In
terms of legal analysis during the last few years, Professor Jonathan
Turley is one of the few whose work actually holds up. This is him covering the Inspector General's report on the investigation into candidate Donald Trump:
The
source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging
information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had
no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling
other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department,
but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without
correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by
investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page
was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer
doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working
for us and not the Russians.
Despite
this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only
that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation,
and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of
evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to
support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller
also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy
allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and
members of Congress.
In
other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not
to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic,
the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia
investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively
suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its
FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe,
plowed ahead into the darkness.
They
destroyed lives. General Michael Flynn, for example, was railroaded
and the feds threatened the general's son to make the general agree to a
plea agreement. Mr. Flynn is innocent. They were out of control and
they were also out of bounds. This should never have happened and it
must never happen again. What President Donald Trump is being accused
of regarding Joe Biden is what was actually done to him -- with
then-President Barack Obama's knowledge, we now know.
With
the authority and encouragement from the President of the United
States, a fraudulent investigation into a 2016 candidate for president
was launched. This was about destroying that candidate. I believe Mr.
Obama needs to be impeached. He was in the loop. He knew what was
going on. He took great pains to portray himself as a Constitutional
law expert back in 2008. I do not believe he was that which is why I
word it the way I do. He was an attorney, however, and he knew the
law. He knew what he was doing. He betrayed democracy, he betrayed the
country. This is not minor. Nor is this anything I write with glee. I
truly wanted President Obama to be innocent of this. I wanted this to
be something done without his knowledge -- maybe the work of an overly
ambitious underling -- Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, etc.
I
am not an idiot like Gloria Steinem. Meaning, as a U.S. citizen,
Barack Obama was my president. He was my president and I wanted to
believe that he would never do something so underhanded and such an
attack on democracy. I feel sorry for him today because this is his
legacy. History will remember him as the sitting president who turned
the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. loose on a political rival. That is the sort
of thing we expect from corrupt men like Richard Nixon. Sadly, we must
now add the name Barack Obama to that list. I really did believe, in
1975, that we would never again see anything like Mr. Nixon again. I
was wrong.
Up until now, Obama has said he knew nothing about the FBI bid to destroy his political rival. Now, that claim is in tatters.
Why would Obama lie about it? Someone’s in deep.
Why would Obama lie about it? Someone’s in deep.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
I wrote about Morning Joe, Steve Schmidt, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, which candidates get tagged as dishonest, which ones get anointed as straight-talkers and how it doesn’t actually correspond to their truth-telling history:
At THE CUT, she offers:
While the media was nailing Elizabeth Warren to the cross, they were giving many other candidates a pass. Here's Rebecca on how Joe got waived through without questioning:
We included Tiny Pete. The whole column has to be read.
In Iraq, the protests continue.
Discussing #Iraq protests (32 mins 30 sec in): youtube.com/watch?v=AHA7kw…
#GCC #Baghdad #Arabspring #Adelabdulalmahdi @indusdotnews @ayza_omar
About an hour after gunmen began attacking a protest encampment in Iraq’s capital at the weekend, Mustafa — who had slept there for weeks — went offline.
As protests in Iraq enter their 3rd month, the numbers of arrests, abductions & killings of protesters continue to rise.
Security forces should be protecting the demonstrators.
Instead, some security forces are the ones doing the killing.
bit.ly/2EcT3pM
Human Rights Watch's Belkis Wille writes:
As protests in Iraq enter their third month, the numbers of arrests, abductions, and killings of protesters continue to rise. But instead of protecting the demonstrators mostly peacefully protesting on Iraq’s streets, some security forces are the ones attacking and killing them. Prime Minister Adil Abd Al-Mahdi had promised in a letter to Human Rights Watch that security forces would no longer use live ammunition against protesters, before announcing his own resignation on November 29. But killings and abductions of protesters have continued.
Since the beginning of these protests, Human Rights Watch has also documented unidentified armed men attacking protesters while the state security forces apparently stand by. Last week alone, these unidentified actors abducted one protester in Baghdad and opened fire on another in Karbala, killing him.
Early on December 6, Zaid Mohammed Abd Ali, 23, a photographer who attended the protests daily in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, was abducted from outside his house, his brother said. The family’s CCTV camera footage from that morning shows four men, one with a gun, get out of a car and grab Ali as he was arriving home. They hit him, put him in the car, and drove away. The family went straight to the police, but officers said they needed to wait 24 hours after the incident before they could open a missing persons complaint. The police opened a complaint the next day and told Ali’s family they are reviewing the CCTV footage but have provided no other information on their supposed investigation.
