Also for those who have forgotten or do not know, I am covering the John Edwards trial for about six weeks. We are done with week three after today's post. But I am going over to Betty's site, like last Wednesday, and covering Cougar Town there, like I did with "Cougar Town (Southern Accents)." Why not do two posts here on Wednesday?
I am focusing on the trial. Also it gives Betty a night off. And we all need some time off from time to time.
Michael Biesecker has done a wonderful job covering the trial for AP and I am guessing he wrote this uncredited piece providing you with basics of the trial thus far.
The basics are: John Edwards was a politician who wanted to be president of the United States. And he was willing to do anything to become president. In 2006, he had an affair with Rielle Hunter. That was an issue since his wife had cancer (she passed away in 2010) and his campaign had used her to make him seem more substantial. In 2007, Ms. Hunter gave birth to a daughter, Mr. Edwards was the father. Mr. Edwards then began using 'donations' to pay for the care and lodging of his mistress and child. France's AFP summarizes it this way, "Edwards, once a promising Democratic presidential candidate, saw his career collapse after he fathered a child with videographer Rielle Hunter in 2007 and then lied about the affair to his cancer-stricken wife and the public." Australia's Sky News adds, "Prosecutors say Edwards was the mastermind behind a scheme to use nearly $US1 million ($A997,258) in secret payments from supporters to hide his mistress and their baby during his 2008 campaign." BBC News explains, "To prove Mr Edwards guilty, prosecutors must show that he knew about the money used in the cover-up, and also that he knew he was violating the law."
Mr. Biesecker reports that Mr. Edwards attorneys argued today that the prosecution had not proven their case and that they wanted the charges dropped. Judge Catherine C. Eagles refused to dismiss the charges and declared, "We will let the jury decide" guilt or innocence. Anne Blythe (McClatchy Newspapers) informs that the defense will begin presenting their case on Monday.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday,
May 11, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Republicans want to know
why a man who allegedlly killed 5 US service members has had his charges
dismissed by an Iraqi court, the political crisis continues with all
kinds of whispers about who might replace Nouri al-Maliki, the US State
Dept gets 'creative' in court, the numbers don't lie and the White House
has done nothing to help Iraqi refugees (that's ones who helped
American forces and all others as well), Martin Kobler attempts to
mislead therby shaming himself and the United Nations, violence has
claimed nearly 1400 lives in Iraq since the start of the year, and more.
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports,
"An Iraqi court has cleared a Lebanese militant once held by U.S.
forces in the deaths of five U.S. soldiers, saying there wasn't enough
evidence against him, an official with Iraq's judicial council told
CNN." His case is being appealed. He was in US custody as were others
said to be responsible for the 5 deaths. But the White House began
making deals for their release in 2009. From June 9, 2009:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
At the end of 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
At the end of 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:
He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.
This week, Jack Healy and Charlie Savage (New York Times) reported,
"Although military officials said he confessed freely and that his
interrogation had not included any harsh techniques, his statements to
American military interrogators would probably be deemed inadmissible in
Iraqi court. But the Obama administration had hoped that he would
instead face charges of illegally entering Iraq, a crime that could
result in a 10-year prison sentence." Law professor Robert Chesney offered Tuesday,
"But recall that the charge was expected to be no more than a claim
that Daqduq had been in the country illegally. In that case, it is very
hard to see how in the world there was not sufficient evidence to
support the prosecution. Unless of course he was not in the country
illegally after all. If the latter turns out to be the case, then it
raises a serious question about the due diligence performed at the time
of Daqduq's transfer to Iraqi custody, and helps me better appreciate
why McKeon's NDAA bill includes what I've called the Daqduq rule." The Wall St. Journal editorial board noted
yesterday that the illegal entry and other charges were tossed out by
the Iraqi court. The Republican Senators serving on the US Senate
Judiciary Committee registered their objection yesterday:
May 10, 2012
Via Electronic Transmission
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. The Honorable Leon Panetta
Attorney General Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Justice Department of Defense
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20301
Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Panetta:
According to a report in the New York Times on May 7, 2012, an Iraqi court has ordered the release of Ali Musa Daqduq. Daqduq is a senior Hezbollah field commander who allegedly orchestrated a kidnapping that resulted in the deaths of five U. S. soldiers in Karbala, Iraq in 2007. He also has close ties with Iran's Qods Force, including training its fighters in the use of improvised explosive devices (IED) and other insurgent tactics employed against U.S. troops. Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody until the United States turned him over to Iraqi authorities upon exiting Iraq in December 2011.
