Committee to Protect Bloggers announces its first campaign: Free Arash and Mojtaba. This is a campaign to free dissidents in Iraq and elsewhere who have been imprisoned for blogging about their situation. While the campaign is about 'bloggers' specifically, the concerns are human rights and freedom of speech - blogging is just a tool for speech, not the focus of this campaign.

Must read item of the day: as the U.S. media maintains its sunny outlook on the future of Iraq - perhaps because, regardless of who won, the corporate tax rate is permanently capped at 15 percent? - things are going to hell for moderates, secularists, and women who live there. Go read this at Riverbend's blog: Baghdad Burning: Groceries and Election Results. (riverbendblog.blogspot.com, 02/18/05).

Having recently read Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, Riverbend's conversation and worries on what it's like for women in Iran, with the men saying it's not so bad, is especially creepy.

A nice, long explanation about how the Sunnis may not benefit from even the tiny consolation of a constitutional veto: Informed Comment's Guest Editorial by Andrew Arato points out that the alleged protection for Sunnis, the right to veto the constitution put forth by the people elected in the election they boycotted or couldn't get to, isn't guaranteed. This is a little long, but good, as everything on Dr. Cole's website is.

Also of interest, from his summary of Chalabi's recent interview, this quote:

“The agreement will deal with the right or how those U.S. forces detainees Iraqis. There are thousands of Iraqis now detained by U.S. forces. We don't know why. We don't know how. And we don't know under what legal structure they are being detained. I believe that this process should be an Iraqi process.”

Chalabi is a spooky guy, with a lot of ambition, and some undemocratic tendencies. (Cole accurately describes him elsewhere as a "corrupt expatriate financier and Iranian asset.") I'm surprised that even he is concerned about the U.S.' mass arrests, but it's worth noting.

Actually, there are so many informative things to read at juancole.com that you should just go, now, and read until your brain is full. He reports on the low turnout, the dubious assertions by the western press that various elected Iraqis are secular even though they espouse fundamentalist views publicly, etc.

Elections In Iraq: I like how the U.S. press, despite the fact that turnout wasn't very good, now pretend that everything is fine in Iraq because they had an election.

I mean, only 2% of Sunnis turned out in some areas, but that's FINE! (Fine for whom?) And now we can pretend that, even if the U.S. government pre-approved who could run in the election, that everyone will accept the results - even all those Sunnis who didn't vote - and all is legitimate now.

I have no idea why they think that. An optimistic guess would be that they think it will go over simply because fundamentalist-led, anti-occupation parties won seats far and away beyond the puppet government's. Yet, whenever someone is quoted about how great it is, the person quoted is never an Iraqi. So it comes across as a bit... off.

For those of you, like me, who need a short recap, the BBC FAQ about the election is here: BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Q&A: Iraqi election (bbc.co.uk, 02/13/05).

Remember Afghanistan? That other country we invaded? Want to know how they're doing? Read this: UN warns of fresh Afghan chaos (bbc.co.uk, 02/21/05). The answer: things are extremely bad, getting worse, and may pose a threat to its neighbors.

It makes you think other nations might think twice before accepting U.S. "help."

Elections in Iraq. I'm not sure I understand the glowing reports about the recent elections in Iraq.

Firstly, the initial returns I've read about demonstrate that the result will be very much anti-occupation. Which is good, but not what the U.S. had in mind.

Secondyly, I'm unclear on how this is a step forward for democracy. If we were invaded by a foreign nation, and they picked out a slate of parties we could vote for in an election, without specific people being on the ballot, we'd call it a joke. A farce. Not legit. And then, when the election is held without international observers... Well. WE would never put up with such nonsense here.

And do we need to discuss Negroponte's role in this? His history of saying, 'death squads? I don't see any death squads?'

The International Action Center (iacenter.org) folks have written some good articles on this topic. This is from The Antiwar Movement and the Iraqi Elections:

This election is being conducted at gunpoint, administered by a war criminal, and stage-managed by CIA front companies. To pretend that this has anything to do with democracy is outrageous. The Iraqi people recognize this --among expatriates, 90 percent haven't even bothered to register to vote on Sunday.


What, then is the purpose of the phony election? It is actually directed at the U.S. public, which is growing increasingly disillusioned with the war. The sole intent of the election is to provide legitimacy for the occupation, to marginalize the resistance movement, and create an illusion of progress. The election, like the phony transfer of power, will change nothing on the ground in Iraq. On January 31, the day after the election, more than 150,000 U.S. troops will still occupy Iraq, the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib will still be full of Iraqi prisoners, and CIA employee Iyad Allawi will still be the U.S.-appointed dictator.

I've been told that many Americans are feeling better about the invasion, the massive civilian casualties, and the absence of WMDs now that an election for non-specific candidates has been held.

