U.S. soldiers on police duty in Iraq are unhappy, and are now beginning to say so to the press.(Washington Post)

"U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here," said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24. "I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."

Their concerns are reflected in an incident where an armed British police patrol in Majar al-Kabir ignited a multi-hour gunbattle in which 6 British soldiers were killed after running out of ammunition. (SF Gate) Locals believed the soldiers were violating an agreement to cease their intrusions into local areas.

Of course, Rumsfield insists things are fine in Iraq (Washington Post), and blames any and all resistance on "looters, criminals, remnants of Saddam Hussein's government, foreign terrorists and Iranian-backed Shiites." Rumsfeld also insisted that there is no 'guerilla' warfare going on in Iraq, contrary to the Pentagon's definition and reports from soliders in the field using that characterization.

One wonders if he's testing the waters, and some day soon, he'll announce that the sky is green, and see who publishes it.

*

Several children have been killed by U.S. forces in recent days, which is making the soldier's duties harder as the populace harbors increasing resentments over the deaths of innocents after Bush's decision that the war had ended. (There are few new reports regarding those who died in the bombing and their resentments, which is interesting. While widespread outrage was reported in Al Jazeera and some BBC articles, it has not been discussed again, as if all has been forgiven, or at least forgotten.)

U.S. forces shot a 12 year old boy on the roof of his house (Washington Post), and have not apologized to the boy's parents. an 11 year old boy was run over by a U.S. convoy while approaching to try to sell the soldier s goods. The convoy did not stop, leaving his body in the road. (BBC) And three children burned by flammable war materials were refused treatment by U.S. forces, despite the pleas of a U.S. sargeant moved to tears by their plight (Common Dreams/AP). They were turned down because their injuries were not immediately life threatening, but the distressing thing is that this was an opportunity to show concern for the plight of locals that was passed up. (The sargeant gave the parents everything he could from his first aid kit, but couldn't provide the full help that was needed, and can't believe the callousness of his superiors.)

*

Mainstream Iraq news resources to bookmark:
-The BBC's "After Saddam" page.
-New York Times: "After the War"
-San Francisco Chronicle "Iraq aftermath" (the San Francisco Chronicle's on0line presence is known as SF Gate).
-Washington Post's "World: Iraq".

Very short news item: the U.N. Terrorist Committee says it has found no evidence of a connection between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terror network (BBC).

As is traditional, the U.S. says it has lots of evidence that the committee is wrong, and that there is a connection. And won't show it to anyone. I know, you'd laugh if it wasn't so serious. I would, too.

"We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill them until we have imposed law and order on this country."

That's a quote from Paul Bremer, chief US administrator in Iraq, on uncooperative, allegedly Baathist elements in Iraq, in article called US strikes at resistance (BBC) I say allegedly Baathist, because the U.S. has characterized every single Iraqi protest to anything the U.S. has done in Iraq as Baathist.

I'm beginning to suspect the U.S. Government's definition of Baathist as different from everyone else's.

*

At the moment, I'm reading Nelson Madela's brilliant autobiography. When the white supremacist Nationalist Party came into power after WWII, they passed a bunch of laws against Communism. But the catch was that the laws defined communists as anyone who wanted to change the policies of the government. That meant that anyone who objected to whites-only train cars, whites-only chairs, whites-only restaurants, or whites-only voting was suddenly defined as a "communist." The government hijacked the LANGUAGE first. And then they started taking away rights, one after another. Whenever anyone would organize a peaceful protest, they'd get locked up. When the international community asked what was going on, the government would just say 'rounding up communists,' and the anti-communist western nations would say, 'oh, that's great,' and wander off.

Because no one cared about what happened to "communists."

It took a while for other folks to notice that the National Government was not using the term as they were.

*

So when I see a news photo of an Iraqi with a sign that says "No Bush No Saddam," and read that "Baathists," the folks who were members of Saddam's political party, are the ONLY people in all of Iraq who object to the American occupation, I am skeptical.