According to another report in the New York Times earlier this year, Daqduq has been charged with war crimes, including murder, terrorism, and espionage, before a U.S. military commission. However, those charges were not made public until the New York Times obtained a copy of the charging document. In fact, it appears that the Administration knew it was going to pursue charges against Daqduq, waited until he was released to Iraq, and then filed the charges, but failed to keep Congress apprised of its plans.
We have expressed a keen interest in Daqduq and in the Administration's plans for him. In May 2011, Attorney General Holder appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) and was specifically asked about prosecution plans for Daqduq. We followed up with a letter to Attorney General Holder on May 16, 2011, again expressing concerns about, and interest in, how the Administration was going to prosecute Daqduq. On July 29, 2011, another letter was sent to Secretary Panetta, seeking information about issues relating to Daqduq held by the Department of Defense. Finally, on August 8, 2011, the Department of Justice responded through a letter from Ronald Weich that indicated the "ultimate disposition of this matter is under consideration by an interagency process that includes . . . the Department of Justice."
Subsequently, Administration officials briefed Congress about Daqduq's imminent release into Iraqi custody. Yet, they never mentioned that the Administration was considering charges, which were filed approximately two weeks later. Eight pages of charges, surely involving classified materials or evidence, would require more than two weeks to review, organize, and approve. This appears to indicate that either the Administration was purposefully withholding information from Congress or it had not done the due diligence required to file charges in a serious case against a dangerous terrorist. Furthermore, in the future, when the Administration claims that it is aggressively pursuing Daqduq, it will sound disingenuous since we know that he was only charged after he was released to another country. If the Administration was serious in pursuing Daqduq, officials had many years when they could have brought charges against him, yet the Administration waited until he was not available to prosecute.
Now an Iraqi court has cleared Daqduq of any criminal charges under Iraqi law and, as we and many other observers had feared, may be set free without being held to account for his crimes against the United States and its soldiers. As it appears Daqduq is on the verge of escaping justice, we again ask for information about the Administration's plans for dealing with this situation.
Accordingly, provide the following information:
• A copy of the military commission charging document filed against Daqduq;
• A list of who was involved in this decision and who was the final decision-maker;
• An explanation of when, if at all, the families of his U.S. victims were consulted about his prosecution;
• An explanation of whether Daqduq has been notified of the U.S. charges against him;
• A description of which components in the Administration have been, currently are, or expect to be involved in the Daqduq matter;
• A description of efforts to have Daqduq transferred into U.S. custody after he was charged, including whether any formal extradition request was made to the Iraqi government;
• A description of any conditions (such as transfer to a civilian court) required by the Iraqi government for extraditing Daqduq and the U.S. response to those conditions;
• An explanation of where Daqduq is expected to be held, if he were transferred into U.S. custody;
• A description of charges against Daqduq from any other country of which the Administration is aware;
• A description of whether and how the Administration assisted in Daqduq's prosecution by the Iraqi government;
• An explanation of why briefers from the Administration failed to indicate that criminal charges were prepared but not presented to a military commission prior to turning Daqduq over to the Iraqi government.
• An assessment of why the Iraqi prosecution of Daqduq failed, including any problems with the Iraqi court's willingness or capability to consider valid evidence provided by the United States, such as forensic evidence and statements made while in U.S. custody;
• A description of options the Administration is considering for next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case; and,
• A description of Administration discussions with the Iraqi government about next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case.
Given the serious consequences that could result from Daqduq's release from Iraqi custody and the important issues raised regarding future decisions to turn over detainees to foreign governments, we appreciate your response no later than May 25, 2012.
Sincerely,
Via Electronic Transmission
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. The Honorable Leon Panetta
Attorney General Secretary of Defense
U.S. Department of Justice Department of Defense
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20301
Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Panetta:
According to a report in the New York Times on May 7, 2012, an Iraqi court has ordered the release of Ali Musa Daqduq. Daqduq is a senior Hezbollah field commander who allegedly orchestrated a kidnapping that resulted in the deaths of five U. S. soldiers in Karbala, Iraq in 2007. He also has close ties with Iran's Qods Force, including training its fighters in the use of improvised explosive devices (IED) and other insurgent tactics employed against U.S. troops. Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody until the United States turned him over to Iraqi authorities upon exiting Iraq in December 2011.