On December 8, a gunman on the back of a motorcycle shot and killed Fahem al-Tai, 53, a protester in Karbala. Timestamped footage from a street camera showed the entire attack unfold. Human Rights Watch reviewed the footage and spoke to a friend who was with al-Tai at the time of the attack. He said the police had not yet contacted him, despite his presence at the scene.
Reports emerged on December 11 of another two activists – one a well-known environmentalist – who have gone missing.
The Iraqi government needs to start protecting its citizens, by ending its own security force’s unlawful violence against protesters, and taking effective action against the groups now attacking them. This means taking urgent action to find anyone abducted by these groups, and arresting and prosecuting anyone responsible for murder and other crimes. Otherwise, the death toll will continue to climb, and Iraq’s next prime minister and cabinet will face a Herculean task in restoring the rule of law.
The following sites updated:
Thursday, December 12, 2019. As protests continue in Iraq, no one does
more damage to Joe Biden's campaign than . . . Joe Biden.
Starting in the US where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues and where gaffe prone Joe Biden continues to destroy his own campaign.
What are we talking about?
Ryan Lizza (POLITICO) reported yesterday:
So, follow this, we're going through a bruising primary season and it's so Joe can serve for one term? As the report resulted in various negative reactions, Joe's campaign attempted to dismiss the rumor. THE WEEK notes:
His deputy campaign manager and communications director, Kate Bedingfield, responded to the report by saying "this is not a conversation our campaign is having and not something VP Biden is thinking about."
[Senator Chris] Coons, who has endorsed Biden, also responded by saying "just the opposite" is true and that Biden "has made it clear to me that he is ready and able and willing to serve two terms if necessary," per CBS News' Alan He.
Coons shares pillow talk but it does nothing to end the talk. So Joe himself was sent out to speak. David Gardner (EVENING STANDARD) quotes Joe stating, "I don’t have plans on one term." Igor Derysh (SALON) points out Joe "told The Associated Press in October that he would also not commit to running for a second term." William Goldschlag and Dan Janison (NEWSDAY) observe, "There's a strong argument against any presidential candidate saying such a thing out loud. A new president who said four years but no more would be a lame duck on Day One, instantly hemorrhaging the political capital to pursue an agenda." Jordan Weissmann (SLATE) argues:
It's not a good day to be Joe Biden -- but is there ever a good day to be Joe? An October AP-NORC poll found a 69 percent majority of Americans said it was 'inappropriate' for Hunter Biden to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president." Wootson also notes that Joe attempted to defend Hunter's actions in an interview by insisting, "Look, the American public knows me."
Do they? Keith Griffith (DAILY MAIL) notes:
And yet some self-appointed 'spokerwomen' vouch for Joe on behalf of other women. Speak for yourself and stop trying to act as though you're leading a movement. Joe's treatment of Anita Hill is just the tip of the iceberg on a long anti-woman bias.
Joe as president means the world will be in a lot worse shape after four years of Biden. Jake Johnson (COMMON DREAMS) explains:
Former Vice President Joe Biden must ditch his industry-friendly, "middle-of-the-road" climate policy in favor of an agenda that completely rejects fossil fuels if he wishes to be taken seriously as an environmental leader in the 2020 Democratic presidential race.
That's the message of a petition launched Wednesday by 350 Action. The group charges Biden's centrist approach to the climate emergency "won't cut it anymore" and demands that he "do better."
"Vice President Joe Biden has dragged his feet in responding to the urgency of the climate and environmental crises across the country," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350 Action's North America director, said in a statement. "Stunningly, we've watched a strident Biden attend fundraisers hosted by fossil fuel power brokers and rub shoulders with dirty fuel magnates."
O'Laughlin said Biden's climate plan, which leaves the door open to new fossil fuel development, pales in comparison to the sweeping environmental platforms of leading 2020 contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
350 Action's climate scorecard gives Biden "unknowns" on two of its three criteria: Support for the Green New Deal and opposition to fossil fuel drilling. The group also noted that Biden "has supported demonstrably false solutions like 'carbon capture.'"
