RhetIraq

Who: UN Assistance Mission in Iraq
Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Civilian deaths soar to record high in Iraq"

Nearly 7,000 civilians were killed in Iraq in the past two months, according to a UN report just released - a record high that is far greater than initial estimates had suggested. As American generals in Baghdad warned that the violence could worsen in the run up to Ramadan next Monday, the UN spoke of a "grave sectarian crisis" gripping the country.

... the UN said its total was likely to be "on the low side" because of the difficulties of collecting accurate figures. In particular, it said that no deaths were reported from the violent region covering Ramadi and Falluja.

The report from the UN assistance mission in Iraq's human rights office reported evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, the growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honour killings" of women. The increasing incidence of discovery of the bodies of women and teenage girls, shot in the chest rather than in the head, has been attributed to the establishment by both extremist Sunnis and Shias of secretive sharia committees, which locals say carry out killings.

In a separate development, Manfred Nowak, the UN's special investigator, said torture was "totally out of hand" and might even be worse now than under Saddam Hussein. "You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," he told reporters at the UN's Geneva headquarters.

The US military had initially claimed a dramatic drop in the Iraqi death toll for August, but the estimate was revised sharply upwards after it revealed that it had inexplicably left out figures for people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets and other mass attacks.

Critically, the report states that the country's government, set up in 2006, is "facing a generalised breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq".

Who: Emile Nakhleh, ex-CIA Director of Political Islam Strategic Analysis Programme
Source: Inter Press Service
Quotes: From article titled, "Top CIA Expert Slams Bush Anti-Terror Actions"

The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) recently retired top expert on radical Islamists has strongly denounced the conduct of U.S. President George W. Bush's "global war on terrorism" and the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, which he said is "contributing to the violence".

In an interview published this week by the online edition of Harper's Magazine, Emile Nakhleh, who retired at the end of June as director of the agency's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Programme, said that the Bush administration's tactics had "lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world" and its Middle East democratisation programme "has all but disappeared, except for official rhetoric".

The interview, Nakhleh's first since his retirement, echoes the views of a number of former intelligence officials and career diplomats who have criticised the administration for ignoring their analyses of the dynamics of Middle East politics, particularly their warnings of the challenges Washington would face if it invaded Iraq.

... Nakhleh also stressed that the intelligence community had warned before the invasion that "just because the Iraqis hated Saddam, that didn't mean they would like our occupation."

"Iraq was more complex than just Saddam. We should have learned from the experience of the British in the 1920s, when modern Iraq was created -- namely, that bringing in outside leaders would not work," he said. "People expressed views about the need to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, about the potential for sectarian violence and the rise of militias, about the fact that the Shiites would want to rise politically."

"These were not minority views in the intelligence community, but the administration ended up listening to other voices. The focus was on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, and after that everything would be fine and dandy," he told Harper's.

As for what Washington should do now in Iraq, Nakhleh echoed some of the administration's strongest critics, such as former National Security Agency director Gen. William Odom and Democratic Rep. John Murtha, although he did not explicitly endorse their idea of an immediate withdrawal or redeployment.

"I have come to believe that our presence is part of the problem and that we should begin to seriously devise an exit strategy," he said. "There's a civil war in Iraq, and our presence is contributing to the violence. We've become a lightning rod -- we're not restricting the violence, we're contributing to it. Iraq has galvanised jihadists; our presence is what is attracting them. We need to get out of there."

As to Iraq's future, "the only question is whether (it) will become a haven for sectarianism, or follow either the Iranian model or the standard Arab authoritarian model," he went on. "(T)he once-touted model of a secular, democratic Iraq is all but forgotten. This casts a dark shadow on American efforts to spread democracy in the region."

Citing the treatment of detainees in Iraq and the global anti-terrorist effort and the administration's continuing efforts to get legislation that would permit holding suspects indefinitely, Nakhleh argued that Bush's pro-democracy rhetoric -- most recently offered at the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday -- was hypocritical.

"The Islamic world says, 'You talk about human rights, but you're holding people without charging them.' The Islamic world has always viewed the war on terror as a war on Islam, and we have not been able to disabuse them of that notion. Because of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other abuses, we have lost on the concepts of justice, fairness, and the rule of law... That's very serious, and that's where I see the danger in the years ahead."

Who: President Bill Clinton, and Fox News Sunday Host, Chris Wallace
Source: Think Progress
Quotes: From rough transcript of 9/22/06 interview;

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on fox news Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I got to say I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President. There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

CLINTON: OK..

WALLACE: …may I just finish the question sir. And after the attack, the book says, Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20 20.

CLINTON: No let’s talk about…

WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this…arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 911 commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in black hawk down and I refused to do it and stayed 6 months and had an orderly transfer to the UN.

Ok, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Bin laden had anything to do with black hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of 1993.

WALLACE: …I understand…

CLINTON: No wait…no wait…Don’t tell me. You asked me why I didn’t do more to Bin Laden. There was not a living soul…all the people who criticized me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up so you get an answer.

WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to. Bin Laden says…

WALLACE: Bin Laden says it showed the weakness of the US…

CLINTON: It would have shown the weakness if we left right away but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim war lord murdering..thousands of Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had not one mission — none — to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic.

WALLACE: But Mr. President…

CLINTON: There was no Al Qaeda…

WALLACE: May I ask a general question that you can answer. The 9/11 Commission, which you talk about, and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said…

CLINTON: Wait, Wait…

WALLACE: …they said about you and 43 and I quote, “The US government took the threat seriously, not in the sense of mustering anything like that would be….to confront an enemy of the first, second or third rank”

CLINTON: That’s not true with us and Bin Laden…

WALLACE: …the 9/11 commission says…

CLINTON: Let’s look at what Richard Clarke says. You think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about Bin Laden?

WALLACE: Yes I do

CLINTON: You do?

WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties but yes.

CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now but let’s look at the facts. He worked for Ronald Reagan. He was loyal to him. He worked for George Herbert Walker Bush and he was loyal to him. He worked for me and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him. They downgraded him and the terrorist operation. Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got Bin Laden.

CLINTON: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job.. The country never had a comprehensive anti terror operation until I came to office. If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this, after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document too. All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him

WALLACE: Right…

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke… So you did FOX’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. But what I want to know..

