was confirmed that only a small number of families remains in the country. The representative emphasized the importance for the Iraqi Jewish community to be reintegrated within the Iraqi society.
Academics and professionals
The killing of professionals, including doctors and academics, is another cause for concern. At least 100 professors have been reportedly killed since 2003. A large number of lecturers, teachers and other intellectuals have reportedly stopped their work or left the country. HRO has received numerous reports that sectarian divisions have engulfed universities; some students appeared to be backed by different political factions. Lack of security in campuses has led to reports of clashes between students as well as intimidation against students and professors. Since 22 February 2006, thousands of students have reportedly requested to be transferred to other universities.
The targeting of judicial professionals is particularly worrisome in the context of the deterioration of law and order. There are reports that many judges, especially those working on terrorism or serious criminal cases, are facing intimidations or threats, including in the provinces. According to various sources, judicial professionals are said to be considering resignation, have requested to be transferred or are reluctant to sit on sensitive cases. There have also been reports of violence in Diyala, Hillah, Karbala and Wassit affecting court functions.
Recent displacement and situation of Palestinians in Iraq
As a result of the pervasive violence, Iraqis continue to leave their areas of residence, either voluntarily or as a result of violence or threats by insurgents, militias and other armed groups. According to figures from the International Organization of Migration (IOM), the number of displaced persons since 22 February 2006 reached 14,307 families, or 85,842 persons. The IOM further reported that most of the Shi’a families are leaving central areas of Iraq (Baghdad, Anbar and Salah al Din) towards southern Governorates (Najaf, Qadissya, Wassit and Kerbala). Sunni families are leaving southern areas and moving towards the Governorates of Baghdad, Diyala and Anbar.
Internal displacement is accompanied by increasing displacement of Iraqis seeking refuge outside the country.
UNAMI HRO has been in contact with Palestinian representatives over the past months. Some 34,000 Palestinians have been living in Iraq for years but are currently victims to various types of human rights violations because they are perceived supporters of the insurgency. In this sense, they are victims of the same discrimination, labelling, stigmatization and profiling affecting other communities of foreign residents of Arab extraction in Iraq (e.g. Syrian Arabs, Sudanese, Yemenis, Egyptians, Somalis).
UNAMI finds encouragement in a religious Fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani recently issued by calling for the respect of Palestinians, and by the commitment of the Government to continue granting protection to the Palestinians in Iraq.
Freedom of expression
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), more than 70 journalists have been killed on duty in Iraq since March 2003 and many others have been maimed, detained or threatened while pursuing the right to freedom of expression. Three journalists were killed by unidentified gunmen during the month of March.
UNAMI is concerned with restrictions on freedom of expression in the Kurdish Region.
PROMOTION
Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
NGOs relationship with the Government remains somewhat polarized. The Ministry of Civil Society wrote to the HRO in early April clarifying that the draft law on civil society organizations was still under revision by the General Committee of the Shura Council. As the draft law is not yet finalized, UNAMI hopes that comprehensive consultations will take place on its text allowing for a significant input from civil society organizations to bring the text in line with international norms and ensure that it does not unduly restrict freedom of association before its approval.
Source: UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (Word File)
Quotes: From report titled, "Human Rights Report; 1 March –30 April 2006"
Summary
The enjoyment of human rights in Iraq continued to be severely undermined by growing insecurity, high levels of violence and a break down in law and order resulting from the action of militias and criminal gangs. The right to life continued to be severely affected by the ongoing insurgency, terrorist attacks as well as by revenge killings and action by armed groups. Women, children and professionals, including academics and judges, were increasingly targeted by the on-going violence.
Especially after the 22 February bombing against the Al Askari shrine in Samarra, sectarian killings, intimidations and threats have become one of the most significant forms of human rights violation. As a result, the number of internally displaced persons has increased considerably, affecting many communities and creating further tensions and socio-economic problems.
On-going military operations, especially in western and central Iraq, have also severely affected the enjoyment of human rights and have resulted, at times, in the loss of life of civilians.
Efforts in the rule of law sector aimed at establishing an independent national human rights commission have met broad support from the Iraqi ministries concerned and the judiciary, donor countries and UN agencies and programs. However, delays in government formation have put on hold required urgent action, especially with respect to internal regulations and accountability systems in the administration of justice, notably within the police.
PROTECTION
Situation of human rights
Extra-judicial executions, targeted and indiscriminate killings
The Government has not made available precise figures regarding the number of civilian casualties. However, hundreds of civilians are reported killed or wounded weekly, including women and children, as targeted or unintended victims of violent attacks. The Medico Legal Institute in Baghdad issued 1,294 death certificates in March and 1,155 in April. Most of those bodies, who include only individuals who have not been identified or whose death is violent or suspect, died as a result of shot wounds.
Targeted assassinations continued to take place aiming at politicians, members of the public administration including police, army and judges, professionals and those perceived to be associated with the Multinational Forces (MNF), affecting also the functioning of key institutions, such as the judiciary.
Particularly disturbing is also the recent spike in assassinations of politicians’ relatives. On 13 April, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmed al-Hashemi, brother of Mr. Tariq al-Hashemi, was also killed by unknown gunmen in the centre of Baghdad. On 17 April, the body of Mr. Taha Mutlaq, brother of the Mr. Saleh Mutlaq, General Secretary of the National Dialogue Front, was found dead in Western Baghdad. Mr. Mutlaq had been kidnapped by unidentified persons in later March 2006. He had been reportedly shot several times and appeared to have been tortured before he was killed. On 27 April, Ms. Maysoon Ahmed Al Hashimi, sister of Mr. Tariq Al Hashimi, leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party and appointed Vice-President of Iraq, was killed with her driver outside her home in Hay Al- Ilaam, an area in Al Saidyia neighbourhood in Baghdad.