According to another report in the New York Times earlier this year, Daqduq has been charged with war crimes, including murder, terrorism, and espionage, before a U.S. military commission. However, those charges were not made public until the New York Times obtained a copy of the charging document. In fact, it appears that the Administration knew it was going to pursue charges against Daqduq, waited until he was released to Iraq, and then filed the charges, but failed to keep Congress apprised of its plans.
We have expressed a keen interest in Daqduq and in the Administration's plans for him. In May 2011, Attorney General Holder appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) and was specifically asked about prosecution plans for Daqduq. We followed up with a letter to Attorney General Holder on May 16, 2011, again expressing concerns about, and interest in, how the Administration was going to prosecute Daqduq. On July 29, 2011, another letter was sent to Secretary Panetta, seeking information about issues relating to Daqduq held by the Department of Defense. Finally, on August 8, 2011, the Department of Justice responded through a letter from Ronald Weich that indicated the "ultimate disposition of this matter is under consideration by an interagency process that includes . . . the Department of Justice."
Subsequently, Administration officials briefed Congress about Daqduq's imminent release into Iraqi custody. Yet, they never mentioned that the Administration was considering charges, which were filed approximately two weeks later. Eight pages of charges, surely involving classified materials or evidence, would require more than two weeks to review, organize, and approve. This appears to indicate that either the Administration was purposefully withholding information from Congress or it had not done the due diligence required to file charges in a serious case against a dangerous terrorist. Furthermore, in the future, when the Administration claims that it is aggressively pursuing Daqduq, it will sound disingenuous since we know that he was only charged after he was released to another country. If the Administration was serious in pursuing Daqduq, officials had many years when they could have brought charges against him, yet the Administration waited until he was not available to prosecute.
Now an Iraqi court has cleared Daqduq of any criminal charges under Iraqi law and, as we and many other observers had feared, may be set free without being held to account for his crimes against the United States and its soldiers. As it appears Daqduq is on the verge of escaping justice, we again ask for information about the Administration's plans for dealing with this situation.
Accordingly, provide the following information:
• A copy of the military commission charging document filed against Daqduq;
• A list of who was involved in this decision and who was the final decision-maker;
• An explanation of when, if at all, the families of his U.S. victims were consulted about his prosecution;
• An explanation of whether Daqduq has been notified of the U.S. charges against him;
• A description of which components in the Administration have been, currently are, or expect to be involved in the Daqduq matter;
• A description of efforts to have Daqduq transferred into U.S. custody after he was charged, including whether any formal extradition request was made to the Iraqi government;
• A description of any conditions (such as transfer to a civilian court) required by the Iraqi government for extraditing Daqduq and the U.S. response to those conditions;
• An explanation of where Daqduq is expected to be held, if he were transferred into U.S. custody;
• A description of charges against Daqduq from any other country of which the Administration is aware;
• A description of whether and how the Administration assisted in Daqduq's prosecution by the Iraqi government;
• An explanation of why briefers from the Administration failed to indicate that criminal charges were prepared but not presented to a military commission prior to turning Daqduq over to the Iraqi government.
• An assessment of why the Iraqi prosecution of Daqduq failed, including any problems with the Iraqi court's willingness or capability to consider valid evidence provided by the United States, such as forensic evidence and statements made while in U.S. custody;
• A description of options the Administration is considering for next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case; and,
• A description of Administration discussions with the Iraqi government about next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case.
Given the serious consequences that could result from Daqduq's release from Iraqi custody and the important issues raised regarding future decisions to turn over detainees to foreign governments, we appreciate your response no later than May 25, 2012.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
Orrin G. Hatch
Jon Kyl
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Micheal S. Lee
Tom Coburn
Now to the US Embassy in Baghdad.
Darrell Mueller
My
good friend and Interpreter for 12 months has been waiting over 13
months for the "administrative processing" to run it's course after his
interview in March of 2011 and I have been told by homeland security
that this "processing" has be...See More
1
Noor AlHassani dears who working at U.S. Embassy Baghdad pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee answer above question from @darrell mueller beacuse there are many people same case
It's
8 days since Mueller left the comment and you'll quickly notice that
the Embassy hasn't rushed to add a response. Near the end of last
month, Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) quoted
US Vice President Joe Biden's national security Adviser Antony Blinken
stating of Iraqis who had helped the US, "We owe these people. We have a
debt to these people. They put their lives on the line for the United
States." But Rubin pointed out, "Consider this: In 2008, Congress
mandated 25,000 special immigrant visas (known as SIVs) for Iraqis who
helped us over a period of five years; fewer than 4,500 have been
issued. According to State Department figures, 719 were granted in
fiscal 2011 and 569 during the first six months of fiscal 2012. No
breakthrough yet." And the situation is much worse when you look at all Iraqi refugees being admitted to the US.