There must be something in the water.

I also found this interesting, from the IAC's statement on the elections in Iraq (also at iacenter.org, within frames I can't link directly to):

Returning Iraq to 1955. It is telling that the Bush Administration is claiming this is the first democratic election to be held in Iraq in fifty years. The election referred to as the last democratic election was held under a U.S. & British appointed monarchy to select an advisory body that had no executive or legislative power. Its only function was to provide a façade of legitimacy to the puppet regime; the election did not change the fact that the people of Iraq were under the thumb of U.S. and British oil companies. Less than 3 years later, a massive popular revolutionary upheaval overthrew the corrupt monarchy and, since that time, the U.S. and Britain have been trying to return Iraq to the same semi-colonial status. This election is part of their plan.

I will be interested to know how our media reports the election results, especially if they are going as I've read.

The bureaucracy of torture: read t r u t h o u t - CIA Abductions of Terror Suspects Are 'Out of Control' (truthout.org). There are two articles at this link, both are worth reading.

The first is about the U.S. abducting suspects from around the world, taking them abroad to allies who torture them, and then... well, largely realizing they have been abducting and torturing people with no connection to terror. The second story is about someone who was abducted, tortured into confessing to being in an Al Queda camp and video just to make the torture stop, and then being cleared by the British government who could prove they were in England at the time of their alleged crimes.

Yes, the U.S. is abducting and torturing people who weren't even in Afghanistan during the time periods for which they are concerned!! Depriving innocents of their freedom is not the same as 'protecting freedom.' No matter what the press releases say.

I love the idea of the major news networks struggling to come up with a dramatic slogan and graphic for an ongoing campaign of admitting how wrong they in their WMD reporting. Read WMDUH! Don't expect four months of round-the-clock truth coverage, by Matt Taibbi (www.nypress.com).

Yes, I've been following all of the dismal war news, including the British scandal over their soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, the slaying of parents in front of their six children by U.S. soldiers at a checkpoint, the ever increasing violence in Iraq on the run up to the elections, the Iraqi women who are afraid to leave their homes and are unsure if they can vote, or if voting will even be fair.... but I haven't had anything nice to say about it, and so I've said nothing.

But I can say this short thing, on behalf of the peace movement: We Were Right. We are still right, so right it HURTS. Make the pain stop. Bring the troops home.

For the news I haven't been discussing, I recommend Mykeru.com on the checkpoint parent slaying (and a nice piece on MLK just below it), and Professor Cole's Informed Comment for everything else, plus a nice piece on the portions of the U.S. Constitution violated by the Bush Administration.

Iraqis angry with abuse sentence (english.aljazeera.net, 01/16/05). For some reason, the media here though that the sentence was very serious. They were SO EXCITED when the conviction came through, it was almost as if they'd won some prize. I still don't fully understand it, though I suspect that those reporters who think 'this proves the system works' are unclear on who the system works for. It appears Iraqis have figured that out...

If you're not already reading the blog Baghdad Burning, go read it now. Sample: "It feels like just about everyone who can is going to leave the country before the elections. " Her comments about the Bush Administration finally admitting that there are no WMDs, after all she and her countrymen have suffered... It's very painful.

From the Pitt blog at t r u t h o u t:

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003

Yes, the press really was relying on people this dumb to sum up why we should support a doomed war based on shaky evidence. Yes, it is amazing. No, he wouldn't understand the answer, even if we didn't use swear words.

Doctors aided in detainee abuse, journal says / Pentagon denies report of tailored torture (sfgate.com reprint from washingtonpost.com, 01/06/05). This comes just after two dozen FBI agents reported witnessing "interrogation excesses."

Oh, and some of the U.S. forces who are committing these abuses are now threatening other American agents who witness the abuses. New documents excerpted by the ACLU (aclu.org) included complaints from the DIA, who reported that:

TF 62-6 personnel have done the following to DIA interrogators/debriefers: threatened them, confined them to the compound, ordered them not to talk to anyone in the US and informed them that their emails are being screened.

These task force people appear to be abusing their positions as well as their other-agency colleagues and the detainees in their care. Their behavior undermines the U.S. claim to represent, respect, and want the rule of law.

This Amnesty International Report on detainees is very up to date, for those of you who have been wondering why Guantanamo Bay dropped out of the headlines despite having its four year anniversary this month. USA: Guantanamo - an icon of lawlessness (amnestyusa.org, 01/06/05).

Forever detained: This is a horrific article: Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects (washingtonpost.com, 01/02/05):

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts.

Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?' Did that get burned along with our belief in the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution?