*

Another note about Mandela: he was working actively with the African National Congress while working full time, running his own law practice. So no excuses, people: if he could run his own business during the weekdays and devote himself to challenging injustice on nights and weekends, you can, too.

(Well, yes, the successful fight for freedom for millions of his fellow Africans did cost him his marriages, and deprived him of time with his children. He did wrestle with the question of whether it is more important to serve one's family (or one's own group) or a wider group of mankind. He decided that it was his path to serve mankind. He noted that it is not necessarily a higher calling, but definitely is a different one. This is something for those to consider who say that the best way to serve your country is to have lots of kids and be a good parent. It's always a service to the community to be a good parent. But had Mandela chosen that route, his family and millions of others would still be horribly oppressed. Mandela's family benefited from what he did for society in big ways. Sometimes, society needs more than good parenting to improve the lot of all people. This seems obvious to me, but I keep having to argue this point.)

I know our government appears corrupt. If it's any comfort, it appears to be worse in Italy (SF Gate World Views). Read through to the bottom about commentary on the terrible fate that has befallen the American press: "The lesson from America is that, if news and public affairs are left purely to the market, it will most likely give the government what it wants."

*

It was the 100th anniversary of author George Orwell's birth this week. Democracy Now decided to host a theme show in Orwell's honor. It's called The Two Georges, Orwell and Bush: A Dramatic Reading of George Orwell’s Classic Work 1984 Interspersed With Recent News Clips From President Bush and Others.

Before you think both 'oh no, it's too true' and 'how contrived,' I suppose the big difference to me is that the press here is already reporting lies, so the idea of going back to revise them ('he who controls the past controls the future') is rather pointless. Just the same, Rumsfeld is immediately caught denying things Bush had said publicly. Ooops.

The Text of 1984 is available here (Mondo politico).

Things which do not merit mention in the American mainstream news press:

-people living sustainably and peacefully
-success gained without violence
-the existence of peaceful opposition to powerful institutions
-individuals who succeeded after being assisted by social welfare programs
-higher quality of life in other countries (in any and all areas: longer life expectancies especially, but also any superior social services, better air quality, lower crime rates, etc.)
-the social benefits provided by organized labor
-the activities of well-adjusted, ordinary people
-values which are more complex than fundamentalism, good vs. evil, or pure economics
-sufficient historical perspective to understand cause and effect relationships in international activities.

I think the glaring absence of these things in the media, where "reality" is defined for so many people, has given us a very unhealthy view of the world.

For those of you who remember the last list of U.S. promises to liberate people with bombs, promises which are largely unfulfilled, here are some links to keep abreast of the situation, and opportunities to donate some cash:

-The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Afghanistan, providing news on their projects as they switch from direct food aid to sustainable projects, such as providing seeds and fertilizer to jump start a revival of agriculture. They also check in on the folks at Guantanamo Bay, and bring complaints to the U.S. authorities to make their treatment in conformance with international law.

-The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). Pull down the menu at the top under 'projects' to see their good works ranging from building and running hospitals and orphanages to reviving long abandoned irrigation projects, providing disaster relief, and generally being great. RAWA provided many of the videos, shot stealthily from beneath burqas, which provided evidence of the Taliban's atrocities to the foreign press.

-BBC's Country Profile: Afghanistan, a very short history with some good trivia.

-Adopt-A-Minefield, a group working to clear minefields from Afghanistan, where about 300 people are maimed or killed each month. Inexplicably, this site doesn't work properly under my browser. The author of the profane and brilliant Get Your War On supports the work of Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5 through this organization.

-International Campaign to Ban Landmines. I believe this is a longer, older campaign than A-A-M, comprised of more than 1100 smaller groups that share the goal of eliminating landmines and aiding the victims of such mines. Their site is substantive: for example, you can read the list of countries that has not agreed to ban the manufacture, stockpiling, and use of landmines, which just happens to include the U.S.A.