These
figures cover Fiscal Years. October 1st 2008 was the start of Fiscal
Year 2009. So that year includes four months when Barack Obama is not
president (October, November, December and the bulk of January). Fiscal
Year 2009 saw the US admit a total of 18,838 Iraqis. Fiscal Year 2010
(October 2009 through September 2010) saw the US drop that number
slightly to 18,016. Fiscal Year 2011 saw an even more dramatic drop
with only 9,388 Iraqi refugees admitted to the US. So far in Fiscal
Year 2012, the US has admitted only 2,501 Iraqi refugees (that figure is
through March 31, 2012). While the number of Iraqis admitted has
dramtically decreased, the number of Iraqis being referred to the US
Refugee Admissions Program has not seen a corresponding dramatic
decrease. (2009 was the year with the highest number of Iraqis applying
for admission with 49,276; 2010 saw 46,472 and 2011 saw 39,878.)
The ongoing violence has created the refugee crisis. And it shows no signs of stopping. Alsumaria notes a Baghdad armed attack in which two security forces were injured and a Mosul
home invasion killed the son of a local council member with some saying
the armed assailants included the dead man's older brother -- also in
Nineveh a 1 guard was shot dead. Iraq
Body Count counts 12 killed in Iraq yesterday, 6 on Wednesday 5 on
Tuesday, 9 on Monday, 11 on Sunday and 2 on Saturday with 55 killed so
far this month.
The political crisis has become as consistent as the violence and both are now a part of daily life. Alsumaria reports
that Moqtada al-Sadr declared yesterday that the Parliament should be
dissolved and early elections held to address the crisis and that Nouri
was asserting himself as a dictator. Earlier (May 6th), MP Hassan
Sinead of Nouri's State of Law had also declared the Parliament should
be dissolved and new elections held. Al Mada adds that Iraqiya's Adnan al-Janabi has also declared that early elections should be held.
Meanwhile Alsumaria reprorts Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with the leader of the National Alliance, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, today and issued a statement saying that they identified problems and discussed appropriate solutions that could strenghten all parties and exclude any of the participants. The article notes that Iraq has seen the crisis grow from a split between State of Law on one side and Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada's bloc on the other and now involves all the players. Ibrahim al-Jaafari was discussed as a potential replacement for Nouri at the April 28th Erbil meet-up attended by Talabani, Moqtada, Ayad Allawi, KRG President Massoud Barzani and Speaker of Parlaiment Osama al-Nujaifi. Dar Addustour notes that an unnamed member of the National Alliance is denying that they are supporting Adel Abdul-Mahdi to be the next prime minister -- or that he or Baqir al-Jibrazubayda have the backing of Turkey or the US. Adel Abdul-Mahdi has long wanted to be prime minister and came close many times. He is a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. He was one of Iraq's two vice presidents during Nouri al-Maliki's first term -- Tareq al-Hashemi was the other. He and al-Hashemi were named vice presidents for a second term in November 2010. Later a third vice president was named. Iraq dropped back down to two vice presidents after the national protests and Nouri's promise to meet the demands and to address corruption in 100 days. When Nouri failed to do so, Adel Abudl-Mahdi announced he was resigning and cited the government's inability to address the needs of the people or the corruption.
Since December 21st, Talabani and al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to resolve the political crisis. Alsmuria reports the two men met today and discussed the latest developments in the political crisis "the country has witnessed for a long time." Nouri al-Maliki stalled on the national conference in January and February, throwing one road block up after another such as who would attend, who wouldn't, what it would be called, etc. In March, Nouri began stating that it couldn't be held that month because of the Arab League Summit at the end of March. Talabani declared that the national conference would be held April 5th and then Nouri began echoing that; however, April 4th it was announced that the conference was being called off.
Marwan Kabalan (Gulf News) offers this take on the political crisis:
Al Maliki may have strong political ambitions of his own, but his actions clearly align with Iran's strategic interest in consolidating Shiite control in Iraq. With Iran emerging as the most influential foreign power in Iraqi politics, Sunni Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, fear that Iran might just be about to reshape the political map of the region in its favour. This will force them to do whatever it takes to prevent this probability. Al Maliki's sectarian policies along with the increasing polarisation between the two banks of the Gulf -- Arab and Persian -- Iraq might very well slide back to a full-fledged civil war that would be incomparable with the 2006-2007conflict.
