Wednesday, May 31, 2006

 

NYT: Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case

 
 
Ángel Franco/The New York Times

From left, George Christian, Barbara Bailey, Peter Chase and Janet Nocek, the four librarians who sued, with Leslie Burger of the American Library Association and Alice Knapp of the Connecticut Library Association.

 

May 31, 2006

Four Librarians Finally Break Silence in Records Case

Four Connecticut librarians who had been barred from revealing that they had received a request for patrons' records from the federal government spoke out yesterday, expressing frustration about the sweeping powers given to law enforcement authorities by the USA Patriot Act.

The librarians took turns at the microphone at their lawyers' office and publicly identified themselves as the collective John Doe who had sued the United States attorney general after their organization received a confidential demand for patron records in a secret counterterrorism case. They had been ordered, under the threat of prosecution, not to talk about the request with anyone. The librarians, who all have leadership roles at a small consortium called Library Connection in Windsor, Conn., said they opposed allowing the government unchecked power to demand library records and were particularly incensed at having been subject to the open-ended nondisclosure order.

"I'm John Doe, and if I had told you before today that the F.B.I. was requesting library records, I could have gone to jail," said one of the four, Peter Chase, a librarian from Plainville who is on the executive committee of Library Connection's board.

The organization won part of its court fight last week, when a three-judge panel of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan dismissed the government's appeal and allowed a lower court judge's revocation of the nondisclosure order to stand. But the four librarians say they remain concerned that other provisions of the Patriot Act could deter people from using libraries.

George Christian, Library Connection's executive director, said he was the first one to receive the confidential request from the F.B.I., something long suspected by careful readers of the court record. Before Congress revised the law in March, such requests, known as national security letters, were typically accompanied by a notification that the recipient was barred in perpetuity from revealing "to any person" that the request had been made. National security letters have become a popular law enforcement tool since the 9/11 attacks because they do not require judicial review.

"I was shocked by the restraints the gag order imposed on me," said Mr. Christian, who said that after receiving the request he was unsure whether he could consult a lawyer or his board of directors.

"The fact that the government can and is eavesdropping on patrons in libraries has a chilling effect, because they really don't know if Big Brother is looking over their shoulder," he added.

Being free to speak now, weeks after the Patriot Act was reauthorized for several more years, was "like being allowed to call the Fire Department after the building has burned down," he said.

Barbara Bailey, a librarian from Glastonbury, and Janet Nocek, a librarian from Portland, appeared with Mr. Chase and Mr. Christian. Ms. Bailey and Ms. Nocek both serve with Mr. Chase on the executive committee of Library Connection's board.

The librarians described many surreal moments from the nearly yearlong legal battle. When a judge heard arguments on their case in Bridgeport, they said, they had to watch a television hookup from Hartford because federal lawyers did not want them at the hearing. Mr. Christian described having to remain silent when his son Ben asked him why he was dodging calls from reporters.

And when John Doe was given an award in absentia at a meeting of the Connecticut Library Association, Ms. Bailey was in the audience and felt odd but compelled to join a standing ovation to avoid tipping anyone off. Mr. Christian said that he and the other leaders of library consortiums in Connecticut had discussed hiring a lawyer to lobby against provisions of the Patriot Act but had accepted government assurances that there was little risk of federal investigators seeking library records. "We trusted them but apparently we shouldn't have," Mr. Chase said, noting that his organization would continue to resist other aspects of the government's demand.

Partly because of the attention that the Connecticut case has drawn, the revised Patriot Act does makes it clearer that recipients of national security letters can consult lawyers. But lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, which took the case free of charge, said the law still has many defects.

Ann Beeson, a civil liberties union lawyer, said she was dismayed that even though the identity of the Connecticut librarians had been widely suspected since last fall, when news organizations starting with The New York Times disclosed their identities, the government was willing to drop its appeal only after the anti-terrorism act was reauthorized by Congress.

In a telephone interview, Kevin O'Connor, the United States attorney for Connecticut, said Ms. Beeson was right on the timing but wrong about the government's motives. He said his office did not have the discretion to inform a recipient of a national security letter that the non-disclosure order was being waived until Congress changed the law in March.

From the roughly 30,000 national security letter estimated to be issued a year, Mr. Christian was a surprising name to have emerged as the person who brought one of the only known challenges to the law. Though he was a conscientious objector in the Vietnam War, he has not been overly political since then. And unlike his co-plaintiffs whose backgrounds are in library science, his is in computer development. He said he was not even sure whether he would call himself a librarian.

To which Ms. Nocek said she thought by now he probably deserved an honorary degree.


Tuesday, May 30, 2006

 

TomPaine.com: Dying For A Mistake



Dying For A Mistake

Paul Rogat Loeb

May 29, 2006

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the "Number 3 Political Book of 2004" by the American Book Association. See www.paulloeb.org

What does it mean , this Memorial Day, to die in a war so founded on lies?