Sectarian violence
Increased efforts need to be undertaken by the Government of Iraq, political parties, religious and tribal leaders and civil society to bridge the sectarian divide in the country, which was dangerously fomented following the 22 February 2006 bombing in Samarra. Civilians continued to be targeted by terrorist attacks or killed as unintended victims by insurgent, militia or criminal activities. HRO received numerous documents and testimonies indicating that Shi’a and Sunni civilians are being intimidated, threatened or killed in order to cause their displacement. HRO has also received credible and consistent reports of summary or extrajudicial executions that have taken place only on the basis of the victim’s name. As a result, Iraqis are reportedly resorting to changing their names in order to avoid being identified as belonging to any particular community.
Numerous terrorist attacks killed and maimed civilians and targeted also cultural symbols, mosques and churches of different denominations, with the clear intent of fomenting sectarian animosity.
On 13 and 14 April, HRO recorded an alarming increase in violence in Basra. Over 40 people were reported killed, half of whom were said to be members of the Basra Sunni community. In the morning of 13 April, the Basra-based construction company “Al Fayhaa” was raided by armed men wearing Iraqi police uniforms and driving the same type of vehicles used by the Iraqi police. Sunni and Shi'a employees were apparently separated and seven Sunni were summarily executed. Their killing was interpreted by the construction company as a retribution for their company’s earlier association with the Ba’ath party.
Human Rights Defenders
Criminal actions have also affected human rights defenders. Dr. Ahmed Al-Mosawi, the head of the Iraqi Human Rights Society and well known national personality, was kidnapped on 6 March from the headquarters of his organization. On 22 March, 49 non-governmental organizations issued a press release demanding his immediate release. However, no information regarding his whereabouts has been received so far.
In Diyala activists working through NGOs are afraid to hold activities because of the multiplication of security incidents in April. During the first half of April, Mr. Zuhair Yaseen member of the Prisoners of War Organization was assassinated in front of his home in Baquba and another member was injured in the same incident. Around the same time, Mr. Mehdi Mchaitheer Al-Azawi, Director of Association of Disabled Females was assassinated by an armed group in front of his home.
Military operations
In Baghdad and central areas of the country, where military operations have continued by the MNF and Iraqi forces, severe disruption to civilian life continues to take place. In Ramadi, where clashes are reported daily between insurgents and Iraqi and MNF, civilian casualties, damage to civilian property and extreme hardship to civilians are commonplace also due to the actions of the insurgency and the resulting use of force by the military. In the outskirts of Al-Iss Haqi District in Balad (Salah-El-Din Governorate), during the early morning of 15 March, an MNF raid caused the death of several civilians, including women and children. The MNF has announced that it is investigating the incident. Medical and other sources from Ramadi reported that 11 civilians, including children, were killed in the city following aerial bombings on 22 April. HRO could not independently verify this allegation.
In March, the MNF announced that they were opening an inquiry into the incidents occurred in November 2005 in western town of Haditha. Residents accused US marines of killing 15 civilians after a marine was killed by a roadside bomb. The MNF had originally reported that the civilians had been killed by the bomb blast but a film produced by a local NGO suggested that the civilians died of gunfire and in their homes.
Indiscriminate attacks against civilians
The United Nations utterly condemns all attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. Such attacks are not only illegal under international humanitarian law but also create unnecessary suffering for the civilian population.
RULE OF LAW
Behaviour of security forces
HRO continues to receive reports of kidnappings and killings carried out by militias, alone or allegedly in association with forces of the Ministry of Interior. Most of the cases relate to actions by armed individuals wearing black clothes abducting young men, who are executed and then left at the morgue or on the streets. Some of the extra-judicial executions are said to be a form of “setting of scores” or revenge killings.
A new brand of violence has emerged, a mix of organized crime and sectarian killings, increasingly attacking businesses. Gunmen often wearing police uniforms have stormed numerous businesses since the beginning of March resulting in of workers being kidnapped or killed and money being stolen.
Militias
As previously reported, the actions of militias, armed and vigilante groups, and their alleged implication in human rights violations, remain a cause of great concern. Reports indicate that such groups have increased their activity in central and southern areas of the country. Allegations that sectors of the new security forces have been infiltrated by militias responding to parallel structures have continued to be voiced by Iraqi NGOs, politicians, including members of the Government, and the international community.
During the reporting period, there has apparently been no action taken to effectively address this problem thus increasing a perception of growing impunity. As a result, many continue to express the view that new militias need to be created in order to guarantee personal or group safety.
HRO receives increasing reports about mosques and other religious sites allegedly being used as secret prisons and even operating as illegal courts. On 22 March, HRO received information that three men may have been detained inside Almuhsin mosque, allegedly used by Al-Mahdi militia to “investigate and try” individuals. The three men worked in a vegetable market next to Sadr-city and were allegedly executed after being tortured. Summary trials and execution-style have been reported as being used by Sunni groups.
Impunity
It is of grave concern that numerous cases of assassinations, torture, abuse of detainees, and intimidations are frequently inadequately investigated and therefore unpunished. Such a situation may encourage further acts of violence and crime. It is however often reported that neither the Iraqi judiciary nor the police yield much success investigating crimes perpetrated by numerous well established militias. The investigative capacity of the State remains limited because of security conditions as well as for lack of adequate resources and the limited number of investigative judges. Allegations made that some sectors of the security forces are colluding with armed militias or other armed groups risk eroding support for the security forces and increase the perception that the impunity gap in Iraq is growing.
Existing mechanism for redressing violations are insufficient. Many individuals and organizations reported their distrust to contact authorities whenever there is a security risk.
Death penalty
As previously stated, the United Nations deeply regrets the reinstatement of the death penalty by the Government of Iraq in 2004 which the UN rejects in all circumstances, including cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations has consistently encouraged States to abolish the death penalty, and called on States to introduce a moratorium on executions.