Al Mada quotes Kuristan Alliance MP Shawn Mohammed Taha stating that those who disagree with Nouri will quickly discover that there are charges against them and that Nouri intends to take out political rivals by having them arrested. Alsumaria reports on rumors swirling around Baghdad that the National Dialogue Front will be splitting from Iraqiya and joining Nouri's State of Law. Saleh al-Mutlaq is the leader of the National Dialogue Front. Yes, he is the Deputy Prime Minister (one of three) that Nouri's been trying to strip of his post after al-Mutlaq told CNN that Nouri was becoming a dictator.
Meanwhile Alsumaria reprorts Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with the leader of the National Alliance, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, today and issued a statement saying that they identified problems and discussed appropriate solutions that could strenghten all parties and exclude any of the participants. The article notes that Iraq has seen the crisis grow from a split between State of Law on one side and Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada's bloc on the other and now involves all the players. Ibrahim al-Jaafari was discussed as a potential replacement for Nouri at the April 28th Erbil meet-up attended by Talabani, Moqtada, Ayad Allawi, KRG President Massoud Barzani and Speaker of Parlaiment Osama al-Nujaifi. Dar Addustour notes that an unnamed member of the National Alliance is denying that they are supporting Adel Abdul-Mahdi to be the next prime minister -- or that he or Baqir al-Jibrazubayda have the backing of Turkey or the US. Adel Abdul-Mahdi has long wanted to be prime minister and came close many times. He is a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. He was one of Iraq's two vice presidents during Nouri al-Maliki's first term -- Tareq al-Hashemi was the other. He and al-Hashemi were named vice presidents for a second term in November 2010. Later a third vice president was named. Iraq dropped back down to two vice presidents after the national protests and Nouri's promise to meet the demands and to address corruption in 100 days. When Nouri failed to do so, Adel Abudl-Mahdi announced he was resigning and cited the government's inability to address the needs of the people or the corruption.
Since December 21st, Talabani and al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to resolve the political crisis. Alsmuria reports the two men met today and discussed the latest developments in the political crisis "the country has witnessed for a long time." Nouri al-Maliki stalled on the national conference in January and February, throwing one road block up after another such as who would attend, who wouldn't, what it would be called, etc. In March, Nouri began stating that it couldn't be held that month because of the Arab League Summit at the end of March. Talabani declared that the national conference would be held April 5th and then Nouri began echoing that; however, April 4th it was announced that the conference was being called off.
Marwan Kabalan (Gulf News) offers this take on the political crisis:
Al Maliki may have strong political ambitions of his own, but his actions clearly align with Iran's strategic interest in consolidating Shiite control in Iraq. With Iran emerging as the most influential foreign power in Iraqi politics, Sunni Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, fear that Iran might just be about to reshape the political map of the region in its favour. This will force them to do whatever it takes to prevent this probability. Al Maliki's sectarian policies along with the increasing polarisation between the two banks of the Gulf -- Arab and Persian -- Iraq might very well slide back to a full-fledged civil war that would be incomparable with the 2006-2007conflict.
Al Mada quotes Kuristan Alliance MP Shawn Mohammed Taha stating that those who disagree with Nouri will quickly discover that there are charges against them and that Nouri intends to take out political rivals by having them arrested. Alsumaria reports on rumors swirling around Baghdad that the National Dialogue Front will be splitting from Iraqiya and joining Nouri's State of Law. Saleh al-Mutlaq is the leader of the National Dialogue Front. Yes, he is the Deputy Prime Minister (one of three) that Nouri's been trying to strip of his post after al-Mutlaq told CNN that Nouri was becoming a dictator.
Saturday the US State Dept issued the following statement :
Today,
the fifth convoy of approximately 400 Camp Ashraf residents safely
arrived at Camp Hurriya. The United States welcomes the continued
cooperation of the Government of Iraq and the residents of Camp Ashraf
with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq to complete the
relocation process, as set forth in the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the United Nations and the Government of
Iraq. The United States appreciates the extensive resources expended by
the Government of Iraq to provide for the residents' safe relocation,
and calls for continued adherence to the commitments in the MOU,
especially those which provide for the safety, security, and
humanitarian treatment of the residents.
With
over half of the initial resident population now relocated to Camp
Hurriya, the United States will be able to increase its focus on the
safe relocation of the residents from Camp Hurriya out of Iraq. We join
the call of the United Nations to member states to assist in the
permanent relocation of eligible residents from Iraq.