"The other 2020 frontrunners, Senators Sanders and Warren, have plans for the people," said O'Laughlin. "They have pursued the gold standard of climate leadership with real commitment to make polluters pay for a just transition and the Green New Deal. We deserve better than Joe Biden's silence in the face of crisis."
Norman Solomon (COMMON DREAMS) surveys the field of candidates and explains:
From three different vectors, the oligarchy is on the march to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Pete Buttigieg has made big gains. A timeworn ally of corporate power, Joe Biden, is on a campaign for his last hurrah. And Michael Bloomberg is swooping down from plutocratic heights.
Those three men are a team of rivals—each fiercely competitive for an individual triumph, yet arrayed against common ideological foes named Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The obvious differences between Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg are apt to distract from their underlying political similarities. Fundamentally, they’re all aligned with the nation’s economic power structure—two as corporate servants, one as a corporate master.
For Buttigieg, the gaps between current rhetoric and career realities are now gaping. On Tuesday, hours after the collapse of the “nondisclosure agreement” that had concealed key information about his work for McKinsey & Company, the New York Times concluded that “the most politically troubling element of his client list” might be what he did a dozen years ago for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan—“a health care firm that at the time was in the process of reducing its work force.”
The newspaper reported that “his work appeared to come at about the same time the insurer announced that it would cut up to 1,000 jobs—or nearly 10 percent of its work force—and request rate increases.”
This year, Buttigieg’s vaguely progressive rhetoric has become more and more unreliable, most notably with his U-turn away from supporting Medicare for All. Meanwhile, wealthy donors have flocked to him. Forbes reports that 39 billionaires have donated to the Buttigieg campaign, thus providing ultra-elite seals of approval. (Meanwhile, Biden has 44 billionaire donors and Warren has six. Forbes couldn’t find any billionaires who’ve donated to Sanders; he did receive one contribution from a billionaire’s spouse—though that donation was later returned.)
Not surprisingly, the political orientations of the leading candidates match up with the spread of average donations. The latest figures reflect candidates’ proximity to the class interests of donors, with wealthier ones naturally tending to give more sizable amounts. Nearly two-thirds (64.9 percent) of Biden’s donations were upwards of $200 each, while such donations accounted for a bit more than half (52.5 percent) of the contributions to Buttigieg. Compare those numbers to 29.6 percent for Elizabeth Warren and 24.9 percent for Bernie Sanders.
Rebecca Traister surveys the media landscape for how it portrays the candidates.
Starting in the US where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues and where gaffe prone Joe Biden continues to destroy his own campaign.
What are we talking about?
Ryan Lizza (POLITICO) reported yesterday:
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top
advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have
recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly
pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides
that he will serve only a single term.
While the option of making a public
pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative
strategy: quietly indicate that he will almost certainly not run for a
second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers
fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political
capital.
So, follow this, we're going through a bruising primary season and it's so Joe can serve for one term? As the report resulted in various negative reactions, Joe's campaign attempted to dismiss the rumor. THE WEEK notes:
His deputy campaign manager and communications director, Kate Bedingfield, responded to the report by saying "this is not a conversation our campaign is having and not something VP Biden is thinking about."
[Senator Chris] Coons, who has endorsed Biden, also responded by saying "just the opposite" is true and that Biden "has made it clear to me that he is ready and able and willing to serve two terms if necessary," per CBS News' Alan He.
Coons shares pillow talk but it does nothing to end the talk. So Joe himself was sent out to speak. David Gardner (EVENING STANDARD) quotes Joe stating, "I don’t have plans on one term." Igor Derysh (SALON) points out Joe "told The Associated Press in October that he would also not commit to running for a second term." William Goldschlag and Dan Janison (NEWSDAY) observe, "There's a strong argument against any presidential candidate saying such a thing out loud. A new president who said four years but no more would be a lame duck on Day One, instantly hemorrhaging the political capital to pursue an agenda." Jordan Weissmann (SLATE) argues:
For starters, if Biden thinks there’s a chance he simply won’t
be able to handle the job in five or six years, he should realize
there’s a chance he won’t be able to do it in two or three either. Being
president is hard; it tends to age politicians rapidly, and Biden
shouldn’t gamble on his ability to fill the role.
But beyond all that, serving as a one-term president will
vastly diminish his powers in office and possibly set back Democratic
policy priorities. It’s not a fix for anything.