WALLACE: Now wait a minute sir…

CLINTON:..

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke. I want to know…

WALLACE: We asked..

CLINTON: I don’t believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that did you? Tell the truth

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: tell the truth.

WALLACE: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan there’s plenty of stuff to ask.

[Blogger's Note - update 9/25/2006: ThinkProgress posted the results of a Lexis-Nexis search for Chris Wallace and Tony Snow interviews of Bush Administration officials on Fox News Sunday showing that of the 42 times they interviewed Dick Cheney (6 times), Donald Rumsfeld (9 times), Condoleeza Rice (23 time) and Stephen Hadley (4 times), that Wallace and Snow did not ask about the USS Cole once.]

CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you’d spend half the time talking about…

WALLACE: [laughs]

CLINTON: You said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.

WALLACE: But President Clinton…

CLINTON:

WALLACE: We were going to ask half the question about it. I didn’t think this was going to set you off on such a tear.

CLINTON: It set me off on such a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

WALLACE: Sir that is not true…

CLINTON: …and Richard Clarke…

WALLACE: That is not true…

CLINTON: Richard Clarke made it clear in his testimony…

WALLACE: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: No I want to finish this.

WALLACE: Alright

CLINTON: All I’m saying is you falsely accuse me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden because of what happened in Somalia. No one knew al Qaeda existed then…

WALLACE: Did they know in 1996 when he declared war on the US? Did no one know in 1998…

CLINTON: Absolutely they did

WALLACE: When they bombed the two embassies…

CLINTON:…

WALLACE: Or in 2000 when they hit the Cole.

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

WALLACE: [Laughs]

CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

WALLACE: Can I ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative?

CLINTON: You can.

WALLACE: I always intended to sir.

CLINTON: No you intended to move your bones by doing this first. But I don’t mind people asking me. I actually talked to the 9/11 commission for four hours and I told them the mistakes I thought I made. And I urged them to make those mistakes public because I thought none of us had been perfect. But instead of anybody talking about those things. I always get these clever little political…where they ask me one sided questions… It always comes from one source. And so…

WALLACE:…

CLINTON: And so…

WALLACE: I just want to ask you about the Clinton Global Initiative but what’s the source? You seem upset?

CLINTON: I am upset because..

WALLACE: …and all I can say is I’m asking you in good faith because it’s on people’s minds sir. And I wasn’t…

CLINTON: There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds because they’ve done a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. This country only has one person who has worked…against terror…under Reagan…only one, Richard Clarke. And all I’d say anybody who wonders whether we did wrong or right. Anybody who wants to see what everybody else did, read his book. The people on my political right who say I didn’t do enough spent the whole time I was president saying why is he so obsessed with Bin Laden. And that was wag the dog when he tried to kill him. My Republican sec of defense — and I think I’m the only person since World War II to have a Secretary of Defense from the opposite party — Richard Clarke, and all the intelligence people said that I ordered a vigorous attempt to get Osama Bin Laden and came closer apparently than anybody has since.

WALLACE: alright…

CLINTON: And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true. It’s just not true. And all this business about Somalia — the same people who criticized me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day. Same exact crowd..

WALLACE: one of the…

CLINTON: …So if you’re going to do this for gods sake follow the same standards for everybody.

WALLACE: I think we do sir

CLINTON: …be fair.

WALLACE: I think we do. One of the main parts of the global initiative this year is religious reconciliation. President Bush says that the fight against Islamic extremism is the central conflict of the century and his answer is promoting democracy and reform. Do you think he has that right?

CLINTON: Sure. To advocate democracy and reform in the Muslim world? Absolutely. I think the question is what’s the best way to do it. I think also the question is how do you educate people about democracy. Democracy is about way more than majority rule. Democracy is about minority rights, individual rights, restraints on power. And there’s more than one way to advance democracy but do I think on balance that in the end after several bouts of instability do I think it would be better if we had more freedom and democracy? Sure I do. …The president has a right to do it? Sure I do. But I don’t think that’s all we can do in the Muslim world. I think they have to see us try to get a just and righteous peace in the Middle East. They have to see us as willing to talk to people who see the world differently than we do.

Source: The New York Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat"

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

Source: The Washington Post
Quotes: From article titled, "Called From Diplomatic Reserve"

The former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, a confidant of President George H.W. Bush, visited Baghdad two weeks ago to take a look at the vexing political and military situation. He was there as co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, put together by top think tanks at the behest of Congress to come up with ideas about the way forward in Iraq.

Many policy experts think that if anyone can forge bipartisan consensus on a plan for extricating the United States from Iraq -- and then successfully pitch that plan to a president who has so far seemed impervious to outside pressure -- it is the man who put together the first Gulf War coalition, which evicted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who came up with the idea for the study group and pushed for its formation, said he thinks the administration is "waiting anxiously" for the group's recommendations. He cited the "impeccable credentials" of the 10-member group, which also includes former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, investment banker and Bill Clinton adviser Vernon E. Jordan Jr., and former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta. The other co-chairman is the Democratic former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton, who also co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Their recommendations will carry a lot of weight," said Wolf. "If they come up with a unanimous opinion, the administration, Congress and the American people will have to listen."

Baker is not revealing much of his hand. He has indicated that recommendations will not be forthcoming until after the November elections, in an effort to keep the group above the political fray.

"The difficulty of winning the peace was severely underestimated," Baker wrote in a recent memoir, citing "costly mistakes" by the Pentagon. These included, he wrote, disbanding the Iraqi army, not securing weapons depots and "perhaps never having committed enough troops to successfully pacify the country."

But in an interview in the current issue of Texas Monthly, Baker dashed the idea of "just picking up and pulling out" of Iraq. "Even though it's something we need to find a way out of, the worst thing in the world we could do would be to pick up our marbles and go home," he said, "because then we will trigger, without a doubt, a huge civil war. And every one of the regional actors -- the Iranians and everybody else -- will come in and do their thing."

"If this war is consumed by partisan attacks, if the choice is presented as simply one between 'stay the course' or 'cut and run,' we will never be able to do what is right," panel member Panetta wrote following the group's trip to Iraq in an article for his hometown paper, the Monterey County Herald in California.