To
do its part, the United States has informed the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other governments that we are
willing to consider referrals of some individuals from the UNHCR. These
referrals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, consistent with
applicable U.S. law. We urge our friends and partners in the
international community to step forward and help achieve a humanitarian
resolution.
Camp Ashraf
is a place where Iranian dissidents set up shop -- with the Iraqi
government's permission -- long before the 2003 US-invasion. When the
US invaded, they gave protected persons status to the residents. But
that's meant nothing since Barack Obama was sworn in as US president
because Nouri's forces have twice launched major attacks on Camp
Ashraf. Residents who would like to leave Iraq have had to deal with
the fact that the US government has classified them as terrorists. That
classification makes it very difficult for countries to admit Camp
Ashraf residents. The status is one that a US federal court has ordered
the State Dept to review . . . two years ago. Ken Maginnis sits in the United Kingdom's House of Lords and, at Huffington Post UK, he reports today:
This
week, at a federal court hearing about the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, we
witnessed the State Department turn Justice on its head. Despite the
public testimony of their own military commanders it was prepared to
employ a brazen and blatant lie in order to keep the MEK listed as a
foreign terror group (FTO).
Throughout the
hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Robert Loeb,
the lawyer who represented Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton,
referred to the dissidents' home at Camp Ashraf as a "paramilitary
base". He went further by saying the U.S. government has no way of
knowing that the MEK is not a terror group since its members have never
allowed a thorough inspection of the 15-square-mile Camp Ashraf. "They say that they have turned over a new leaf, but that has never been verified by the US military," Mr Loeb said.
This
claim is so far from the truth that it undermines the very concept of
Justice. That because, sitting in the very courtroom were at least two
US military chiefs who had done exactly that - inspected Camp Ashraf,
searched it with a fine tooth comb, and concluded that its people were
not terrorists.
Brig. Gen. David Phillips
and Col. Wesley Martin, who took charge of Ashraf after the US invasion
of Iraq in 2003, could only look at each other in disbelief.
Does the US government ever get charged with perjury these days? CNN adds:
Viet
Dinh, a former Justice Department lawyer representing the MEK, said the
group no longer poses a military threat because the U.S. Army
peacefully disarmed the group after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The U.S.
government treated MEK members as protected people under international
law until the U.S. turned over responsibility to the Iraqi government.
Dinh
told the court the State Department's delay in making a decision is a
violation of MEK's due process rights, and liberties granted under the
U.S. Constitution.
"The
secretary has recognized (MEK's) renunciation of violence and is
legally bound to delist the organization," Dinh wrote in a filing in
February." She cannot pocket veto (MEK's) application for revocation of
its terrorist status."
The
MEK enjoys the support of prominent high-ranking officials from past
Democratic and Republican administrations who speak out against the
group's continued presence on the terror list.
And
Democratic and Republican members of Congress also speak out against
the continued classification of Camp Ashraf residents as terrorists --
this includes the entire Senate Armed Service Committee. Ashish Kumar Sen (Washington Times) maintains,
"Mrs. Clinton will decide on removing the MEK from the list no later
than 60 days after Camp Ashraf has been vacated, and data gathered from
the relocation has been studied to verify the group's claims that it is
not a terror group, Mr. Loeb said." However, that's not accurate. The
sixty days is a projection, it's not a promise and Loeb stated in court
that information may result from a search of the then-empty Camp Ashraf
that could delay any decision by Hillary on the issue beyond the 60
days. How far beyond the sixty days? Loeb didn't have specific
numbers. This is among the reasons Dinh made the argument that the
residents want a decision even if it's a decision against them because
they can appeal that. The limbo status that they've been in for two
years now is something very different. Today the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy in Iraq Martin Kobler declared,
"The main challenge will be to find resettlement countries -- third
countries where those people who are then recognized as refugees can
re-locate."
Kobler also attempted to spin the
violence today insisting 600 people died this year. Pay a little
closer attention and you realize he's just talking about Baghdad. Since
the UN's supposedly concerned with all of Iraq, Kobler's little stunt
is pretty offensive. Iraq Body Count
not only notes 55 dead so far this month, they noted 290 dead for the
month of April, 295 for the month of March, 278 for the month of
February and 458 for the month of January. That's 1376 reported deaths
from violence in Iraq since the start of the year. That's twice as many
as "600." Again, Kobler was being deliberately misleading. When the
United Nations whores what people remember are the rapes by UN peace
keepers (many, many times, but try these two who raped a 14-year-old boy in Haiti), the times the UN did nothing while countries were attacked (Iraq for starters -- and then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the Iraq War illegal) and
so much more. Kobler didn't just make himself into a cheap whore with
that little stunt, he reminded everyone of just how flawed -- some would
say criminal -- the United Nations can be. A far more realistic
picture on the continued violence came not from Kobler but from
a business decision. Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) reports, "Mobile
phone operator Asiacell has closed its offices in the Iraqi city of
Mosul, an al Qaeda stronghold, after attacks and threats by militants,
security officials and employees said this week."