One of the most important parts about being a first-term president is
running for reelection. It gives you leverage over your party on Capitol
Hill, since lawmakers want to help you nab that second term or at least
don’t want to piss off primary voters by denying you legislative wins
and undermining your chances. Plus, you can do more in eight years than
four. You get more time to appoint judges. You can implement legislation
that takes a while to get up and running. (The Affordable Care Act’s
exchanges didn’t even start selling insurance until Obama’s second
go-round.) And even if the opposition takes over Congress, you can still
use the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to push change.
(Donald Trump, for instance, is cutting food stamps at the moment by
administrative fiat.) It's not a good day to be Joe Biden -- but is there ever a good day to be Joe? An October AP-NORC poll found a 69 percent majority of Americans said it was 'inappropriate' for Hunter Biden to serve on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president." Wootson also notes that Joe attempted to defend Hunter's actions in an interview by insisting, "Look, the American public knows me."
Do they? Keith Griffith (DAILY MAIL) notes:
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden paid his female staffers less on average than men over several decades, a new analysis finds.
In
his 35 years in the Senate, Biden paid full-time female staffers on
average just 67 cents for every dollar earned by their male
counterparts, according to an analysis of Senate records by the Washington Free Beacon.
The
biggest gap came in 1983 and 1984, when women in Biden's Senate office
made less than half of what men made, on average — just 44 cents on the
dollar.
A spokesperson for Biden's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from DailyMail.com.
And yet some self-appointed 'spokerwomen' vouch for Joe on behalf of other women. Speak for yourself and stop trying to act as though you're leading a movement. Joe's treatment of Anita Hill is just the tip of the iceberg on a long anti-woman bias.
Joe as president means the world will be in a lot worse shape after four years of Biden. Jake Johnson (COMMON DREAMS) explains:
Former Vice President Joe Biden must ditch his industry-friendly, "middle-of-the-road" climate policy in favor of an agenda that completely rejects fossil fuels if he wishes to be taken seriously as an environmental leader in the 2020 Democratic presidential race.
That's the message of a petition launched Wednesday by 350 Action. The group charges Biden's centrist approach to the climate emergency "won't cut it anymore" and demands that he "do better."
"Vice President Joe Biden has dragged his feet in responding to the urgency of the climate and environmental crises across the country," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, 350 Action's North America director, said in a statement. "Stunningly, we've watched a strident Biden attend fundraisers hosted by fossil fuel power brokers and rub shoulders with dirty fuel magnates."
O'Laughlin said Biden's climate plan, which leaves the door open to new fossil fuel development, pales in comparison to the sweeping environmental platforms of leading 2020 contenders Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
350 Action's climate scorecard gives Biden "unknowns" on two of its three criteria: Support for the Green New Deal and opposition to fossil fuel drilling. The group also noted that Biden "has supported demonstrably false solutions like 'carbon capture.'"
"The other 2020 frontrunners, Senators Sanders and Warren, have plans for the people," said O'Laughlin. "They have pursued the gold standard of climate leadership with real commitment to make polluters pay for a just transition and the Green New Deal. We deserve better than Joe Biden's silence in the face of crisis."
Norman Solomon (COMMON DREAMS) surveys the field of candidates and explains:
From three different vectors, the oligarchy is on the march to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. Pete Buttigieg has made big gains. A timeworn ally of corporate power, Joe Biden, is on a campaign for his last hurrah. And Michael Bloomberg is swooping down from plutocratic heights.
Those three men are a team of rivals—each fiercely competitive for an individual triumph, yet arrayed against common ideological foes named Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The obvious differences between Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg are apt to distract from their underlying political similarities. Fundamentally, they’re all aligned with the nation’s economic power structure—two as corporate servants, one as a corporate master.
For Buttigieg, the gaps between current rhetoric and career realities are now gaping. On Tuesday, hours after the collapse of the “nondisclosure agreement” that had concealed key information about his work for McKinsey & Company, the New York Times concluded that “the most politically troubling element of his client list” might be what he did a dozen years ago for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan—“a health care firm that at the time was in the process of reducing its work force.”
The newspaper reported that “his work appeared to come at about the same time the insurer announced that it would cut up to 1,000 jobs—or nearly 10 percent of its work force—and request rate increases.”