Detainees
The number of detainees held in the country continues to remain high and a source of discontent for the population at large. According to the Ministry of Human Rights, as of 30 April 2006, there were a total of 28,700 detainees. In relation to January – February 2006, the figures indicate a decrease in the overall number of detainees, especially in Iraqi facilities. However, there has been an increase of 7.5 percent in the number of detainees in the custody of the MNF in comparison to the end of February figures.
The general conditions of detention in Iraqi facilities are not consistent with international human rights standards. Prisons and detention centres are overcrowded (with pre-trial detainees and convicted being mixed) and often lack food, hygiene and medical treatment.
Torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment are allegedly common practice in some facilities run by the Ministry of Interior. It should be emphasized that under Iraqi Law, the Ministry of Justice is the only institution habilitated to hold detainees. The Ministries of Interior and Defense can only hold individuals in accordance with the short delay prescribed by law. In addition, those two ministries do not have funds or the appropriately trained staff to run detention centers.
The poor detention conditions are revealed during joint MNF-Iraqi inspections in places of detention under the control of the Ministry of Interior, Defence and Special Forces throughout the country. Those inspections were established after the great outcry created by the discovery of the Al-Jadiryia’s bunker and are led by Iraqi representatives of relevant Iraqi Ministries, supported by the MNF. UNAMI encourages this process and calls for the reports resulting from those inspections to be made public. The Al-Jadiryia’s report is however unlikely to be published before the formation of the new Government.
The Human Rights Office (HRO) is particularly concerned by reports that judicial release orders are often not respected in detention facilities. Militias allegedly close to the Ministry of Interior have been reported as able to detain and/or free specific individuals at their own discretion.
The lack of judges, and investigative judges in particular and their lack of access to detention centres and prisons, the lack of enforcement of judicial release orders by law enforcement authorities, remain the major hurdles to an effective judicial oversight.
Women and Children
Women and children continue to pay a heavy price as a result of the conflict in Iraq. According to a study conducted by the University of Baghdad, at least 9 women become widows every day as a result of the violence and an increasing number of children become orphans. The prevailing violence also increases the vulnerability of women, children and the elderly, hampers access to health and education and affects negatively their living standards. Children and schools have also become victims of the sectarian conflict. With crimes against children and attacks against schools on the rise and a high level of general violence, school attendance levels have decreased.
UNAMI continued to receive reports from individuals and NGOs that women face harassment and intimidation if they are less inclined to conform to traditional dressing. “Honour crimes,” including domestic violence and killings, as well as kidnappings are reportedly increasing. The Kurdish Regional Government recently confirmed that 534 women may have been victims of so-called “honour killings” since the beginning of 2006. Although the practice has been outlawed, police do not enforce legislation or tends to be lenient towards offenders. Women activists and women NGOs have reported several cases of domestic violence in which victims were hesitant to seek help from the police out of fear for their lives.
There have also been reported cases where women were used by the Iraqi security forces to pressure their male family members to turn themselves in.
Minorities
HRO is particularly concerned about the treatment of ethnic and religious minorities in the country, as well as individuals because of their sexual orientation.
Members of the Christian community have lodged complaints with the HRO regarding the treatment and intimidation of the Christian community in the North, and reported that in Mosul alone, some 400 families migrated from the city to other villages with Christian majority within the Governorate. The persecution of minorities seems to continue in the Basra province.
UNAMI held several meetings with representatives of the National Council of Minorities, a group representing most minority groups in Iraq. They argued, for example, that only parties or coalitions with more than ten seats in the Council of Representatives could obtain membership in the newly created Political Council for National Security, thus effectively excluding minority parties from it.
During an informal meeting between the HRO and a member of the Iraqi Jewish community, it was confirmed that only a small number of families remains in the country. The representative emphasized the importance for the Iraqi Jewish community to be reintegrated within the Iraqi society.
Academics and professionals
The killing of professionals, including doctors and academics, is another cause for concern. At least 100 professors have been reportedly killed since 2003. A large number of lecturers, teachers and other intellectuals have reportedly stopped their work or left the country. HRO has received numerous reports that sectarian divisions have engulfed universities; some students appeared to be backed by different political factions. Lack of security in campuses has led to reports of clashes between students as well as intimidation against students and professors. Since 22 February 2006, thousands of students have reportedly requested to be transferred to other universities.
The targeting of judicial professionals is particularly worrisome in the context of the deterioration of law and order. There are reports that many judges, especially those working on terrorism or serious criminal cases, are facing intimidations or threats, including in the provinces. According to various sources, judicial professionals are said to be considering resignation, have requested to be transferred or are reluctant to sit on sensitive cases. There have also been reports of violence in Diyala, Hillah, Karbala and Wassit affecting court functions.
Recent displacement and situation of Palestinians in Iraq
As a result of the pervasive violence, Iraqis continue to leave their areas of residence, either voluntarily or as a result of violence or threats by insurgents, militias and other armed groups. According to figures from the International Organization of Migration (IOM), the number of displaced persons since 22 February 2006 reached 14,307 families, or 85,842 persons. The IOM further reported that most of the Shi’a families are leaving central areas of Iraq (Baghdad, Anbar and Salah al Din) towards southern Governorates (Najaf, Qadissya, Wassit and Kerbala). Sunni families are leaving southern areas and moving towards the Governorates of Baghdad, Diyala and Anbar.
Internal displacement is accompanied by increasing displacement of Iraqis seeking refuge outside the country.
UNAMI HRO has been in contact with Palestinian representatives over the past months. Some 34,000 Palestinians have been living in Iraq for years but are currently victims to various types of human rights violations because they are perceived supporters of the insurgency. In this sense, they are victims of the same discrimination, labelling, stigmatization and profiling affecting other communities of foreign residents of Arab extraction in Iraq (e.g. Syrian Arabs, Sudanese, Yemenis, Egyptians, Somalis).