One well-placed source said panel members came away from their trip sobered, with "a sense that we can't continue to do what we have been doing," adding that Baker was not simply looking to protect the administration.

Who: Dan Froomkin, Washington Post Columnist
Source: The Washington Post
Quotes: From article titled, "Torture Is All in the Subtext"

Here's an astonishing exchange from the Rose Garden on Friday:

"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

Bush's response was a straw-man argument.

"THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

It would have been worthwhile if someone at the news conference had followed up with something like this:

"In your response to the question about Colin Powell's statement that 'the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism' you made it sound like Powell was saying we were as bad as the terrorists, and you got very angry. But that's not even remotely what Powell was saying. He's simply saying that by pretty universal moral standards, your actions are questionable. Could you please respond to that critique, rather than to a made-up one?"

No one did.

Here's what Bush had to say about all the attempts he's made in the past to link Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda: "I never said there was an operational relationship."

And he put forth yet another straw man, in response to a question about those statements: "I would hope people aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein -- all of a sudden, he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow."

Who: Peter Beaumont, Guardian Foreign Affairs Editor
Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Inside Baghdad: last battle of a stricken city"

What is happening in Zafaraniya is not unique in the capital. Sunni families in largely Shia neighbourhoods, and Shia families in majority Sunni areas, are being driven out of their homes in the rapidly worsening campaign of sectarian violence and intimidation.

From Adhamiya in the north, through the giant teeming Shia slum of Sadr City, to Zafaraniya in the south, a slow boiling but malevolent ethnic cleansing campaign is separating two communities that once lived side by side. In the middle are the US forces. Targeted daily by both Shia and Sunni extremists resisting the occupation, they now find themselves trying to protect each community from the other, even as they fend off the lethal attacks on themselves.

It is not quite civil war. Not yet. It is ugly enough, but it lacks the speed and the intensity. Instead, it is a vicious and slow motion three-way fight in which each act is magnified by the spiralling events.

Zafaraniya is a case study in the crisis facing Iraq. Its largest mosque, a huge green dome and sandy minaret that overlooks the highway, was once Sunni. Now it has been taken over by the militia of the Jaish al-Mahdi, becoming their second biggest base for operations outside Sadr City.

As the Jaish-al Mahdi has grown in strength and confidence, so has the bloodletting. Nowhere is that more visible than in the area of Adhamiya, to the north and west of Sadr City. Separated into halves - one largely Sunni, the other Shia, along the Army Canal - Adhamiya has been the focus in recent weeks of a massive effort by Iraqi and US forces to clear out extremists of both sectarian persuasions - Operation Forward Together - and launch the latest effort to improve the quality of life for the residents there.

The success or failure of that operation will be a critical test of whether the further slide towards a wider conflict can be halted.

In Adhamiya's district council offices, on the Sunni side of the canal, the challenges could not be more dramatic. According to the council chairman, Sheikh Hassan Sabri Salman, an imam at one of the local Sunni mosques, 450 families on both sides have been forced out of their homes and across the canal since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February.

'There are fanatics on both sides,' he says. 'The royal cemetery here [the Sunni graveyard] is full of dead bodies killed by the Shia, while the Sunni fanatics have killed many Shia in their turn. They have killed neighbours, employees, even women. We have persuaded the major mosques to sign a statement renouncing violence - but Jihadis and the al-Tawhid on the Sunni side, and the Mahdi militia on the Shia side, do not agree. And if we are talking about the Mahdi militia they are just gangsters who refuse to listen to their religious leaders and instead push people from their houses. Those who are pushing people from their homes on both sides are also stealing. They take their houses, their televisions and their furniture.' Sheikh Hassan describes a family who arrived at his office that morning who had been driven out by the Mahdi militia. Their children, he says, were killed in front of them.

One US military intelligence officer with an interest in the Jaish al-Mahdi and the Sadr Office, said: 'Certain parts are now operating like old-fashioned mobs. In the last year or so power has been given to certain individuals. They have created their own small armies which have gained power by controlling rackets around petrol stations, and thefts from people they kidnap and kill. What we have started to notice is that Moqtada al-Sadr, who is now based in Najaf, is having difficulty controlling these people who derive their power from his name. It has forced people to reassess what the Jaish al-Mahdi really is.'

It is a recognition, in large part, that has persuaded the US and Iraqi government that the way to tackle the Mahdi militia violence is not through military operations but policing, and an extra 5,000 Iraqi policemen are to join the 2,000 already deployed in Sadr City. US officers, aware of the history of massive infiltration of the Iraqi police, and its implication in death squad activities, admit it is a gamble that could backfire by arming and equipping thousands more gunmen but believe it is a risk worth taking.

Who: See list below the letter. Biographies of all signators to this letter are available at the link below.
Source: GlobalSecurity.org
Quotes: The following is the letter posted at GlobalSecurity.org:

September 12, 2006

The Honorable John Warner, Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin, Ranking Member
Senate Armed Services Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Warner and Senator Levin:

As retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces and former officials of the Department of Defense, we write to express our profound concern about a key provision of S. 3861, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced last week at the behest of the President. We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.

We supported your efforts last year to clarify that all detainees in U.S. custody must be treated humanely. That was particularly important, because the Administration determined that it was not bound by the basic humane treatment standards contained in Geneva Common Article 3. Now that the Supreme Court has made clear that treatment of al Qaeda prisoners is governed by the Geneva Convention standards, the Administration is seeking to redefine Common Article 3, so as to downgrade those standards. We urge you to reject this effort.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides the minimum standards for humane treatment and fair justice that apply to anyone captured in armed conflict. These standards were specifically designed to ensure that those who fall outside the other, more extensive, protections of the Conventions are treated in accordance with the values of civilized nations. The framers of the Conventions, including the American representatives, in particular wanted to ensure that Common Article 3 would apply in situations where a state party to the treaty, like the United States, fights an adversary that is not a party, including irregular forces like al Qaeda. The United States military has abided by the basic requirements of Common Article 3 in every conflict since the Conventions were adopted. In each case, we applied the Geneva Conventions -- including, at a minimum, Common Article 3 -- even to enemies that systematically violated the Conventions themselves.