This year, Buttigieg’s vaguely progressive rhetoric has become more and more unreliable, most notably with his U-turn away from supporting Medicare for All. Meanwhile, wealthy donors have flocked to him. Forbes reports that 39 billionaires have donated to the Buttigieg campaign, thus providing ultra-elite seals of approval. (Meanwhile, Biden has 44 billionaire donors and Warren has six. Forbes couldn’t find any billionaires who’ve donated to Sanders; he did receive one contribution from a billionaire’s spouse—though that donation was later returned.)
Not surprisingly, the political orientations of the leading candidates match up with the spread of average donations. The latest figures reflect candidates’ proximity to the class interests of donors, with wealthier ones naturally tending to give more sizable amounts. Nearly two-thirds (64.9 percent) of Biden’s donations were upwards of $200 each, while such donations accounted for a bit more than half (52.5 percent) of the contributions to Buttigieg. Compare those numbers to 29.6 percent for Elizabeth Warren and 24.9 percent for Bernie Sanders.
Rebecca Traister surveys the media landscape for how it portrays the candidates.
I wrote about Morning Joe, Steve Schmidt, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, which candidates get tagged as dishonest, which ones get anointed as straight-talkers and how it doesn’t actually correspond to their truth-telling history:
At THE CUT, she offers:
The week before the last Democratic primary debate of 2019, a panel of pundits on MSNBC’s Morning Joe
gathered to make an explicit critique of one of the candidates. Citing a
“whiff of fraudulence,” political writer John Heilemann talked with
host Joe Scarborough, former Missouri senator Claire McCaskill, and
former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt about the perception that
there’s something dishonest and untrustworthy about Massachusetts
senator Elizabeth Warren.
“Is
this woman who she says she is?” asked Heilemann, citing controversies
over her claims of Native American heritage, her consulting work on
bankruptcy, and her recent assertion that her children attended public
schools when in fact her younger son Alex also was enrolled in private
schools, as not being about those issues, but rather reflecting the
larger concern of voters: “Is she a phony? Is she a fraud?”
“I’m not saying she’s any of those things!” Heilemann made sure to say.
Then
came Schmidt, who said those things. Claiming that Warren has a
“tremendous talent for self-righteousness and hypocrisy,” Schmidt said
that “over and over again she has misrepresented herself” and argued
that he was just telling hard truths: “Why is it that Elizabeth Warren
checked the box as a Native American on the Harvard Law School
application? I know why she checked the box; she was trying to game the
system.”
In fact, extensive reporting
has shown that Warren did not identify as Native American through the
hiring process at Harvard, though the law school, then under sharp
criticism for not hiring women of color, later claimed her as one.
There
are extremely valid criticisms to be made around Warren’s handling of
her past claims of Native American ancestry; none of them are about
whether she was qualified to teach at Harvard Law School on the merits.
But the most compelling thing about the Morning Joe critique
wasn’t the bevy of specific charges against Warren, some of which were
false and some of which, including her answer on her son’s schooling,
are rooted in real unforced errors. Warren, like scores of presidential
candidates before her and alongside her, has a decent but imperfect
record of accuracy when it comes to how she’s told her own story.
What’s
really fascinating is whose imperfect record gets cast as fatally phony
and whose does not — to whom perceptions of untrustworthiness stick and
to whom they do not and to what end. Who gets called to correct the
record and who permits lies to get repeated? It’s not always just the
candidates.
While the media was nailing Elizabeth Warren to the cross, they were giving many other candidates a pass. Here's Rebecca on how Joe got waived through without questioning:
Take Joe Biden, who left the 1988 Democratic primary after being charged with plagiarism both on the campaign trail and back in law school,
as well as with inflating his own academic record: Biden had claimed to
have graduated in the top half of his law-school class, when in fact he
graduated 76th out of 85 students. In 1987, when pressed by a reporter
on his academic record, Biden had angrily responded, “I think I probably
have a much higher IQ than you do” (an exchange he would recall in a
later memoir as “so stupid,” yet repeated just last week with a voter who asked him about his son Hunter’s work in Ukraine). Back then, Biden told the New York Times,
“I exaggerate when I’m angry, but I’ve never gone around telling people
things that aren’t true about me.” But, just as a point of fact, he had told
people — lots of people! — things that weren’t true about himself, not
just about his school years, but in borrowing details about the life of
the British politician whose speeches he’d plagiarized.