UNAMI finds encouragement in a religious Fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani recently issued by calling for the respect of Palestinians, and by the commitment of the Government to continue granting protection to the Palestinians in Iraq.
Freedom of expression
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), more than 70 journalists have been killed on duty in Iraq since March 2003 and many others have been maimed, detained or threatened while pursuing the right to freedom of expression. Three journalists were killed by unidentified gunmen during the month of March.
UNAMI is concerned with restrictions on freedom of expression in the Kurdish Region.
PROMOTION
Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
NGOs relationship with the Government remains somewhat polarized. The Ministry of Civil Society wrote to the HRO in early April clarifying that the draft law on civil society organizations was still under revision by the General Committee of the Shura Council. As the draft law is not yet finalized, UNAMI hopes that comprehensive consultations will take place on its text allowing for a significant input from civil society organizations to bring the text in line with international norms and ensure that it does not unduly restrict freedom of association before its approval.
Judicial RhetIraq: US Gov't Attempt to End Free Speech
Who: Richard Cardamone, Judge for 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Source: Associated Press via Findlaw
Quotes: From article titled, "Judge: Endless ban on speech sought for terror investigations likely unconstitutional"
A federal appeals judge warned the U.S. government Tuesday that the permanent ban on speech it seeks to assist terrorism investigations is likely unconstitutional.
Judge Richard Cardamone, of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, commented as the court acted on lawsuits challenging the government's ability to force companies to quietly turn over information about customers or subscribers as part of the war on terrorism.
"While everyone recognizes national security concerns are implicated when the government investigates terrorism within our nation's borders, such concerns should be leavened with common sense so as not forever to trump the rights of the citizenry under the Constitution," Cardamone said.
... a district judge in New York had ruled the national security letters violate the Constitution because they amount to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement violated free speech.
That case pertained to an unidentified Internet access firm that received one of the letters in which the FBI certified that phone or Internet records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The appeals court said the district judge can consider new evidence or arguments and rule again.
Cardamone wrote a separate concurring opinion to highlight what he said was the government's recent insistence that a permanent ban on speech is sometimes permissible under the First Amendment. He said he suspected "a perpetual gag on citizen speech of the type advocated so strenuously by the government may likely be unconstitutional."
Cardamone said previously approved bans on free speech were limited and ended with the investigation. But now the government has insisted on permanent bans on speech because all terrorism investigations are permanent and unending, he said.
"The government's urging that an endless investigation leads logically to an endless ban on speech flies in the face of human knowledge and common sense: witnesses disappear, plans change or are completed, cases are closed, investigations terminate," he wrote.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Ann Beeson, who argued before the appeals court, said Cardamone was "sending a strong message to the government that it can't simply claim secrecy is always necessary to protect national security."
Source: Associated Press via Findlaw
Quotes: From article titled, "Judge: Endless ban on speech sought for terror investigations likely unconstitutional"
A federal appeals judge warned the U.S. government Tuesday that the permanent ban on speech it seeks to assist terrorism investigations is likely unconstitutional.
Judge Richard Cardamone, of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, commented as the court acted on lawsuits challenging the government's ability to force companies to quietly turn over information about customers or subscribers as part of the war on terrorism.
"While everyone recognizes national security concerns are implicated when the government investigates terrorism within our nation's borders, such concerns should be leavened with common sense so as not forever to trump the rights of the citizenry under the Constitution," Cardamone said.
... a district judge in New York had ruled the national security letters violate the Constitution because they amount to unreasonable search and seizure. He found that the nondisclosure requirement violated free speech.
That case pertained to an unidentified Internet access firm that received one of the letters in which the FBI certified that phone or Internet records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
The appeals court said the district judge can consider new evidence or arguments and rule again.
Cardamone wrote a separate concurring opinion to highlight what he said was the government's recent insistence that a permanent ban on speech is sometimes permissible under the First Amendment. He said he suspected "a perpetual gag on citizen speech of the type advocated so strenuously by the government may likely be unconstitutional."
Cardamone said previously approved bans on free speech were limited and ended with the investigation. But now the government has insisted on permanent bans on speech because all terrorism investigations are permanent and unending, he said.
"The government's urging that an endless investigation leads logically to an endless ban on speech flies in the face of human knowledge and common sense: witnesses disappear, plans change or are completed, cases are closed, investigations terminate," he wrote.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Ann Beeson, who argued before the appeals court, said Cardamone was "sending a strong message to the government that it can't simply claim secrecy is always necessary to protect national security."
Sunday, May 28, 2006
News RhetIraq: 2003 Iranian Offer to US for Peace
Source: Inter Press Service News Agency
Quotes: From article titled, "Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel"
by Gareth Porter*
Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States.
The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.
The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.
The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.
Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."
The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.
Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".
Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".
The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".
That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.
In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".
Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.
Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.
An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."
But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.
Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".
The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.
However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.
The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.
Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005. (END/2006)
Quotes: From article titled, "Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel"
by Gareth Porter*
Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and to cut off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967 borders, according to the secret Iranian proposal to the United States.
The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. agreement covering all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, was conveyed to the United States in late April or early May 2003. Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an Iranian official earlier this year but is not at liberty to reveal the source.
The two-page document contradicts the official line of the George W. Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed Iranian negotiating proposal which he learned about in 2003 from the U.S. intermediary who carried it to the State Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or early May 2003. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be identified, according to Parsi.
The Iranian negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in the region in return for a larger bargain with the United States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian policy, was an end to U.S. hostility and recognition of Iran as a legitimate power in the region.
Before the 2003 proposal, Iran had attacked Arab governments which had supported the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The negotiating document, however, offered "acceptance of the Arab League Beirut declaration", which it also referred to as the "Saudi initiative, two-states approach."