We have abided by this standard in our own conduct for a simple reason: the same standard serves to protect American servicemen and women when they engage in conflicts covered by Common Article 3. Preserving the integrity of this standard has become increasingly important in recent years when our adversaries often are not nation-states. Congress acted in 1997 to further this goal by criminalizing violations of Common Article 3 in the War Crimes Act, enabling us to hold accountable those who abuse our captured personnel, no matter the nature of the armed conflict.

If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.

This is not just a theoretical concern. We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.

Last week, the Department of Defense issued a Directive reaffirming that the military will uphold the requirements of Common Article 3 with respect to all prisoners in its custody. We welcome this new policy. Our servicemen and women have operated for too long with unclear and unlawful guidance on detainee treatment, and some have been left to take the blame when things went wrong. The guidance is now clear.

But that clarity will be short-lived if the approach taken by Administration’s bill prevails. In contrast to the Pentagon’s new rules on detainee treatment, the bill would limit our definition of Common Article 3's terms by introducing a flexible, sliding scale that might allow certain coercive interrogation techniques under some circumstances, while forbidding them under others. This would replace an absolute standard – Common Article 3 -- with a relative one. To do so will only create further confusion.

Moreover, were we to take this step, we would be viewed by the rest of the world as having formally renounced the clear strictures of the Geneva Conventions. Our enemies would be encouraged to interpret the Conventions in their own way as well, placing our troops in jeopardy in future conflicts. And American moral authority in the war would be further damaged.

All of this is unnecessary. As the senior serving Judge Advocates General recently testified, our armed forces have trained to Common Article 3 and can live within its requirements while waging the war on terror effectively.

As the United States has greater exposure militarily than any other nation, we have long emphasized the reciprocal nature of the Geneva Conventions. That is why we believe – and the United States has always asserted -- that a broad interpretation of Common Article 3 is vital to the safety of U.S. personnel. But the Administration’s bill would put us on the opposite side of that argument. We urge you to consider the impact that redefining Common Article 3 would have on Americans who put their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. We believe their interests, and their safety and protection should they become prisoners, should be your highest priority as you address this issue.

With respect,

General John Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.)
General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.)
Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.)
Major General John Batiste, USA (Ret.)
Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.)
Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.)
Major General Michael J. Scotti Jr., USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O’Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John K. Schmitt, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
Ambassador Pete Peterson, USAF (Ret.)
Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.)
Honorable William H. Taft IV
Frank Kendall III, Esq.

Source: Reuters
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq to regain control of another province in days"

A ceremony will be held on Thursday to mark the handover of Dhi Qar province, currently policed by Italian troops under British command. But a large, self-contained U.S. air base located there will not be handed over.

At a joint news conference with U.S. military spokesman Major-General William Caldwell, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh also announced the handover to the Iraqi government of the command of the Iraqi army's fourth division, based in Salahideen province in the north.

"Thursday, September 21, the security portfolio of Dhi Qar province will be handed over entirely by the Italian forces ... This is another step on the path of building our national forces and the transfer of the security portfolio into Iraqi hands," said al-Dabbagh.

Who: Associated Press
Source: My Way
Quotes: From article titled, "U.S. Holds AP Photographer in Iraq 5 Mos"

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.

Military officials said Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions.

Hussein, 35, is a native of Fallujah who began work for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on April 12 of this year.

"We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable," said Tom Curley, AP's president and chief executive officer. "We've come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure."

Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 people detained by the U.S. military worldwide - 13,000 of them in Iraq. They are held in limbo where few are ever charged with a specific crime or given a chance before any court or tribunal to argue for their freedom.

The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces," according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq.

"The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities," Gardner wrote to AP International Editor John Daniszewski.

Hussein proclaims his innocence, according to his Iraqi lawyer, Badie Arief Izzat, and believes he has been unfairly targeted because his photos from Ramadi and Fallujah were deemed unwelcome by the coalition forces.

The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach. But with the U.S. military giving no indication it would change its stance, the news cooperative has decided to make public Hussein's imprisonment, hoping the spotlight will bring attention to his case and that of thousands of others now held in Iraq, Curley said.

One of Hussein's photos was part of a package of 20 photographs that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography last year. His contribution was an image of four insurgents in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms during the U.S.-led offensive in the city in November 2004.

In its own effort to determine whether Hussein had gotten too close the insurgency, the AP has reviewed his work record, interviewed senior photo editors who worked on his images and examined all 420 photographs in the news cooperative's archives that were taken by Hussein, Lyon said.

The military in Iraq has frequently detained journalists who arrive quickly at scenes of violence, accusing them of getting advance notice from insurgents, Lyon said. But "that's just good journalism. Getting to the event quickly is something that characterizes good journalism anywhere in the world. It does not indicate prior knowledge," he said.

Out of Hussein's body of work, only 37 photos show insurgents or people who could be insurgents, Lyon said. "The vast majority of the 420 images show the aftermath or the results of the conflict - blown up houses, wounded people, dead people, street scenes," he said.

Only four photos show the wreckage of still-burning U.S. military vehicles.

"Do we know absolutely everything about him, and what he did before he joined us? No. Are we satisfied that what he did since he joined us was appropriate for the level of work we expected from him? Yes," Lyon said. "When we reviewed the work he submitted to us, we found it appropriate to what we'd asked him to do."

Executives said it's not uncommon for AP news people to be picked up by coalition forces and detained for hours, days or occasionally weeks, but never this long. Several hundred journalists in Iraq have been detained, some briefly and some for several weeks, according to Scott Horton, a New York-based lawyer hired by the AP to work on Hussein's case.

Horton also worked on behalf of an Iraqi cameraman employed by CBS, Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, who was detained for one year before his case was sent to an Iraqi court on charges of insurgent activity. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.

Information provided to the AP by the military to support the continued detention hasn't withstood scrutiny, when it could be checked, Daniszewski said.

For example, he said, the AP had been told that Hussein was involved with the kidnapping of two Arab journalists in Ramadi.

But those journalists, tracked down by the AP, said Hussein had helped them after they were released by their captors without money or a vehicle in a dangerous part of Ramadi. After a journalist acquaintance put them in touch with Hussein, the photographer picked them up, gave them shelter and helped get them out of town, they said.

The journalists said they had never been contacted by multinational forces for their account.