The Friends Committee has written a good article on why the U.S. needs to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately. Free Iraq: The Responsibility of Withdrawal - FCNL Issues (www.fcnl.org) asks whether the failed policies of the past two years will be blindly continued, or if the reality of the antagonism and violence the presence of U.S. forces fuels will be recognized. Here's a sample:

Some argue that U.S. responsibility under international law to restore security and protect civilians in Iraq demands that the U.S. military remain and help stabilize the country. In fact, the presence and offensive operations of U.S. troops have become the greatest threats to Iraq%92s future. U.S. offensives, including aerial bombings, city sieges (witness Fallujah), and neighborhood sweeps, foster resentment among Iraqis, fuel the insurgency, and threaten civilian lives. Iraqi security forces are attacked more often when U.S. troops are present, and the Green Zone--a barricaded neighborhood housing the interim Iraqi government along side the U.S. embassy--has become a prime target for suicide bombings and mortar attacks.

I still know people who argue that the U.S. cannot leave Iraq until it is peaceful, but since the U.S. has engendered so much hatred, the U.S. military presence appears to preclude peace, making the situation circular.

Read the entire Friends' article. It outlines specific steps which should be taken to end the violence in Iraq.

No WMDs

U.S. Wraps Up Search for Banned Weapons in Iraq (Reuters.com01/12/05). Gee, who aside from the entire world peace movement could possibly have foreseen this?

The U.S. makes mistakes? Of course, I'm being sarcastic: the only surprise here is that it is being reported.

U.S. troops in Iraq open fire at checkpoint, killing eight, hospital officials say; roadside bomb kills U.S. soldier (sfgate.com, 01/09/05) reports: "...at least eight people were killed in the second mistaken American attack in two days to have deadly results."

The weird part of this article is that, after admitting they bombed the wrong house, the military then claims to know how many people were in the wrong house. It's not like they have credibility on this point, but they try:

The attack came just hours after the United States acknowledged dropping a 500-pound bomb on the wrong house during a search for terror suspects outside the northern city of Mosul. The military said in a statement that five people were killed.

The owner of the house, Ali Yousef, said 14 people were killed when the bomb hit at about 2 a.m. Saturday in the town of Aitha, 30 miles south of Mosul. An Associated Press photographer at the scene said the dead included seven children and seven adults. The discrepancy between the death counts could not be reconciled.

You should go read this sfgate article to review that last sentence over and over again. Yes, actual eyewitness and verified journalist counts must be fairly compared against absentee military spokesmodel counts which may have been for the house they had intended to bomb.

Can I mention that, too? That bombing people's homes at night with their families in them is not a way to 'win hearts and minds,' it is not the way to win the moral high ground, and it is very much not the way to enforce the concept of the rule of law. As the U.S. wallows in Christian sentiment, more hands should be flying up to point out that executing entire families is completely un-Christian. There are a few hands, but surprisingly few. Is that not obvious to everyone?

*

As an aside, there is also a fascinating article at SFGate about the politics of "supporting the troops." A Bush/war supporter is reported to say that yellow ribbon car magnets, even if made abroad cheaply and sold without a non-profit beneficiary, are an apolitical way of "supporting the troops," a position which they also consider to be apolitical. It takes a while to get down to someone who is actually using the proceeds from magnet sales to ACTUALLY send something to the troops, and no one is seeing irony there.

No irony in cheap magnets made abroad.
No irony in making a profit off something allegedly done to support the troops.
No irony in putting this dislay on oil-consuming cars, a hot topic and the driving force between what had been called "Operation Iraqi Liberation" until someone looked at the acronym.

There is no actual troop support happening here.

IF any of these people cared to actually support the troops, they would have demanded that Bush restore all the veterans funding and pay cuts he's made at the troops expense. They would allow soldiers and their families to live in decent housing. They would demand that injured vets not become invisible to the public, politicians, and media upon their return. They would notice that too many of the family interviews of the soldiers' families are taking place in trailer parks within areas with no decent economic opportunities, and demand that every American who joins up had a REAL choice to join the 'volunteer' military services. They would demand that for all Americans.

But most of these people do not. Instead, they drive around with little foreign-made magnets on their cars. Which tells you about the level of their commitment.

Not a good way to differentiate the U.S. from Saddam Hussein:t r u t h o u t - Pentagon May Use Death Squads in Iraq (truthout repost from Newsweek, 01/08/05): "The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq." Yes, the Pentagon thought that the mass killing of innocents in El Salvador was a small price to pay for the strategic advantage of preventing popular governments from emerging. YIPES!! Go read this.

It still bothers me that mass graves are only of concern when a country isn't our "friend." BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Mass grave unearthed in Iraq city (news.bbc.co.uk, 12/27/05). This is only of consequence because Iraq's former leader is now our enemy. It was no big deal to the U.S. at the time.

THAT is ridiculous. It is the predictable outcome of disregarding international law until it is politically opportune, and then only using it to punish political enemies.