The March 2002 Beirut declaration represented the Arab League's first official acceptance of the land-for-peace principle as well as a comprehensive peace with Israel in return for Israel's withdrawal to the territory it had controlled before the 1967 war.. Iran's proposed concession on the issue would have aligned its policy with that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others with whom the United States enjoyed intimate relations.
Another concession in the document was a "stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad, etc.) from Iranian territory" along with "pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within borders of 1967".
Even more surprising, given the extremely close relationship between Iran and the Lebanon-based Hizbollah Shiite organisation, the proposal offered to take "action on Hizbollah to become a mere political organization within Lebanon".
The Iranian proposal also offered to accept much tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for "full access to peaceful nuclear technology". It offered "full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)".
That was a reference to protocols which would require Iran to provide IAEA monitors with access to any facility they might request, whether it had been declared by Iran or not. That would have made it much more difficult for Iran to carry out any secret nuclear activities without being detected.
In return for these concessions, which contradicted Iran's public rhetoric about Israel and anti-Israeli forces, the secret Iranian proposal sought U.S. agreement to a list of Iranian aims. The list included a "Halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of status of Iran in the U.S.", as well as the "abolishment of all sanctions".
Also included among Iran's aims was "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with according defense capacity". According to a number of Iran specialists, the aim of security and an official acknowledgment of Iran's status as a regional power were central to the Iranian interest in a broad agreement with the United States.
Negotiation of a deal with the United States that would advance Iran's security and fundamental geopolitical political interests in the Persian Gulf region in return for accepting the existence of Israel and other Iranian concessions has long been discussed among senior Iranian national security officials, according to Parsi and other analysts of Iranian national security policy.
An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, "The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern."
But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist on the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was "literally a few days" between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.
Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that "senior analysts" from Iran told him in July 2005 that "the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a 'grand bargain' can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran".
The proposal's offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran's Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year's election.
However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. "Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it," he said in an interview with IPS last month.
The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.
Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran's foreign policy, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was "directly involved" in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005. (END/2006)
Iraqi RhetIraq: On Iran's Nuclear Policy
Who: Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi Foreign Minister
Source: Bloomberg
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq Says It Backs Iran's Right to Nuclear Program"
Iraq supports Iran's right to use nuclear technology for peaceful means and wants a diplomatic solution to the standoff between the Islamic Republic and the U.S. over uranium enrichment, the Iraqi foreign minister said.
``In our view the Islamic Republic has the right to have nuclear technology as long as it is for peaceful means,'' Hoshyar Zebari said today in a press conference from Baghdad broadcast live by Dubai, United Arab Emirates-based al-Arabiya television station.
Zebari was speaking after meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who ruled out holding direct talks with the U.S. to resolve the standoff over the Iranian uranium enrichment program.
This is the highest-level visit by an Iranian official to Iraq since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Iran's elections in June last year, Agence France-Presse reported. Mottaki's visit follows the promotion of Iranian charge d'affairs, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, in Baghdad to an ambassador, the first between the two countries since the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. The war left more than 1 million dead.
Mottaki said Iran is keen to see the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki succeed.
Source: Bloomberg
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq Says It Backs Iran's Right to Nuclear Program"
Iraq supports Iran's right to use nuclear technology for peaceful means and wants a diplomatic solution to the standoff between the Islamic Republic and the U.S. over uranium enrichment, the Iraqi foreign minister said.
``In our view the Islamic Republic has the right to have nuclear technology as long as it is for peaceful means,'' Hoshyar Zebari said today in a press conference from Baghdad broadcast live by Dubai, United Arab Emirates-based al-Arabiya television station.
Zebari was speaking after meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who ruled out holding direct talks with the U.S. to resolve the standoff over the Iranian uranium enrichment program.
This is the highest-level visit by an Iranian official to Iraq since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Iran's elections in June last year, Agence France-Presse reported. Mottaki's visit follows the promotion of Iranian charge d'affairs, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, in Baghdad to an ambassador, the first between the two countries since the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. The war left more than 1 million dead.
Mottaki said Iran is keen to see the new Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki succeed.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Iraqi RhetIraq: Withdrawl of Coalition Forces
Who: Nuri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq
Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Host springs surprise for PM"
Nuri al-Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister, had a surprise for Tony Blair and his entourage in Baghdad yesterday. At a joint press conference, Mr Maliki said British troops would hand over responsibility in two provinces to Iraqi security forces by next month and that he expected US, British and other foreign troops out of 16 of the country's 18 provinces by the end of the year, a much speedier and more ambitious schedule than the US and Britain have so far admitted to.
The announcement was news to Mr Blair and his team. Mr Maliki said there was an agreement with the British: but British officials said there was no agreement. And he said the withdrawals would be in June: officials say it will be July.
Mr Blair was more vague than the Iraqi prime minister. He insisted that there was no timetable and that the handover to Iraqi forces would depend on the prevailing conditions.
The US has 133,000 servicemen and women in Iraq and the British 8,000. The combined Iraqi army and police have 263,000 at present and are predicted to have a strength of 320,000 by the end of the year. British and US troops withdrawals are scheduled to begin this summer and by the end of the year there will have been significant reductions, even though there will still be a sizeable presence for anything between four and 10 years.
Mr Maliki said by the end of the year Iraqi forces could have taken control of all the provinces except Anbar, to the west of Baghdad and where the insurgency is strongest, and Baghdad itself.
The remaining two provinces in British hands will prove more difficult to hand over, in part because Basra is becoming more unruly and in part because the police force there is riven with sectarianism. The British hope is that they will have withdrawn 3,000 personnel from Iraq by the end of the year.
The US withdrawal is more problematic, mainly because the Americans are facing a more sustained insurgency campaign. But the intensity of the fighting in Baghdad, Anbar and, until the middle of last year, Nineva overshadows the relative peace in other parts of the US sector. First up for withdrawal is expected to be Najaf, the holy Shia city.