Who: Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Source: Information Clearing House
Quotes: From US Senate floor remarks

The Congress, under the control of the President’s party has been submissive, a lap dog wagging its tail in appreciation of White House secrecy and deception. Even the vast majority of the opposition party has been too quiet for too long -- unable to find its voice, stunted by the demand to “support the troops.” We forget, too often, that there is a very real difference between support for the troops and support for an unnecessary war. The men and women of our military did not ask to go to those faraway places, but they were willing. They answered their country’s call. We have an obligation to support them, but we do not need to follow blindly the unthinking policies that keep them mired in the middle of a civil war.

Who: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Source: ACLU
Quotes: From media release titled, "ACLU Slams Senate Judiciary Committee’s Approval of NSA Spying Bills"

The American Civil Liberties Union today strongly rebuked the Senate Judiciary Committee for adopting legislation that approves warrantless spying on Americans by the National Security Agency. The move follows a recent court decision finding the surveillance both illegal and unconstitutional.

By a vote of 10 to 8, the [Senate Judiciary] committee approved S.2453, the "National Security Surveillance Act." That bill, crafted by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) gives the president the option of complying - or not - with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

The bill would also: vastly increase the government’s statutory power to examine all international phone conversations and emails, making warrantless surveillance of Americans’ conversations the rule rather then the exception and expand the ability to conduct warrantless physical searches of Americans’ homes.

Senator Mike DeWine’s (R-OH) "Terrorist Surveillance Program Act of 2006" (S. 2455) was approved by a vote of 10 to 8. This bill would weaken the probable cause requirement for spying on people in the US - sweeping in innocent Americans - allow extended warrantless surveillance, limit judicial review and punish whistleblowers.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006" (S. 3001), co-sponsored by Senator Specter, was also approved today in the only bipartisan vote taken by the Judiciary Committee, with the support of Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Specter, on a vote of 10 to 8. Her bill would restore the rule of law by requiring the president to follow the exclusive procedures set by Congress for wiretapping Americans and it would also streamline the procedures to seek a FISA warrant.

Who: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Source: Reuters via Al Jazeera
Quotes: From article titled, "IAEA: US report on Iran 'outrageous'"

United Nations nuclear inspectors have attacked as "outrageous and dishonest" parts of a US congressional committee intelligence report on Iran's nuclear work.

A senior aide to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN's nuclear watchdog - sent a letter to Peter Hoekstra, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, complaining that the report included serious distortions of IAEA findings.

The letter said the errors suggested that Iran's nuclear fuel programme was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments had determined.

It also said the agency secretariat took "strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA decided to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding that Iran intended to build nuclear weapons.

The congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" the inspector was removed for having not stuck to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran, said the letter.

The 29-page report was written by the staff of a panel subcommittee and was never discussed or voted on by the full 21-member House Intelligence Committee.

Jamal Ware, House committee spokesman, admitted that the caption on a photograph of the Natanz nuclear facility said incorrectly that Iran had produced weapons-grade material, but he said, "There are no errors in the report."

The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear programme since 2003.

Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.

Who: Brig. Abdul-Kareem Khalaf, Iraq Interior Ministry Spokesman
Source: Associate Press via Findlaw
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq to Dig Trenches Around Baghdad"

Iraqi security forces will dig trenches around Baghdad and set up checkpoints along all roads leading into the city to try to reduce some of the violence plaguing the capital, the Interior Ministry said Friday.

The plan to dig trenches around Baghdad will be implemented in coming weeks, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Kareem Khalaf told The Associated Press.

"Trenches will be dug around Baghdad in the coming weeks when the third part of the Baghdad security plan is implemented," Khalaf said.

The security plan, known as Operation Together Forward, began June 15 and is being implemented in three phases. The first phase included setting up random checkpoints around the city, phase two began Aug. 7 and focused on the most violence-prone areas of Baghdad - mostly the Sunni Arab southern districts. Phase three reportedly includes cordoning off and searching other parts of Baghdad, including predominantly Shiite areas.

Khalaf said that except for the trenches, vehicle and pedestrian traffic would be restricted to just 28 entry points with manned checkpoints.

"We will leave only 28 inlets to Baghdad while all other inlets will be blocked. Supports will be added to the trenches to hinder the movements of people and vehicles. The trenches will be under our watch," he said.

Who: General Colin L. Powell, Former Secretary of State for President George W. Bush, and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush
Source: Findlaw
Quotes: Text of letter addressed from Powell to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) dated September 13, 2006;

Dear Senator McCain:

I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent with the McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.

I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one of my distinguished predeceossors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and tint his powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

I am as familiar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It was written after all the horrors World War II and General George C. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those in custody.

Sincerely,

[Signature of Colin Powell]

Source: Associated Press via Forbes
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush Fights GOP Revolt Over Terror Bill"

Bush urged lawmakers to quickly approve legislation authorizing military tribunals and harsh interrogations of terror suspects in order to shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which set international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

The president called a Rose Garden news conference to confront a Republican rebellion led by Sens. John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

To the administration's dismay, Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, has joined with the lawmakers. Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk."

Warner, a former Navy secretary, is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. McCain is a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in enemy captivity during the Vietnam War. Graham is a former Air Force Reserve judge. Powell, a retired general, is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Bush took vehement exception when asked about Powell's assertion that the world might doubt the moral basis of the fight against terror if lawmakers went along with the administration's proposal to come up with a U.S. interpretation of the Geneva Convention's ban on "outrages upon personal dignity."

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said. "It's just - I simply can't accept that."

Growing animated, he said, "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

He said that unless Congress acts, the CIA will end its program of tough interrogation methods that the administration says has prevented attacks.

"So Congress has got a decision to make," Bush said. "You want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America."

Who: Lieutenant General David Richards, Commander NATO Forces in Afghanistan
Source: Financial Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Nato call for troops ‘unheeded for 18 months’"

Nato staff asked for extra troops in Afghanistan more than a year ago but the request has still not been granted, the alliance’s top commander in the country said on Monday.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Lieutenant General David Richards, the commander of Nato’s 20,000-strong force in Afghanistan, said Nato countries were asked 18 months ago for a reserve battalion of 1,000 ­soldiers.