Early
in this campaign season, Biden’s campaign was again found to have
lifted language; his climate and education plans initially included
phrases taken from other publications without attribution. He’s also
been caught out telling a false story about traveling to Afghanistan to
award a Navy Captain a Silver Star, apparently a conflation of
several different events. Back in 2007, he claimed to have been “shot
at” in Iraq; this was not true. Anita Hill has recalled that back when
he was in charge of Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation
hearings, Biden initially assured her that she would be able to testify
first, but that after negotiations with Republican colleagues, Thomas
had been permitted to go first. “I leave you to say whether he lied or
not,” Hill said to a New York Times reporter earlier this year.
Yet
despite his career-long penchant for exaggeration and misleading
recollection, Biden gets regularly presented by the mainstream political
media as a man of deep integrity, a trustworthy guy; he’s currently on
his “no-malarkey” campaign tour.
A
similar advantage seems to have been accrued by Mayor Pete Buttigieg,
who has been pushing the view of Elizabeth Warren as deceptive — the
same view expressed vocally by the Morning Joe panel on Tuesday — for months. In October, Buttigieg said that his opponent has been more “forthcoming about
the number of selfies she’s taken” than about how she planned to pay
for Medicare for All (Warren has since released her detailed plan on how
to pay for Medicare for All), and his campaign has recently hit her
hard with the suggestion that she’s hiding something regarding the
bankruptcy expert’s past work as a “corporate lawyer.”
But Buttigieg has significantly changed his positions, including on
Medicare for All, during his time on the campaign trail, and until
pressed by the Warren campaign, had not permitted press into his
fundraisers, released his list of donors, or the list of clients he’d
worked for as a McKinsey consultant, a lot of which he did this week. Buttigieg also recently rolled out a list of black supporters in South Carolina, some of whom had never in fact endorsed him, and felt they had been misled by his campaign.
We included Tiny Pete. The whole column has to be read.
In Iraq, the protests continue.
Discussing #Iraq protests (32 mins 30 sec in): youtube.com/watch?v=AHA7kw…
#GCC #Baghdad #Arabspring #Adelabdulalmahdi @indusdotnews @ayza_omar
About an hour after gunmen began attacking a protest encampment in Iraq’s capital at the weekend, Mustafa — who had slept there for weeks — went offline.
As protests in Iraq enter their 3rd month, the numbers of arrests, abductions & killings of protesters continue to rise.
Security forces should be protecting the demonstrators.
Instead, some security forces are the ones doing the killing.
bit.ly/2EcT3pM
Human Rights Watch's Belkis Wille writes:
As protests in Iraq enter their third month, the numbers of arrests, abductions, and killings of protesters continue to rise. But instead of protecting the demonstrators mostly peacefully protesting on Iraq’s streets, some security forces are the ones attacking and killing them. Prime Minister Adil Abd Al-Mahdi had promised in a letter to Human Rights Watch that security forces would no longer use live ammunition against protesters, before announcing his own resignation on November 29. But killings and abductions of protesters have continued.
Since the beginning of these protests, Human Rights Watch has also documented unidentified armed men attacking protesters while the state security forces apparently stand by. Last week alone, these unidentified actors abducted one protester in Baghdad and opened fire on another in Karbala, killing him.
Early on December 6, Zaid Mohammed Abd Ali, 23, a photographer who attended the protests daily in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, was abducted from outside his house, his brother said. The family’s CCTV camera footage from that morning shows four men, one with a gun, get out of a car and grab Ali as he was arriving home. They hit him, put him in the car, and drove away. The family went straight to the police, but officers said they needed to wait 24 hours after the incident before they could open a missing persons complaint. The police opened a complaint the next day and told Ali’s family they are reviewing the CCTV footage but have provided no other information on their supposed investigation.
On December 8, a gunman on the back of a motorcycle shot and killed Fahem al-Tai, 53, a protester in Karbala. Timestamped footage from a street camera showed the entire attack unfold. Human Rights Watch reviewed the footage and spoke to a friend who was with al-Tai at the time of the attack. He said the police had not yet contacted him, despite his presence at the scene.
Reports emerged on December 11 of another two activists – one a well-known environmentalist – who have gone missing.
The Iraqi government needs to start protecting its citizens, by ending its own security force’s unlawful violence against protesters, and taking effective action against the groups now attacking them. This means taking urgent action to find anyone abducted by these groups, and arresting and prosecuting anyone responsible for murder and other crimes. Otherwise, the death toll will continue to climb, and Iraq’s next prime minister and cabinet will face a Herculean task in restoring the rule of law.
The following sites updated:
