This was discussed in the foreign press and blogosphere ages ago, but now it's hitting the mainstream: US held youngsters at Abu Ghraib (bbc.co.uk, 03/11/05). Yes, there were kids as young as 11 in the prison where abuses occurred. Yes, there are documented incidents involving drunken American soldiers and underaged female detainees. And this:

In her interview, she said Maj Gen Walter Wodjakowski, then the second most senior army general in Iraq, told her in the summer of 2003 not to release more prisoners, even if they were innocent.

'I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians,' she said Maj Gen Wodjakowski told her. 'We're winning the war.'

There's an attitude for you.

I think when the U.S. said that it wanted to "liberate" the Iraqi people, it really should have provided a definition of what "liberate" means to a country that until recently executed juveniles, had a big debate about executing the retarded, and who aren't concerned about whether incarcerated Iraqis are innocent or not.

Image of the Day: New Liberty.

Getting the Purple Finger, by Naomi Klein (thenation.com, 02/10/05) explains that the Iraqis voted for continued public investment, guarantees of jobs for all who need them, subsidized housing, and a U.S. withdrawal. That's not what they're going to get, according to U.S. officials who are contradicting 'the will of the people,' and instead feigning pride at the vote itself, not what was voted for.

It's amazing. Go read this.

This sucks: Agent Orange legal case dismissed (bbc.co.uk, 03/10/05). All the people who believe they were poisoned by the scary herbicide 'Agent Orange' during the American military operation in Vietnam (Vietnam War to Americans, American War to the Vietnamese) have been told by a U.S. judge that they no valid claims ANYWHERE (something of a reach). This long after the maker of the herbicide settled with American veterans for health problems they suffered.

For those of you paying attention, you may remember that Iraq is paying reparations to American corporations for projected profits they lost during the war that followed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Why is war-torn Iraq giving $190,000 to Toys R Us?, by Naomi Klein (guardian.co.uk and elsewhere, 10/16/04) So it's okay for the loser of one war to pay reparations for IMAGINARY BUSINESS LOSSES, but NOT okay for the loser of a devastating invasion in SE Asia to pay damages for health problems they actually caused?

What?

Creepy quote:

The US justice department had urged the federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a brief filed in January, it said opening the courts to cases brought by former enemies would be a dangerous threat to presidential powers to wage war.

All that talk about responsibility and morality, and THIS is what the U.S. government does?

Pretend to be surprised.

"Ramadi Madness?" US troops 'made Iraq abuse video' (bbc.co.uk) Yes, another abuse video. This one with titles for each sequence.

What is wrong with this people? Our military is good at brainwashing our troops to dehumanize our opponents, and Americans are already terrified of everyone else in the world, but still.

Things are not really improving in the U.S.' posture for war. I read a good interpretation this morning: that the Democrats are afraid that our wholly tabloid media will blame them for losing the war in Iraq if they criticize it, say anything negative about it, or (heaven forfend) demand that the U.S. forces leave Iraq, either immediately OR on ANY timetable.

That's exactly the sort of thing our (tabloid posing as news) media would do.

But it's created a gridlock legislatively, where the few Dems who stand up for troop withdrawals are attacked by other Dems trying to look good to a media which will never be their friend. Go figure.

Are you following this story? About how the US shot up the car containing rescued Italian hostage Guiliana Sgrena, injuring her and killing the secret service agent who had negotiated her release? Funeral for Italian shot in Iraq is the understated headline today. (bbc.co.uk, 03/07/05), though earlier articles on Ms. Sgrena's belief that there's no way such an incident could be accidental, were more lively.

The U.S. has been killing people in cars in Iraq near its checkpoints, including entire families, for some time, but most of their victims have been Iraqis, and the press has largely excused such behavior. Now that it is Italians dying under wild U.S. fire, the practice is coming under greater scrutiny.

The U.S. responded that it's ridiculous to believe that U.S. soldiers would target her. The quote from the article is: "It's absurd to make any such suggestion, that our men and women in uniform would target individual citizens." That's one of those strange, selectively worded answers which suggests that it IS perfectly reasonable to suggest that the uniformed US personnel DO target groups of citizens.

I suppose the U.S. will try to offer a few hundred dollars to this intelligence officer's family, the way they do to the bereaved in Iraq?

US comes to grips with 1500 dead (bbc.co.uk, 03/04/05).

Pitt's blog now has audio! Check out the Truth Out Overview with Will Pitt. (truthout.org)

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.