News and Views

[unusualmusic_lj_archive]

The collapse of SOFA

The dirty secret about the Bush administration negotiations with Nouri al Maliki's government for a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is that they hinge upon secrecy. Begun in earnest in March, all the details have been kept secret from the US Congress, the Iraqi Parliament, and the public in both countries. In fact Bush announced last year that he would not permit Congress to ratify what would be a (major) defense treaty. The American public has no enthusiasm and Iraqis across the board are deeply hostile to almost everything about SOFA. Virtually every Iraqi politician of note is suspicious if not dismissive.
Even dead-enders in the WH have been defensive in the extreme. Vague and negative details were all they'd give out, none of them being very credible: That SOFA would be "nonbinding", would not be a treaty, would not establish permanent bases, would not limit what the next president can do, etc. It was clear already last year that they realized there'd be no agreement, and hence no opportunity to lock in the next president to Bush's Iraq policies, without resort to the utmost secrecy.
The US media was happy to lend a hand. In Iraq and Iran, SOFA has been the hottest of issues all year. But until May 30th, it barely registered in American news. Take for example the leak of a draft of SOFA in early April to The Guardian.

A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country...
Iraqi critics point out that the agreement contains no limits on numbers of US forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term US security agreements with other countries.

You'd have thought the leak of a "secret" and "sensitive" document would be newsworthy. Most Americans heard nothing about it. At best, they got a potted version of Bush administration officials' vague comments made – characteristically – behind closed doors.
And so it went in the US media: silence, indifference, with a dash of perverse misinterpretation. Consider Michael Hirsh's laughably naive commentary that imagined Bush had already succeeded in nailing down SOFA, to the chagrin of Democrats.

The upshot is that the next president, Democrat or Republican, is likely to be handed a fait accompli that could well render moot his or her own elaborate withdrawal plans, especially the ones being considered by the two leading Democratic contenders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton...
But Bush may have the upper hand now. The president touted the surge's success on Saturday, and he reiterated that "long-term success will require active U.S. engagement that outlasts my presidency." The "enduring relationship" he is building with Iraq, Bush added, "will have diplomatic, economic and security components—similar to relationships we have with Kuwait and other nations in this region and around the world."... Far away in the Persian Gulf, Bush is creating facts on the ground that the next president may not be able to ignore.

The blinkers came off only when Moqtada al Sadr called for nationwide marches against SOFA on May 30th. Suddenly the US news media was rushing to catch up with a foreign policy fiasco that had nearly reached fruition. Turned out, upon examination, that the Bush administration was not in fact "close to reaching an agreement with the Iraqi government over its long term military role in the country", as it claimed, because the Iraqi people had never agreed to be pushed around in that fashion.
The US news media, always the last to smell out dirty secrets in Iraq.

And, there's more. Much more. So much for the whole "WE'RE DOWN IN IRAQ FIGHTING FOR AMERICAN FREEDOMS!!!" No, we're simply trying to colonize them.

Via: a diarist at Daily Kos

We got the wrong men:How Americans swept up hundreds of innocent men in it's blind and fucked up search for terrorists, and in the process, turned many of these men against America This is gonna be a six-part series run by the McClatchy news group.

HOW FOOT SOLDIERS, FARMERS GOT SWEPT UP

How did the United States come to hold so many farmers and goat herders among the real terrorists at Guantanamo? Among the reasons:

After conceding control of the country to U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, top Taliban and al Qaida leaders escaped to Pakistan, leaving the battlefield filled with ragtag groups of volunteers and conscripts who knew nothing about global terrorism.

The majority of the detainees taken to Guantanamo came into U.S. custody indirectly, from Afghan troops, warlords, mercenaries and Pakistani police who often were paid cash by the number and alleged importance of the men they handed over. Foot soldiers brought in hundreds of dollars, but commanders were worth thousands. Because of the bounties — advertised in fliers that U.S. planes dropped all over Afghanistan in late 2001 — there was financial incentive for locals to lie about the detainees' backgrounds. Only 33 percent of the former detainees — 22 out of 66 — whom McClatchy interviewed were detained initially by U.S. forces. Of those 22, 17 were Afghans who'd been captured around mid-2002 or later as part of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, a fight that had more to do with counter-insurgency than terrorism.