*

Speaking of the profane and brilliant strip, Get Your War On page 25 is up. And the author is right: truly enough, I had to look up Karimov's short profile at Human Rights Watch to get one of the jokes. (From my reading elsewhere, I know that Uzbekistan's increasingly repressive government is currently a close friend of the U.S. It has something to do with oil pipelines. Violent repression of peaceful people and all opposition are giving rise to fundamentalist extremists who are organized enough to resist him. Sound familiar?)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org) analyzed U.S. war coverage, and learned that viewers "were 25 times as likely to see a pro-war guest as one who was anti-war during the first three weeks of the invasion of Iraq." (NYC Indymedia). Among other things, the FAIR analysis shows that the media were only too happy to provide the military and U.S. government airtime to support its positions, while not providing any where near proportionate opportunities for anti-war voices to speak relative to actual American anti-war sentiment. In addition, the tiny number of anti-war opinions were reduced to sound bites. "Not a single show in the study conducted a sit-down interview with a person identified as being against the war." The coverage was also slanted toward folks in the war business, obscuring the fact that international law, human rights, and many other significant issues are involved. If nothing else, read the article for the Dan Rather quote.

There is a lot of other great stuff at the FAIR, including an item that Former General Wesley Clark says he was asked by the White House to implicate Iraq on the very day of the September 11th attacks, but the White House would not provide him with any evidence; and another in which they point out that U.S. conservatives who hotly criticized U.S. military intervention in Kosovo and said their criticism was 'patriotic' under Clinton now insist that any questioning of the commander-in-chief is treason. (Perhaps they should all be tried retroactively, based only on their own standards?)

The United States is not preserving evidence of mass murders by Saddam Hussein's regime. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the Iraqi government and its friends during peacetime, and evidence of these crimes is being destroyed. (NPR Audio) If justice is going to be done, there need to be trials, evidence, proof, and the families of victims need to know what became of their missing relatives. After more than two months of trying to get a hold of its many other problems, the U.S. is finally turning its attentions to the big picture of war crimes against the Iraqi people.

Some lists that have come to light confirming the details of hundreds of state-organized executions, which need to be investigated and authenticated.

But in the meantime the mass graves are not being guarded; desperate relatives are poking through the mass graves they know of on their own; forensic evidence is being lost or moved; and the task of gathering evidence against the regime is falling on non-profit and non-governmental organizations, such as Human Rights Watch. Technical expertise is needed. The evidence won't stay there forever. If we're serious about bringing criminals to justice (rather than just a wholesale, collective punishment of anyone who enjoyed any privileges or successes under the Hussein regime), this has to be done right the first time.

But Arlene, didn't you oppose the war?

Goodness yes. I still oppose the war. I believe in the rule of law, which includes an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven, fair trial, and serious punishment. If the U.S.' incredibly well-funded 'intelligence' machine couldn't work up enough evidence to persuade the U.N. security council of a crime, rushing to bomb a country and execute its leaders is uncalled for. [Duh.] If Hussein is allged to have committed even a fraction of the crimes he is accused of, it should be relatively simple to put together a case and convict him and his minions.

Bombing the citizens of his country who had suffered so much is not an appropriate punishment for a man who had no compulsion about killing those same people, is it? No. Bombing his survivors is not just.

Well, don't you think that the U.S.' success in the war solves this problem? Isn't this justice?

So far as I know, Hussein, who I'm rather sure is a criminal, could be on a beach somewhere, drinking frosty drinks with fellow 'undisclosed location' comrades bin Laden and Cheney. (When was the last time we saw Cheney?) Meanwhile, there may have been 5,800 Iraqi civilian casualties (Iraqometer). I don't perceive this situation as just. Even if he died in the bombing along with so many civilians and kids, that still isn't quite "just" -- he hasn't been publicly and definitely held accountable for his actions. He hasn't been forced to face his victims in defeat. He hasn't even been made an example of. He hasn't had to sit in a jail cell, contemplating his crimes, for years and years.

Instead, his victims are maimed; the people of Iraq are suffering from irregular services, chaos, looting, and violence; looters have destroyed government offices which may have held damning documentary evidence of atrocities; and Hussein is either free or anonymously dead, an ambiguity which his supporters are enjoying to their own advantage.

To me, that's the proverbial 'winning the battle but losing the war.'