His comments were made ahead of a crucial few days for Nato, in which the spotlight will be on member countries’ readiness to send reinforcements to hard-pressed British and Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan. Last week General James Jones, Nato’s supreme commander, rev­ealed that he had sought but so far failed to obtain 2,500 extra troops, comprising the reserve battalion plus up to 1,500 air support staff.

Who: Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
Source: BBC
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq war 'disaster for Mid-East'"

Kofi Annan, speaking at a briefing following his recent tour of the region, said that the timing of any US withdrawal was now a key issue.
... Mr Annan told reporters: "Most of the leaders I spoke to felt that the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have been a real disaster for them...They believe it has destabilised the region."

But he also said many leaders wanted the Americans to stay in Iraq until the security situation improved, arguing that "having created the problem they cannot walk away".

He said other leaders, notably in Iran, felt "the presence of the US is a problem and that the US should leave, and if the US were to decide to leave, they would help them".

Mr Annan concluded: "So in a way, the US has found itself in a position where it cannot stay and it cannot leave.

Who: Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer
Source: USA Today
Quotes: From article titled, "General: Force too small to beat insurgency"

Marine Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer told reporters in a telephone interview from his headquarters in Fallujah that he has enough U.S. troops — about 30,000 — to accomplish what he called his main mission: training Iraqi security forces.

“For what we are trying to achieve out here, I think our force levels are about right,” he said. “Now, if that mission statement changes — if there is seen a larger role for coalition forces out here to win that insurgency fight — then that is going to change the metrics of what we need out here.”

Pentagon officials arranged the interview with Zilmer in response to news reports about a classified report by Col. Pete Devlin, the chief of intelligence for the Marines in western Anbar province.

Zilmer did not dispute news reports that said Devlin depicted Anbar as locked in a military stalemate with inadequate political progress.

Zilmer dismissed a suggestion that the war in Anbar had been lost: “I think we are winning this war.”

Who: Marine Colonel Pete Devlin, Chief of Marine Corps Intelligence
Source: The Washington Post
Quotes: From article titled, "Situation Called Dire in West Iraq"

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."

The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. Like others interviewed about the report, he spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the document's sensitivity.

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.

Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.

One possible solution would be to try to turn over the province to Iraqi forces, but that could increase the risk of a full-blown civil war. Shiite-dominated forces might begin slaughtering Sunnis, while Sunni-dominated units might simply begin acting independently of the central government.

Who: President George W. Bush
Sources: The White House I, The White House II, and The Boston Globe
Quotes:

From transcript of September 6, 2006, speech by President Bush;

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act.

From December 2005 Presidential signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act;

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

[Blogger's Note: The above statement is widely interpreted to this equivalent statement found in The Boston Globe; "The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks."]

Sources: The White House, The Washington Post
Quotes:

From September 6, 2006, speech by President Bush;

After the 9/11 attacks, our coalition launched operations across the world to remove terrorist safe havens, and capture or kill terrorist operatives and leaders. Working with our allies, we've captured and detained thousands of terrorists and enemy fighters in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of this war on terror.

Many are al Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save American lives. In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly [sic], questioned by experts, and -- when appropriate -- prosecuted for terrorist acts.

In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged.

This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers; they've determined it complied with our laws. This program has received strict oversight by the CIA's Inspector General.

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values.


From September 11, 2006, Washington Post article titled, "Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance"

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

As part of the administration's efforts to protect intelligence officers from liability, Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.

Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees.

One former intelligence official said CIA officers have recently expressed concern that lawsuits will erupt if details of the agency's internal probe of wrongdoing related to the September 2001 attacks become public.

In his report, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson recommended that the agency convene an accountability board to examine the actions of senior officials. But last October, then-CIA director Porter J. Goss rejected the advice and decided the report should remain secret.

Robert M. McNamara Jr., the CIA's general counsel from 1997 to November 2001, said he advised station chiefs to buy the insurance. "The problem is that we are the victims of shifting winds here," McNamara said he told the officers. "I can't sit here and tell you in all cases that I will be able to defend you."

However, McNamara's predecessor as CIA general counsel, Jeffrey H. Smith, said: "I'm deeply troubled that CIA officers have to buy insurance. . . . There should be clear rules about what the officers can and can't do. The fault here is with more senior people who authorized interrogation techniques that amount to torture" and should now be liable, instead of "the officers who carried it out."

Who: President George W. Bush
Source: The White House, Director of National Intelligence, and 9/11 Commission Report
Quotes:

From transcript of September 6, 2006 speech by President Bush;

In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.

I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks -- here in the United States and across the world. Today, I'm going to share with you some of the examples provided by our intelligence community of how this program has saved lives; why it remains vital to the security of the United States, and our friends and allies; and why it deserves the support of the United States Congress and the American people.

Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man known as Abu Zubaydah. We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country.

... Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM.

From Director of National Intelligence report titled, "Summary of the High Value Terroris Detainee Program"

In March 2002, the CIA and our Coalition partners captured Abu Zubayadah - a terrorist leader and trainer and a key associate of Usama Bin Laden. During initial interrogation, Abu Zubayadah gave some information that he probably viewed as nominal. Some was important, however, including that Khalid Shaykh Mohammad (KSM) was the 9/11 mastermind and used the moniker "Mukhtar." This identification allowed us to comb previously collected intelligence for both names, opening up new leads to this terrorist plotter - leads that eventually resulted in his capture.

From 9/11 Commission Report - page 277

The final piece of the puzzle arrived at the CIA's Bin Ladin unit on August 28 [2001] in a cable reporting that KSM's nickname was Mukhtar.

Source: McClatchy
Quotes: From article titled, "U.S. count of Baghdad deaths excludes car bombs, mortar attacks"

U.S. officials, seeking a way to measure the results of a program aimed at decreasing violence in Baghdad, aren't counting scores of dead killed in car bombings and mortar attacks as victims of the country's sectarian violence.

In a distinction previously undisclosed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said Friday that the United States is including in its tabulations of sectarian violence only deaths of individuals killed in drive-by shootings or by torture and execution.

That has allowed U.S. officials to boast that the number of deaths from sectarian violence in Baghdad declined by more than 52 percent in August over July.