Now no more smiling mid-crestfall
No more managing unmanageables
No more holding still in the hailstorm
Now enter your watchwoman
-- "Guardian," written by Alanis Morissette, from her Havoc and Bright Lights
due out August 28th; "Guardian" is available for download this Tuesday
and she'll be performing it Tuesday night on ABC's Dancing With The
Stars.
I had hoped to include some of US
House Rep Timothy Waltz's questions from Tuesday's hearing. We may do
that in a snapshot early next week. But veterans and family members of
veterans in this community asked if we could include all of the points
(from this morning) regarding the issue of the Veterans Administration's
huge backlog. Mattihias Gafni (Contra Costa Times via Stars and Stripes) reports:
Veterans wait nearly a year on average for their disability claims to get processed at the Oakland, Calif., regional center, according to a highly critical federal report released Thursday, leading one congressman to call the facility a bureaucratic "black hole."The Oakland office, which processes benefits claims for veterans from Bakersfield, Calif., north to the Oregon border, had almost 32,500 claims pending an average of 269 days - 89 days longer than the national target time - when the Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general visited in December. As of April, the wait for veterans had increased to 320 average days pending.
This is not the wait time issue that the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on April 25th or that the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on this week. The issue here is the VA claims processing and the VA's offered tons and tons of excuses over the last years. They've told Congress it had to do with equipment issues (computers and computer programs -- "IT" problems, that was an especially popular excuse in 2009) and staffing. In the last years, they've repeatedly insisted that hiring more people wouldn't actually help them because new hires would require training and that would create further delays. For that argument to be valid, the only ones who can train new claims processors are those people who are claims processors. Apparently supervisors don't know how to do the job that those they supervise do.
In addition to the claim, the VA's also had to note that production has become an issue. They have more claims processors than they did in 2005 but the larger number of personnel has coincided with a decrease in the number of claims processed. So while personnel has increased, productivity has decreased. And before you think this is because of new veterans being created by today's wars, that's not the case. Some of these claims have lingered and lingered. For one example, let's drop back to a February 28th House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing:
Ranking Member Bob Filner: We got several hundred thousand claims for Agent Orange in our backlog. How long have they been fighting it? Thirty, forty years. People get sicker fighting the bureaucracy than they did with the Agent Orange. So you know what we ought to do -- aside from greatly expanding eligibility to boots on the ground, to the blue waters, to the blue skies and Thailand and Cambodia and Laos and Guam? We ought to honor those Agent Orange claims today. You know, let's give people the peace that they deserve. Let's give you finally some closure here. And, you know, they're telling us, "It costs too much." I don't know if it's a billion dollars or two billion dollars. I don't care what it is frankly. You don't think we owe it to you? We owe it to you.
Among the Congress members calling out the backlog for years now are US House Rep Bob Filner, Senator Patty Murray (Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), Senator Richard Burr (Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), Daniel Akaka (former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee) and US House Rep Phil Roe. They have consistently attempted to make sense of this problem and why it is just not dealt with year after year. We're dropping back to a February 15th House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing when VA Secretary Eric Shinseki offered testimony.
Veterans wait nearly a year on average for their disability claims to get processed at the Oakland, Calif., regional center, according to a highly critical federal report released Thursday, leading one congressman to call the facility a bureaucratic "black hole."The Oakland office, which processes benefits claims for veterans from Bakersfield, Calif., north to the Oregon border, had almost 32,500 claims pending an average of 269 days - 89 days longer than the national target time - when the Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general visited in December. As of April, the wait for veterans had increased to 320 average days pending.
This is not the wait time issue that the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on April 25th or that the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on this week. The issue here is the VA claims processing and the VA's offered tons and tons of excuses over the last years. They've told Congress it had to do with equipment issues (computers and computer programs -- "IT" problems, that was an especially popular excuse in 2009) and staffing. In the last years, they've repeatedly insisted that hiring more people wouldn't actually help them because new hires would require training and that would create further delays. For that argument to be valid, the only ones who can train new claims processors are those people who are claims processors. Apparently supervisors don't know how to do the job that those they supervise do.