Speaking of losing things, aren't you going to bring up weapons of mass destruction, and our great success there?

Oh, shut up. Those aren't important.

Ha! I knew you'd be sensitive about that! Our government said they had proof that WMDs were in Iraq in huge volumes, and information about where the WMDs in Iraq were hidden. (SF Indymedia) Very precise. All sorts of details. And yet, searches based on the intelligence they had turned up nothing but false alarms.

Sadly, it appears not only that the intelligence information the U.S. relied on was dubious (BBC), but that the Bush Administration doesn't want to learn from its mistakes. Those mistakes apparently included getting information from defectors and exiles who had interests that do not necessarily mesh with our own. If we want to be safer from terrorism, we need to change the kind of information we rely on, to, oh say, GOOD information. The Bush Administration should not fear good information.

The Baghdad Indymedia Center, Al MuaJaha, The Iraqi Witness, is up and running in multiple languages.

A way to win hearts and minds: having U.S. soldiers search schoolgirls in Baghdad. I'm sure that gives all parents a warm fuzzy feeling. Sure. Right.

*

Something I hadn't considered: there are plenty of international opinions not only are reviving the 'Iraq-as-Vietnam' analogy, but are also comparing this unhappy occupation with that of Korea. (Both links: Washington Post)

Americans theoretically have a right to travel freely throughout the U.S. Under the Bush Administration, this right is becoming more and more theoretical: the Feds have developed a "no-fly" list of Americans they don't want to be able to fly. Theoretically associated with the so-called War or Terror, the Feds can't actually explain what the list is, or why someone is on it.

For example, men named David Nelson are being hassled every time they fly (Yahoo news). Why? Because the Feds apparently can't tell one David Nelson from another, and so are simply throwing impediments to travel in front of all of them.

Do you feel safer knowing that the federal government can't even figure out which David Nelson it's concerned about? Or work up a description of him?

Me neither.

I've heard some entertaining stories about the ridiculousness of airport security (NPR audio), and some that were just sad: a frequent flier grandmother who is stopped every trip because her name is SIMILAR to a man who is listed on the no-fly list. Calls to multiple federal agencies demonstrated only that no one can help her, because no one is accountable for the list. No one on this list an restore their rights, because they aren't necessarily listed for any reason that can be explained. Garbage in, garbage out.

Meanwhile, anti-war activists find themselves on the no-fly list, (Common Dreams) and are bringing suit after their requests for explanations led nowhere. Some of their security problems aren't even based on their actual name being on the list, but merely on the fact that their names are spelled similarly to those on the list or, according to deputies, because their names sounded Hispanic. (Progressive.org)

A Transportation Security Administration spokesman acknowledges that it has "no guidelines defining who is put on the list.... The TSA also has no procedures for people to clear their names and get off the list." (In These Times) More:

Asked if the TSA has a second list, one not of the “threats to aviation” who would never be allowed to get on a plane, but rather of political activists who are to be singled out for intense scrutiny and interrogation, Steigman said, “I don’t know. I’ll have to look into that.”
A day later, he came back with a curiously candid, if rather alarming, answer. “I checked with our security people,” he said, “and they said there is no second list.” Then, after a pause, he added, “Of course, that could mean one of two things: Either there is no second list, or there is a list, and they’re not going to talk about it for security reasons.”

Meanwhile, at least one delayed passenger observed the loose-leaf binder used by his interrogators, which contained a list of political and peace organizations, such as Greenpeace and the Green Party. (An additional article and more than a dozen additional links at this Indybay article (Indymedia).)

Secret lists and unaccountable government agencies that are unwilling or unable to fix their own mistakes don't make for good security. Stopping grandmothers at airports will not keep us safe.

As the kids say now, "Duh!"

Today's radio program Marketplace announces that Private Jessica Lynch, who claims not to recall her time in an Iraqi hospital from which she was "rescued" by U.S. special forces, now has a Hollywood agent.

*moan*

In other moan-inspiring news, the U.S. military is setting up a court in Iraq intended to try others for crimes against the U.S. military. I'm sure it will be perceived to be as fair and just as it deserves to be.