The US had been planning for the Iraqi forces to take over by July half of what the Pentagon refers to as its "battlespace". But that was before the insurgents increased their attacks in the past few months, killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians. Insurgent attacks on US forces in March and April were at their highest since last autumn.
US and British officers have said that the next few months are crucial as insurgents try to undermine the new government. For this reason, some US officers have been recommending to the Bush administration that it is the wrong time to be handing over to Iraqi forces. Other voices in the US army have been warning that there is a huge gap between the Iraqi forces on paper and their actual ability.
In a report to the Pentagon, General Barry McCaffrey, a retired army commander who teaches international affairs at West Point, said the Iraqi army was badly equipped, with only a few light vehicles and almost no mortars, heavy machine guns, decent communications equipment, artillery, air cargo transport, helicopter troop carriers or strike aircraft of its own.
Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Host springs surprise for PM"
Nuri al-Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister, had a surprise for Tony Blair and his entourage in Baghdad yesterday. At a joint press conference, Mr Maliki said British troops would hand over responsibility in two provinces to Iraqi security forces by next month and that he expected US, British and other foreign troops out of 16 of the country's 18 provinces by the end of the year, a much speedier and more ambitious schedule than the US and Britain have so far admitted to.
The announcement was news to Mr Blair and his team. Mr Maliki said there was an agreement with the British: but British officials said there was no agreement. And he said the withdrawals would be in June: officials say it will be July.
Mr Blair was more vague than the Iraqi prime minister. He insisted that there was no timetable and that the handover to Iraqi forces would depend on the prevailing conditions.
The US has 133,000 servicemen and women in Iraq and the British 8,000. The combined Iraqi army and police have 263,000 at present and are predicted to have a strength of 320,000 by the end of the year. British and US troops withdrawals are scheduled to begin this summer and by the end of the year there will have been significant reductions, even though there will still be a sizeable presence for anything between four and 10 years.
Mr Maliki said by the end of the year Iraqi forces could have taken control of all the provinces except Anbar, to the west of Baghdad and where the insurgency is strongest, and Baghdad itself.
The remaining two provinces in British hands will prove more difficult to hand over, in part because Basra is becoming more unruly and in part because the police force there is riven with sectarianism. The British hope is that they will have withdrawn 3,000 personnel from Iraq by the end of the year.
The US withdrawal is more problematic, mainly because the Americans are facing a more sustained insurgency campaign. But the intensity of the fighting in Baghdad, Anbar and, until the middle of last year, Nineva overshadows the relative peace in other parts of the US sector. First up for withdrawal is expected to be Najaf, the holy Shia city.
The US had been planning for the Iraqi forces to take over by July half of what the Pentagon refers to as its "battlespace". But that was before the insurgents increased their attacks in the past few months, killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians. Insurgent attacks on US forces in March and April were at their highest since last autumn.
US and British officers have said that the next few months are crucial as insurgents try to undermine the new government. For this reason, some US officers have been recommending to the Bush administration that it is the wrong time to be handing over to Iraqi forces. Other voices in the US army have been warning that there is a huge gap between the Iraqi forces on paper and their actual ability.
In a report to the Pentagon, General Barry McCaffrey, a retired army commander who teaches international affairs at West Point, said the Iraqi army was badly equipped, with only a few light vehicles and almost no mortars, heavy machine guns, decent communications equipment, artillery, air cargo transport, helicopter troop carriers or strike aircraft of its own.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Judicial RhetIraq: Legality of "Terrorist Surveillance Program"
Who: Peter Swire (Ohio State Law Professor and Fellow at Center for American Progress) and Judd Legum (Director of Reserach at Center for American Progress)
Source: The Enquirer at Cincinnati.com
Quotes: From opinion article titled, "Disclosing records clearly illegal"
The National Security Agency has obtained the calling records of tens of millions of Americans from major phone companies, according to a recent story in USA Today. If the paper has its facts right, both the government and the phone companies broke the law.
Among the many legal issues, the biggest concern for the phone companies is the Stored Communications Act of 1986. That law prohibits phone companies from disclosing customer records to the government, with exceptions that don't appear to apply. Every customer whose rights are violated is entitled to a minimum of $1,000, plus attorney's fees. If records were disclosed for 50 million customers, as seems possible, then damages would be $50 billion.
Domestic surveillance against terrorists is usually done under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
That law gives two ways to make the NSA's conduct legal. First, the government could go to the FISA court and get a court order. Second, the attorney general could personally certify that the program was legal. According to USA Today, neither action was taken. In fact, attorneys for one major phone company, Qwest, asked the NSA to use those two options, but the agency declined. As a result, and apparently understanding its liability exposure, Qwest refused to participate in the program.
Some defenders of the program have pointed to an emergency exception in the law, allowing disclosure to the government to prevent imminent harm. Emergency exceptions in the wiretap law, however, are generally for only 72 hours - long enough to get a court order - and not for the four years this program has apparently existed.
Another exception might apply if the records were anonymized.
These records, though, contain individual phone numbers, which are easily linked to customer names and do not count as "anonymous" under the federal Privacy Act.
Finally, one unnamed administration source told the press that customers have "consented" to the program, a last-ditch effort to find an exception. The terms of service for some phone companies say they can disclose your records for "exigent circumstances."
That vague language is not nearly good enough to show actual customer consent for the government to access all your phone calls. We know that many Americans are surprised and outraged by the government actions. They did not consent to this secret program, and we don't think the courts will accept such a legal fiction.
None of this means that the government should not aggressively detect and prevent terrorist attacks. But there are plenty of legal options available to fight terrorism. If the Bush administration thinks current law does not permit activities essential to protect Americans, it should make its case to Congress and seek to change the laws.