American soldiers and interrogators were susceptible to false reports passed along by informants and officials looking to settle old grudges in Afghanistan, a nation that had experienced more than two decades of occupation and civil war before U.S. troops arrived. This meant that Americans were likely to arrest Afghans who had no significant connections to militant groups. For example, of those 17 Afghans whom the U.S. captured in mid-2002 or later, at least 12 of them were innocent of the allegations against them, according to interviews with Afghan intelligence and security officials.

Detainees at Guantanamo had no legal venue in which to challenge their detentions. The only mechanism set up to evaluate their status, an internal tribunal in the late summer of 2004, rested on the decisions of rotating panels of three U.S. military officers. The tribunals made little effort to find witnesses who weren't present at Guantanamo, and detainees were in no position to challenge the allegations against them.

Via:Balloon Juice

America's REAL drug problem

This isn't exactly news. It's long been known and remarked on within drug policy reform circles, but it's worth mentioning when the media periodically rediscover that legal drugs kill more people than illegal ones do.

MIAMI — From “Scarface” to “Miami Vice,” Florida’s drug problem has been portrayed as the story of a single narcotic: cocaine. But for Floridians, prescription drugs are increasingly a far more lethal habit.
An analysis of autopsies in 2007 released this week by the Florida Medical Examiners Commission found that the rate of deaths caused by prescription drugs was three times the rate of deaths caused by all illicit drugs combined. [...]
The report’s findings track with similar studies by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which has found that roughly seven million Americans are abusing prescription drugs. If accurate, that would be an increase of 80 percent in six years and more than the total abusing cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, Ecstasy and inhalants.

...


As an aside, it's useful to note that at 4,179 incidences, "alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug" found in bodies of the dead, although listed as the sole cause of death in only 466, but marijuana remains the only so-called dangerous drug which has not been attributed as a cause of a single fatality in 5,000 years. Yet in 2007 there were 44,640 Americans imprisoned at the state and federal level solely for offenses related to this natural herb.

The Complete Guide to on how to deal with Bill O Reilly's producers

Bill O’Reilly uses typical tabloid journalism tactics to sneak up and sandbag you so you will be off guard and a bit unprepared to answer his questions. Usually he seeks out people that refuse to appear on his show or are unavailable for commenting on a particular topic. He’ll send his team to your house or apartment—someplace that used to be off limits so you will be vulnerable. That’s the type of interviews his ambush producers—including flunkie Jesse Watters revels in. Not many of us would have the grace to handle it the way Bill Moyers does here. So back to my simple guide on how to deal with this level of un-professionalism:

1) When Watters and crew jump out of a bush or from behind a parked car and surprise you, don’t be shocked. Instead just smile and say, “You must be Jesse Watters from the O’Reilly factor, so nice to see you…” This will momentarily knock him off guard because he’s expecting you to cower from the sight of his microphone and cameras. That’s nonsense. The microphone and cameras are your friends—remember that. Repeat. The microphone and cameras are “your friends”

2) Look directly into the camera and say, “Hi, Bill, how are you? I’m so glad you tracked me down at my super market (or gas station, bank, local mall, but most probably in your parking garage or front door.) My wife/child/friend is very sick and I’m on my way to help them.”

3) Now comes the critical time. When he asks you his misleading or false question about a bogus issue that Bill O’Reilly has trumped up to his FOX news audience, say:

Via:Balloon Juice

John McCain Supports the Troops. Really.

# McCain has repeatedly voted against amendments in the Senate that would have...covered such important services as improving care at veterans’ hospitals, providing mental health services to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems. [2006 Senate Vote #7, 2/2/2006]

# In 2006, McCain voted against the Kerry amendment that would eliminate increased fees and co-payments for veterans in the TRICARE health care program by raising the discretionary spending limit by approximately $10 billion. The provisions would have been fully offset by eliminating creating corporate tax breaks. [2006 Senate Vote #67, 3/16/2006]

# McCain was one of only 13 Republicans to vote against an amendment that added over $400 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [2006 Senate Vote #98, 4/26/2006]

# McCain voted against increasing funding for veterans health care by $2.8 billion in 2006. [2005 Senate Vote #55, 3/16/2005]

...

# Senator McCain opposed $322 million in funding for "battlefield clearance and safety equipment for U.S. troops in Iraq." A reduction in Iraqi reconstruction funds would have funded the additional protection for troops in the battlefield. [2003 Senate Vote #376, 10/2/2003]