According the S.F. Chronicle/Associated press, Halliburton's no-bid, competition free oil production contract has doubled in cost, and "The expanded role awarded to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company cost taxpayers $184.7 million as of last week, up from $76.7 million a month ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirmed this week."

*

At least we're not alone: 60% of people polled in an international survey have a fairly unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush (BBC).

*

Well, the GOP is trying to improve their image. The New York Times reported that the GOP plans to make the most of the September 11th memorial not only by holding its convention there (which I knew), but by laying the cornerstone to the still-being-designed monument to the September 11th victims.

Then the New York Times un-reported it.

It was in the print edition and on-line.

Then it was in the print edition, but the title changed for the on-line version, unless you performed an archive search, in which case it still came up with the original title.

Now it's just in the print edition.

But various people took pictures or scans of the article while it was still up, and so now they want to know: what gives?

Different Strings analysis
This Modern World analysis

*

According to this story in the Charlotte Observer, "A third of the American public believes U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll, and 22 percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.". Even though those things didn't happen.

Ouch.

The poll notes that this misperception is strongest among those who supported the war. (Go figure.)

A friend had complained that he heard many sensationalistic stories during the war about all sorts of SUSPICIOUS materials that were found, but which were never mentioned again after testing proved they weren't WMDs. And the ABSENCE of WMDs is only now becoming news... So those who don't pay attention could have interpreted poor reporting to be evidence of guilt. And they must be really confused when Bush announces that evidence will EVENTUALLY be found, wondering why he doesn't just turn to all the evidence they think they heard something about... But that doesn't make this any better, does it?

So, I'm supposed to take Bush seriously when he talks about how important the public protests in the street are in Iran, about how the Iranian people are speaking, about how the people of Iran are speaking loudly and demanding a change in their government... Even though he said it it was irrelevant when hundreds of thousands of AMERICANS did the same exact thing?

I see.

The U.S. rounded up 390 or so Iraqis in Thuluya, including kids and elderly men, in a raid that killed at least 3 Iraqis (Washington Post). US forces are occupying people's homes in the town, which they suspect is a bed of anti-US activity (referred to merely as pro-Saddam activity, though no evidence of that has been offered). 27 to 70 Iraqi fighters were killed by the U.S. elsewhere in clampdowns by the U.S., some of whom were foreign fighters (Associated Press/SF Chronicle).

Writer and commentator Molly Ivins speculated that the war would be short, but the peace would be "from hell," and I hope she bet money on that.

*

One of my friends complained that there are all sorts of allegations published in the press about mass graves which may be victims of Hussein's evil regime, but then raise questions (why were the victims all tidily and properly buried in caskets if they were mass-murdered in secret?) and then fail to follow up with the site turns out to be a cemetary from the Iran-Iraq war.

Finally, 10 bodies have been dug up from a mass grave which witnesses said should contain 115 bodies of deserting soldiers and prisoners. (Washington Post) The witness insist that they saw fresh bodies piled up in the area, where the digging has taken place. The article says this site is the first of its kind, because some of the remains are recent, which is worth noting for my friend right there.

But where are the other 105 bodies? The witnesses have no idea. And then, raising more questions, they have experts saying that all remains turn skeletal in the climate in this area, but then turn around and suggest that people recognized their relatives and claimed the bodies and took off quickly.

I know I work in law and am perhaps more obsessed with evidence standards than many, but it seems ridiculous to me that, if a government wants to try someone as bad as Hussein was reputed to be for war crimes, they 1) can't find enough victims and 2) everyone can find their dead skeletal relatives EXCEPT the investigators. It's just mystifying.

Speaking of avoiding justice, even the head of the U.N. thinks immunity for all U.S. soldiers on peacekeeping missions is a bad idea. (BBC) War crimes are war crimes, right? Don't we all deserve equal justice under the law? The U.S. is so desperate to avoid prosecution at the International Criminal Court, you have to wonder what our fine leaders have planned. The US did get another exemption from prosecution (Washington Post), which makes me wonder what they have in mind.