In our constitutional system, the president and his agents do not get to pick and choose which laws to follow. Defending American democracy means more than just fighting terrorism - it means doing so in a way that puts checks on government power and leaves our values intact.
Source: The Enquirer at Cincinnati.com
Quotes: From opinion article titled, "Disclosing records clearly illegal"
The National Security Agency has obtained the calling records of tens of millions of Americans from major phone companies, according to a recent story in USA Today. If the paper has its facts right, both the government and the phone companies broke the law.
Among the many legal issues, the biggest concern for the phone companies is the Stored Communications Act of 1986. That law prohibits phone companies from disclosing customer records to the government, with exceptions that don't appear to apply. Every customer whose rights are violated is entitled to a minimum of $1,000, plus attorney's fees. If records were disclosed for 50 million customers, as seems possible, then damages would be $50 billion.
Domestic surveillance against terrorists is usually done under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
That law gives two ways to make the NSA's conduct legal. First, the government could go to the FISA court and get a court order. Second, the attorney general could personally certify that the program was legal. According to USA Today, neither action was taken. In fact, attorneys for one major phone company, Qwest, asked the NSA to use those two options, but the agency declined. As a result, and apparently understanding its liability exposure, Qwest refused to participate in the program.
Some defenders of the program have pointed to an emergency exception in the law, allowing disclosure to the government to prevent imminent harm. Emergency exceptions in the wiretap law, however, are generally for only 72 hours - long enough to get a court order - and not for the four years this program has apparently existed.
Another exception might apply if the records were anonymized.
These records, though, contain individual phone numbers, which are easily linked to customer names and do not count as "anonymous" under the federal Privacy Act.
Finally, one unnamed administration source told the press that customers have "consented" to the program, a last-ditch effort to find an exception. The terms of service for some phone companies say they can disclose your records for "exigent circumstances."
That vague language is not nearly good enough to show actual customer consent for the government to access all your phone calls. We know that many Americans are surprised and outraged by the government actions. They did not consent to this secret program, and we don't think the courts will accept such a legal fiction.
None of this means that the government should not aggressively detect and prevent terrorist attacks. But there are plenty of legal options available to fight terrorism. If the Bush administration thinks current law does not permit activities essential to protect Americans, it should make its case to Congress and seek to change the laws.
In our constitutional system, the president and his agents do not get to pick and choose which laws to follow. Defending American democracy means more than just fighting terrorism - it means doing so in a way that puts checks on government power and leaves our values intact.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
News RhetIraq: US Support of Somali Warlords
Source:The Washington Post via The Sydney Morning Herald
Quotes: From article titled, "US accused of backing Somali warlords"
MORE than a decade after US troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, there are claims that America is secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.
The clashes last week and at the weekend were among the most violent in Mogadishu since the end of the US intervention in 1994, and left 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. Leaders of the interim government blamed US support of the militias for provoking the attacks.
A State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, had said the US would "work with responsible individuals … in fighting terror. It's a real concern - terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don't want to see another safe haven for terrorists created."
Most of the country is in anarchy, ruled by a patchwork of competing warlords and the capital is too dangerous for even Somalia's acting Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, to visit.
Leaders of the transitional government have warned the US that working with the warlords is shortsighted and dangerous. "We would prefer that the US work with the transitional government and not with criminals," Mr Gedi said. "This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a stable place and we want the US in Somalia. But in a more constructive way. Clearly we have a common objective to stabilise Somalia, but the US is using the wrong channels."
Many of the warlords have their own agendas, Somali officials said, and some reportedly fought against the US in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead.
"The US Government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari said from Baidoa. "This co-operation … only fuels further civil war."
Some unidentified US officials admitted they are talking to these leaders "to prevent people with suspected ties to al-Qaeda from being given safe haven in the lawless country".
"The US relies on buying intelligence from warlords and other participants in the Somali conflict, and hoping that the strongest of the warlords can snatch a live suspect or two if the intelligence identifies their whereabouts," said John Prendergast, the director for African affairs in the Clinton administration and now a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group. "This strategy might reduce the short-term threat of another terrorist attack in East Africa, but in the long term the conditions which allow terrorist cells to take hold along the Indian Ocean coastline go unaddressed. We ignore these conditions at our peril."
A report this month to the United Nations Security Council from the body's monitoring group on Somalia said it was investigating an unnamed country's secret support for an anti-terrorism alliance, in apparent violation of a UN arms embargo.
Quotes: From article titled, "US accused of backing Somali warlords"
MORE than a decade after US troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, there are claims that America is secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.
The clashes last week and at the weekend were among the most violent in Mogadishu since the end of the US intervention in 1994, and left 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. Leaders of the interim government blamed US support of the militias for provoking the attacks.
A State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, had said the US would "work with responsible individuals … in fighting terror. It's a real concern - terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don't want to see another safe haven for terrorists created."
Most of the country is in anarchy, ruled by a patchwork of competing warlords and the capital is too dangerous for even Somalia's acting Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, to visit.
Leaders of the transitional government have warned the US that working with the warlords is shortsighted and dangerous. "We would prefer that the US work with the transitional government and not with criminals," Mr Gedi said. "This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a stable place and we want the US in Somalia. But in a more constructive way. Clearly we have a common objective to stabilise Somalia, but the US is using the wrong channels."
Many of the warlords have their own agendas, Somali officials said, and some reportedly fought against the US in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead.
"The US Government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari said from Baidoa. "This co-operation … only fuels further civil war."
Some unidentified US officials admitted they are talking to these leaders "to prevent people with suspected ties to al-Qaeda from being given safe haven in the lawless country".