But it eliminates from tabulation huge numbers of people whose deaths are certainly part of the ongoing conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Not included, for example, are scores of people who died in a highly coordinated bombing that leveled an entire apartment building in eastern Baghdad, a stronghold of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Johnson declined to provide an actual number for the U.S. tally of August deaths or for July, when the Baghdad city morgue counted a record 1,855 violent deaths.

Violent deaths for August, a morgue official told McClatchy Newspapers on Friday, totaled 1,526, a 17.7 percent decline from July and about the same as died violently in June.

Johnson said he couldn't comment on morgue figures and declined to release the raw numbers on which Caldwell's claim was based. He said the numbers were classified and that releasing them might help "our enemy" adjust their tactics.

Who: Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Commander of the Army Transportation Corps
Source: Hampton Roads Daily Press
Quotes: From article titled, "Eustis chief: Iraq post-war plan muzzled"

Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis in Newport News, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks.

In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

"We really thought that after the collapse of the regime we were going to do all these humanitarian type things," he said. "We thought this would go pretty fast and we'd be able to get out of there. We really didn't anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are.

"Now we're going more toward a civil war. We didn't see that coming."

Source: The New York Times via International Herald Tribune
Quotes: From article titled, "In one Iraqi neighborhood, security returns"

Three weeks after American and Iraqi troops began searching, fortifying and patrolling Dora, one of the bloodiest neighborhoods in Baghdad, the stench of death on the streets has eased.

After 126 bodies surfaced in Dora in July, only 18 turned up in August, according to U.S. military figures. Murders, most often Sunni against Shiite or vice versa in this mixed neighborhood, dropped as well. Fourteen murders were reported last month, down from 73 in July.

It was the first of several violent neighborhoods covered by a new Baghdad security plan - which seeks to create walled-in sanctuaries where economic development can grow in an environment of safety - and American and Iraqi officials are still struggling to make residents feel safe enough to let their children play in the streets.

... the challenge for American and Iraqi officials lies with spreading security to additional trouble spots without letting Dora slide back into lawlessness.

"The difficult part is going to be holding these areas with Iraqi security forces," the top U.S. commander, General George Casey Jr., told reporters Wednesday, "and building the relationships between the Iraqi people in the neighborhood and their security forces so they can get on with their economic development."

In Dora, local leaders worry that violent gangs are just lying low, scouting for ways to circumvent the additional safeguards while attacking other neighborhoods or waiting for the Americans to leave.

"The calm situation right now is temporary, and if the state does not continue to build trust with the people, the situation might explode," said Sattar al- Jabouri, 51, a Sunni sheik and member of the Dora municipal council. "We know there are people who do not want this operation to succeed."

Jabouri emphasized that the American presence has made Dora safer.

Like others in the area, he raved about being able to sleep again on his roof, away from the sweltering indoor heat.

He said that some of the families who had fled the violence seemed to be returning, and that the Iraqis and Americans who searched his home were respectful and seemed sincerely interested in improving the neighborhood.

Colonel Michael Beech, the U.S. commander overseeing Dora, said that the second phase of the operation, now in effect, included cutting off all but a few access points, searching every car that entered Dora and linking U.S. soldiers with Iraqi police for joint patrols. Sections of the neighborhood have been assigned to the same squads so that residents and officers become better acquainted.

The U.S. military has also allotted $5 million to Dora and the surrounding area, with much of the current outlay going to Iraqis who pick up trash.

On a recent afternoon, the results were hard to miss. Piles of rancid garbage behind the market had been cleared, and workers elsewhere tossed more into trucks. Iraqi police cars and American Humvees lined the streets.

Yet even as residents described the progress as encouraging, they said that life in Dora had not returned to normal. They trust neither neighbors nor the police. They still keep their children indoors. They still warn visitors to stay away.

On a block of the main shopping district on a recent morning, half the stores remained shuttered. Anmar al- Mayahi, 23, a Shiite shoe salesman who owns a store that is still closed, described Dora as a place where anxiety holds hope at arm's length.

After two roadside bombs exploded recently in the neighborhood, on streets ringed by checkpoints, Mayahi worried that the additional security precautions were beginning to break down.

"Where did they get their weapons?" he asked. "How did they get them into the neighborhood with all the extra protection?

"If the Americans leave, it will go back to killing in the streets," he said. "It will be civil war."

Iraqi security forces - who outnumbered Americans more than six to one during the initial week of the operation - are also struggling with Dora's uncertainties. Even with murders so far down, roadside bombs are still frighteningly common in the broader Rashid District, of which Dora is a part.

Iraqi officials enlisted a new national police brigade several months ago to manage the area after officers were accused of taking part in kidnappings and killings. But many of the new recruits have received little or no training. And with abandoned homes being filled by both legitimate returnees and squatters, differentiating friend from foe has become the challenge.

"We have a huge problem now that we can't know who the terrorists are and who the real neighbors are," said General Mahdi Sabeeh al-Gharawi, commander of the 2nd Division of the national police, which covers much of southern Baghdad. "So many people fled from their homes and other families have come in."

Who: General George Casey, Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq
Source: The Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "The US view of Iraq: we can pull out in a year"

The top US general in Iraq yesterday predicted that Iraqi forces would be able to take over security in the country with "very little coalition support" within a year to 18 months. General George Casey did not say anything specific about parallel withdrawals of US troops. Instead, he said American-led coalition forces would pull back into large bases and provide support before leaving.

US officials pointed optimistically to statistics suggesting that the military focus on the capital had helped to curb sectarian killings between Sunni and Shia groups, though in the past few days the body count has again soared.

Despite the violence, Gen Casey was optimistic that Iraqi forces were on schedule to take primary responsibility for security by late 2007 or early 2008. "I don't have a date, but I can see over the next 12 to 18 months, the Iraqi security forces progressing to a point where they can take on the security responsibilities for the country, with very little coalition support," he said in Baghdad. In remarks published by the Associated Press, he added: "We have been on a three-step process to help build the Iraqi security forces." The first step had been to train and equip them and the second was to "put them in the lead, still with our support". The last step would be to "get them to the stage where they independently provide security in Iraq."

But there is some scepticism among military experts in Washington over whether Gen Casey's timetable is realistic. Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies who last week published a report on Iraqi force development, said: "There is very little prospect that the Iraqis can take over in the next few months. They can expand their role, but we see a very weak structure without air power or heavy weapons, dealing with a country with a strong insurgency and real risk of civil war."