In addition to the claim, the VA's also had to note that production has become an issue. They have more claims processors than they did in 2005 but the larger number of personnel has coincided with a decrease in the number of claims processed. So while personnel has increased, productivity has decreased. And before you think this is because of new veterans being created by today's wars, that's not the case. Some of these claims have lingered and lingered. For one example, let's drop back to a February 28th House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing:
Ranking Member Bob Filner: We got several hundred thousand claims for Agent Orange in our backlog. How long have they been fighting it? Thirty, forty years. People get sicker fighting the bureaucracy than they did with the Agent Orange. So you know what we ought to do -- aside from greatly expanding eligibility to boots on the ground, to the blue waters, to the blue skies and Thailand and Cambodia and Laos and Guam? We ought to honor those Agent Orange claims today. You know, let's give people the peace that they deserve. Let's give you finally some closure here. And, you know, they're telling us, "It costs too much." I don't know if it's a billion dollars or two billion dollars. I don't care what it is frankly. You don't think we owe it to you? We owe it to you.
Among the Congress members calling out the backlog for years now are US House Rep Bob Filner, Senator Patty Murray (Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), Senator Richard Burr (Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee), Daniel Akaka (former Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee) and US House Rep Phil Roe. They have consistently attempted to make sense of this problem and why it is just not dealt with year after year. We're dropping back to a February 15th House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing when VA Secretary Eric Shinseki offered testimony.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: And I just want to ask a couple -- focus on a couple
areas that I've been involved with over the years. One is the claims
backlog. In your budget presentation ou title it "Eliminate The Claims
Backlog." But I don't see any real estimate or projection or anything of
when you think you're going to do that but I still think that -- in the
short run, at least -- to get this turned around your notion of -- I
think you used the word "brute force" a few years ago, if I recall that.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: It was probably a poor choice of words.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: No, it's okay. It was good. Gives me something to shoot at, you know? I don't think it's going to work. I just think all this stuff you have is good stuff but it's too big and, as you point out, there's all kind of factors making it bigger. I still think you have to take some, I'll say, radical step in the short run -- whether it's to grant all the Agent Orange claims that have been submitted or have been there for X number of years or, as I've suggested at other times, all claims that have the medical information in it and have been submitted with the help of a Veterans Service Officer you accept subject to audit. That is, unless you take some real radical step to eliminate a million of them or 500,000 of them, you're never going to get there. It's going to always be there. You don't want that as your legacy -- I don't think. So -- Nor do we. I think you're going to have to take some really strong steps in terms of accepting stuff that's been in the pipeline a long time, again, that has adequate -- by whatever definition -- documentation and help from professional support. Plus this incredible situation of Agent Orange where, as you know, not only have those claims increaded but we're talking about -- as you well know -- your comrades for thirty or more years that have been wrestling with this. Let's give the Vietnam vets some peace. Let's give them a real welcome home. Let's grant those Agent Orange claims. Let's get those -- whatever it is, 100,000 or 200,000 of our backlog -- just get them off the books. I don't know if you want to comment on that but I still think you're never going to get there with -- All this is good stuff. We've talked about it on many occasions. But it's not going to fundamentally -- or at least in the short run change it around so you can get to a base level of zero or whatever you want to be and move forward from there.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Mr. Filner, I'll call on Secretary Hickey for the final details but we've pretty much worked through the Agent Orange -- the increase in Agent Orange claims. I think we're well down on the numbers. I'll rely on her statistic here.
And, of course, despite that claim, the numbers weren't down and that's why, weeks later (as we noted in the first Congressional excerpt), US House Rep Filner would be bringing up the issue of claims processing regarding Agent Orange again.
Here's something to consider: What if service members were as slow to process orders from command as the VA is to process the claims of veterans?
On the issue of wait time and mental health care, the editorial board of Florida's TCPalm.com concludes, "The VA must do a better job than it has been doing in dealing with the very real mental health needs of those who have given so much to this country." That's true of the wait time and it's also true of the claims processing.
Lastly,
the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (Senator Patty Murray is the
Chair, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member) announces that a
hearing scheduled for May 16th has been re-scheduled for May 23rd.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
United States Senate
112th Congress, Second Session
Hearing Schedule
Update: May 11, 2012
*Wednesday, May 23, 2012 10am Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 562
Hearing: Seamless Transition: Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System
*NOTE: This hearing has been rescheduled from its originally announced date of May 16, 2012.
Matthew T. Lawrence
Chief Clerk / System Administrator
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
202-224-9126