"The US relies on buying intelligence from warlords and other participants in the Somali conflict, and hoping that the strongest of the warlords can snatch a live suspect or two if the intelligence identifies their whereabouts," said John Prendergast, the director for African affairs in the Clinton administration and now a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group. "This strategy might reduce the short-term threat of another terrorist attack in East Africa, but in the long term the conditions which allow terrorist cells to take hold along the Indian Ocean coastline go unaddressed. We ignore these conditions at our peril."
A report this month to the United Nations Security Council from the body's monitoring group on Somalia said it was investigating an unnamed country's secret support for an anti-terrorism alliance, in apparent violation of a UN arms embargo.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Democrat RhetIraq: Rep. Murtha
Who: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Source: Associated Press via The Washington Post
Quotes: From article titled, "Murtha Predicts U.S. Pullout From Iraq"
Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran first elected in the anti-war fever of 1974, says American troops will be brought home from Iraq by 2007.
Either President Bush will bow to public opinion or Democrats will have won control of the House of Representatives and increased pressure on the White House, Murtha, D-Pa., said in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
Most likely, there will be a "tidal wave" that propels Democrats into the majority, said Murtha. He predicts Democrats will gain 40-50 seats - well more than the 15 needed for the party to gain control.
"Republicans are spinning the fact that it's going to be very hard. From my experience in '74 and '94, they can't stop it ... even if they did something dramatic," Murtha said.
Murtha said he thinks President Bush would have to bring more than half the troops in Iraq back to the United States before election day for it to start to make a difference to voters.
"If that happens, he would have to admit he made mistakes," Murtha said. "The biggest problem he has had is admitting he made a mistake in going in there in the first place."
Source: Associated Press via The Washington Post
Quotes: From article titled, "Murtha Predicts U.S. Pullout From Iraq"
Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran first elected in the anti-war fever of 1974, says American troops will be brought home from Iraq by 2007.
Either President Bush will bow to public opinion or Democrats will have won control of the House of Representatives and increased pressure on the White House, Murtha, D-Pa., said in an Associated Press interview Thursday.
Most likely, there will be a "tidal wave" that propels Democrats into the majority, said Murtha. He predicts Democrats will gain 40-50 seats - well more than the 15 needed for the party to gain control.
"Republicans are spinning the fact that it's going to be very hard. From my experience in '74 and '94, they can't stop it ... even if they did something dramatic," Murtha said.
Murtha said he thinks President Bush would have to bring more than half the troops in Iraq back to the United States before election day for it to start to make a difference to voters.
"If that happens, he would have to admit he made mistakes," Murtha said. "The biggest problem he has had is admitting he made a mistake in going in there in the first place."
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Military RhetIraq: Lt. Gen. Odom
Who: Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, Director of National Security Agency 1985-1988, and Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
Source: Foreign Policy
Quotes: From article titled, "Cut and Run? You Bet."
Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of “red state” citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.
The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, U.S. President George W. Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let’s consider his administration’s most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.
If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam. Any close observer could see that then; today, only the blind deny it. Even President Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war.
Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers—precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with one choice: Surrender, or ally with al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups’ turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.
Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.
Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.
Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world’s only superpower, it’s patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history. The United States now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. I served as a military attaché in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow during Richard Nixon’s Watergate crisis. When Nixon resigned, several Soviet officials who had previously expressed disdain for the United States told me they were astonished. One diplomat said, “Only your country is powerful enough to do this. It would destroy my country.”
Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.
In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.
None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the “big sandy” of Iraq. America must withdraw now.
Source: Foreign Policy
Quotes: From article titled, "Cut and Run? You Bet."
Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of “red state” citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.
The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, U.S. President George W. Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let’s consider his administration’s most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.
If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam. Any close observer could see that then; today, only the blind deny it. Even President Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war.
Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers—precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with one choice: Surrender, or ally with al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups’ turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.
Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.
Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.
Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world’s only superpower, it’s patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history. The United States now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. I served as a military attaché in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow during Richard Nixon’s Watergate crisis. When Nixon resigned, several Soviet officials who had previously expressed disdain for the United States told me they were astonished. One diplomat said, “Only your country is powerful enough to do this. It would destroy my country.”
Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.
In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.
None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the “big sandy” of Iraq. America must withdraw now.
News RhetIraq: US Soccer Team
Source: Fox News
Quotes: From article titled, "WC: United States team bus to show no flag"
The official team bus to be used by the United States during the World Cup will not bear a flag for security reasons.
The 32 official buses were presented Thursday in Frankfurt and the other 31 buses have large national flags of the their teams painted on rear sides.
Quotes: From article titled, "WC: United States team bus to show no flag"
The official team bus to be used by the United States during the World Cup will not bear a flag for security reasons.
The 32 official buses were presented Thursday in Frankfurt and the other 31 buses have large national flags of the their teams painted on rear sides.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Military RhetIraq: Directing Planner for Joint Chiefs of Staff
Who: Lt. Gen. Victor Renuart, Director of Planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Source: The Telegraph UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Strikes on Iran too risky, says US general"
Military action against Iran would be fraught with risk and would have repercussions across the region, a leading American general conceded.
"Any action militarily is very complicated," Lt Gen Victor Renuart, the director of planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Daily Telegraph.
"And any action by any country will have second-order effects, and that is a strong case to continue the diplomatic process and make it work."
The warning was seen as recognition of the threat Teheran poses to shipping in the Gulf and also to America and its allies in Iraq in the event of an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Source: The Telegraph UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Strikes on Iran too risky, says US general"
Military action against Iran would be fraught with risk and would have repercussions across the region, a leading American general conceded.
"Any action militarily is very complicated," Lt Gen Victor Renuart, the director of planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Daily Telegraph.
"And any action by any country will have second-order effects, and that is a strong case to continue the diplomatic process and make it work."
The warning was seen as recognition of the threat Teheran poses to shipping in the Gulf and also to America and its allies in Iraq in the event of an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.