More than 260,000 Iraqis are now trained and in uniform and there have been high-profile ceremonies marking the transfer of authority from coalition to Iraqi troops in small, the relatively quiet, areas. But troop numbers and transfer ceremonies are not always an accurate measure of force strength.

"Some maps showed Iraqi forces as in charge of areas where militias and local security forces had day-to-day authority," Professor Cordesman said.

Daniel Goure, a Pentagon adviser and analyst at the Lexington Institute, argued the question of loyalty may prove more important than training and equipment. Ministry of Interior forces have been infiltrated by Shia militias operating as anti-Sunni death squads. The ministry is supposed to be undergoing restructuring but there was "very little evidence" that this had solved the problem. The army has a better reputation for cohesion. In the past few days its mostly Shia troops have engaged in heavy fighting with a militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

But ultimately, Mr Goure added, military planning is governed as much by politics in the US as by events in Iraq, and the timetable is driven by George Bush's remaining term in office.

Who: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Syracuse University
Source: TRAC Reports
Quotes: From report titled, "Criminal Terrorism Enforcement in the United States During the Five Years Since the 9/11/01 Attacks"

[Blogger's Note: The following excerpts are from the report. The following represents less than 1/3 of the entire report and are direct quotes within the report. None of this blogger's comments or opinions appear in the post below, or in any of the posts at RhetIraq unless they are within a bracketed, italicized note such as this. Readers are encouraged to view the entire report at the links provided.]

A comprehensive and sometimes surprising portrait of the handling of criminal cases in the United States against individuals identified as international terrorists during the five years after 9/11/01 has emerged from an analysis of hundreds of thousands Justice Department records by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).

Among the key findings about the year-by-year enforcement trends in the period were the following:

In the twelve months immediately after 9/11, the prosecution of individuals the government classified as international terrorists surged sharply higher than in the previous year. But timely data show that five years later, in the latest available period, the total number of these prosecutions has returned to roughly what they were just before the attacks. Given the widely accepted belief that the threat of terrorism in all parts of the world is much larger today than it was six or seven years ago, the extent of the recent decline in prosecutions is unexpected.

Federal prosecutors by law and custom are authorized to decline cases that are brought to them for prosecution by the investigative agencies. For international terrorism the declination rate has been high, especially in recent years. In fact, timely data show that in the first eight months of FY 2006 the assistant U.S. Attorneys rejected slightly more than nine out of ten of the referrals. Given the assumption that the investigation of international terrorism must be the single most important target area for the FBI and other agencies, the turn-down rate is hard to understand.

The typical sentences recently imposed on individuals considered to be international terrorists are not impressive. For all those convicted as a result of cases initiated in the two years after 9//11, for example, the median sentence -- half got more and half got less-- was 28 days. For those referrals that came in more recently -- through May 31, 2006 -- the median sentence was 20 days. For cases started in the two year period before the 9/11 attack, the typical sentence was much longer, 41 months. See Figure 3.

The question of the basic competence of the Bush Administration in managing the overall response of the United States to terrorism has in recent months become a subject of debate for candidates of both parties. Several months ago, on June 22, the Bush Administration itself weighed into the discussion directly when the Justice Department issued what it called a "Counterterrorism White Paper."

The Big Picture

Since 9/11/01 the government has classified a very large number of individuals as either a "terrorists" or "anti-terrorists." The bulk of them, some 6,472 individuals, were referred during the two years following the 9/11 attack. Now five years since the attack, final outcomes have been determined on three out of four of these cases.

Despite the low success rate in obtaining convictions, the large absolute number of referrals coming from the agencies (nearly 6,500 of them) has resulted in a sizable number of convictions (1,329). For this group it is instructive to consider the penalties that were imposed:

... the median or typical prison sentence for them all was zero because the majority received no time at all in prison.

Zeroing in on International Terrorism Trends

For some kinds of crime, the number of prosecutions in a given area may be a better measure of official concern about a particular problem than the actual threat. And given the deep public concerns immediately after the attacks, the very large number of international terrorism prosecutions in FY 2002 is hardly surprising. Considering the numerous warning statements from President Bush and other federal officials about the continuing nature of the terrorism threat, however, the gradual decline in these cases since the FY 2002 high point and the high rate at which prosecutors are declining to prosecute terrorism cases raises questions.

Lead Charge in International Terrorism Cases

While the FBI led the federal government in the volume of referrals for criminal prosecution for international terrorists, federal prosecutors declined as not warranting filing charges a much higher proportion of its referrals for prosecution than referrals from most other agencies. Prosecutors filed charges on only 18 percent of FBI referrals and declined to prosecute 82 percent. More of the cases dropped by the wayside at the court stage. This means that less than one out of ten FBI cases disposed of during the five year period resulted in the defendant being convicted for any crime.

In contrast, it was the Social Security Administration (SSA) which racked up the highest success rate in terms of the proportion federal prosecutors decided to proceed and prosecute in court (92% prosecuted versus 8% declined), and slightly over three out of four (76%) of cases that had reached completion resulted in a conviction. Presumably, the comparatively better record of the SSA was partly related to the fact that its cases were less complex. For the 50 SSA convictions, the median sentence was one month.

International Terrorism Cases by Federal Judicial District

... one district -- Eastern Virginia (Alexandria) -- was by a huge margin the government's favorite venue. In this district, located just south of the District of Columbia, the Justice Department recorded receiving somewhat more than a quarter of all referrals -- 297 out of the 1,322 total -- that were finally classified as international terrorism.

The District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) were the next two busiest districts -- in terms of the number of criminal referrals -- with 82 and 80 respectively. South Carolina and the Western District of New York (Buffalo) had, respectively, 65 and 63 criminal international terrorist referrals.

Many questions are raised by this distribution. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, for example, says that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Critics note that the heavy concentration of international terrorism referrals in Virginia East strains the principle that defendants should be brought to trial in the district and state where their crime occurred. They also argue that prosecutors favor bringing cases here because the juries in the area near the Pentagon naturally have a large proportion of active and retired military personnel and its circuit court of appeals is among the most conservation in the United States.