Aside from avoiding the charges currently pending by Iran. Iran brought suit against the U.S. for supplying WMDs to Iraq for its attacks on Iran, a case that has been stalled for years. Now Iran wants an apology for U.S.' role in helping to set up Al-Quaida (Engineering News Record). They aren't holding their breath. But I'd love to hear Bush's supporters stumble while trying to explain this one away. 'Well, Sadda m is an evil man NOW, but... well... um..."

The U.S. is planning its execution chamber for the prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay. The rules for the kangaroo courts the U.S. government has laid out have been discussed in the legal papers I read. They suck. I can't even tell you how badly. Defense lawyers won't get any confidential time with their clients and aren't even allowed to see the evidence against their clients. They may not be able to see most of the evidence in trial. And they need a security clearance. And can't investigate. And can't ever talk about what happened. And likely can't ever be paid, which is the least of the problems with the system, but still.

Military tribunals, secrecy, no opportunity for a real defense... Didn't we used to make fun of countries that had such pathetic and unjust systems? Didn't we mock the Soviets for this during the Cold War??

The BBC has provided a new update on the status of Iraq's cultural treasures, investigated by one of its correspondents. The article points out that Hussein's attempts to co-opt history involved imposing Baath party members in the museum administration, making it an attractive target for oppressed citizens who didn't necessarily view the ancient treasures of their people as the ancient treasures of their people. Perhaps the U.S. soldiers, who exchanged fire with Iraqi soldiers who holed up at the museum briefly, saw it the same way: the way the soldiers secured the oil ministry while ignoring the museum workers' pleas for assistance is still unpleasantly inexplicable.

"The claim that 170,000 items were destroyed or looted has long been abandoned, and reduced considerably. Also, many items have been recovered. Museum staff say that only 33 major items, and around 2,100 minor items, are missing, while 15 major items in the galleries were seriously damaged. These include the famous 4,500-year-old-harp from Ur, with its fabulous golden bull's head...."

2,100 "minor" items is still a lot to lose. A loss that was unnecessary, if the ministry of oil hadn't been so darned important to the U.S... And the full collection hasn't been fully recatalogued, so missing items are still being identified.

Targeted thefts of some of the most valuable items support the theory that some of the looting was either professional and/or an inside job.

That so much has been recovered and hidden by the dedicated staff is some of the first good news I've heard. The article talks about the careful planning that the museum staff went through, evaluating what should be hidden because it could be carried, and what should be left because heavy equipment would be needed to steal. The correspondent was even able to inspect the locked (and unlocked) storerooms.

If I were the museum employees in the lawless weeks after the U.S. 'took control' of Baghdad, I'd claim I'd been cleaned out, too, since U.S. soldiers still refused to guard the place. It's a good looter deterrent to claim to have nothing to loot, and was good thinking on the curator's part.

Sadly, Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir of Afghanistan has been killed. (BBC) Remember Afghanistan? Remember how the U.S. solved all their problems by bombing the Taliban out (along with a few wedding parties and farmers and Red Cross warehouses)? Sounds great, doesn't it? So tidy! So successful! Peace just keeps on happen...

It's hard for the Afghans to even get into the news here. They're YESTERDAY's war. Over and done with. A reminder that we're not very good at this superhero business, since we never really save the day -- though we're there with lots of special effects for the fighting scenes.

Afghanistan needs our help. We destabilized their country by removing one terrible regime, put a group of wanna-be-terrible-regimes in a power sharing arrangement, made some promises, and left. We can do better than that!!

Retiring UN weapons inspector Hans Blix is complaining about the U.S.' negative attitude about the UN. (BBC) "According to Mr Blix, as the US build-up for an invasion of Iraq intensified, US administration officials had leaned on his weapons inspectors to use more damning language in their reports on Iraq." Blix also criticized the intelligence provided to him on alleged WMDs, which turned up nothing.

It's interesting that several weapons inspectors have become firm critics of the U.S. As did the last U.N. human rights chief, who also had to deal with the current administration. Hmmmm.