While George W. Bush assures our soldiers they fight for Iraqi freedom and to “make America safer for generations to come,” 82 percent of Iraqis, according to a British Ministry of Defense poll, say they’re "strongly opposed" to the presence of American and British troops and 45 percent justify attacks against them. This gives rise to what psychologist Robert Jay Lifton calls “an atrocity-creating situation.”

Lifton first coined the phrase during Vietnam. He now uses it to describe a “counterinsurgency war in which U.S. soldiers, despite their extraordinary firepower, feel extremely vulnerable in a hostile environment,” amplified by “the great difficulty of tracking down or even recognizing the enemy.” This sense of an environment out of control has seeded the ground for Abu Ghraib and for massacres at the villages of Haditha and Mukaradeeb, already being compared to My Lai. Former Army sniper Jody Casey recently described  his unit keeping extra spades on their vehicles so that if they killed innocent Iraqis in response to an attack, they could throw one next to the corpses to make it appear as if those killed were preparing a roadside bomb.

The Iraq-Vietnam comparisons may seem cheap or easy to make, but it’s increasingly becoming difficult to ignore the parallels, except that—unlike Bush—Nixon didn’t start the conflict in Vietnam. The Vietnam War began with Eisenhower's first deployment of soldiers and CIA agents in support of the French, expanded with Kennedy, and escalated dramatically under Johnson. But it became Nixon’s war when he extended its carnage to Laos and Cambodia, massively increased the bombing campaigns, and lied and lied again in justifying his actions.

Bush may lack Nixon’s scowl, but he’s equally insulated from the consequences of his actions in Iraq and elsewhere. He came to power riding on the success of Nixon’s racially divisive “Southern Strategy,” which enshrined the Republicans as the party of backlash. He won reelection by similarly manipulating polarization and fear. Like Nixon, he’s flouted America’s laws while demonizing political opponents. His insistence that withdrawing from Iraq would create a world where terrorists reign echoes Nixon’s claim that defeat in Vietnam would leave the U.S. ''a pitiful, helpless giant.''

Last December Bush called the Iraqi election “a watershed moment in the story of freedom.” But if our invasion and occupation has created a watershed moment, it’s one where rivers of resentment and bitterness may poison the global landscape for decades to come. And when Bush talks much of promoting freedom, the world sees mostly the freedom of America to do whatever we please—no matter how many nations oppose us. America’s Vietnam-era leaders also proclaimed their embrace of freedom, while helping overthrow elected governments from Brazil to Chile to Greece. The war they waged in Southeast Asia killed 2 to 5 million Vietnamese, plus more deaths in Laos and Cambodia. As with Iraq, those making the key decisions were profoundly insulated; no Congressman, Senator or Cabinet member lost a son in Vietnam and only 28 had sons who served. In Iraq, those who are the most detached from the costs of war led the rush to invade and the sole Congressman or Senator with a son who initially served was Democrat Tim Johnson, who the Republicans still attacked as insufficiently patriotic. While the sons of Republican Senator Kit Bond and three Republican congressmen have since also been deployed, most who initiated this war have never been intimately touched by it. 

Iraq holds another unsettling parallel with Vietnam in the lives of many who will come back from the war with shattered or missing limbs or lasting psychological trauma from witnessing the unwitnessable. Given the number of vets who’ve survived injuries that would have killed them 35 years ago, and Bush’s cuts in VA programs and allied social services, the impact in damaged lives may be even greater. According to a study by former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, the Iraq war is already likely to cost as much as 1 trillion dollars when we consider consequences like lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, like the war’s role in higher oil prices. Because these costs are delayed and even more invisible than the combat deaths in a time when even photos of the military coffins have been banned, they barely register except for those most intimately involved.

“I didn’t want to die for Nixon,” said a man I met recently in a Seattle park. He’d served on military bases in a half dozen states, then had a car accident just before being shipped to Vietnam. “The accident was lucky,” he said. “It was a worthless war and I didn’t want to go.”
 
I agreed. I said I admired those who fought in World War II—we owe them the debt of our freedom. But to die for Nixon’s love of power, fear of losing face, deceptive vindictiveness—to die for those values was obscene. Nixon’s war, the man said, had nothing noble about it. And neither did Iraq.
 
Counting back to Eisenhower, the United States fought in Vietnam for over 20 years. We’ve now been in and out of Iraq for nearly 40, ever since the 1963 coup when the CIA first helped the Baath Party overthrow the founder of OPEC—and intervening in Iran since our 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh, who we replaced with the dictatorial Shah. With Bush’s administration promising no immediate end in sight, we’re now told it will be up to “future presidents” even to consider withdrawing our troops. Who wants to be the last person to die for George Bush?


Monday, May 29, 2006

 

NYT: Iraqis' Accounts Link Marines to the Mass Killing of Civilians




May 29, 2006

Iraqis' Accounts Link Marines to the Mass Killing of Civilians

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 28 — Hiba Abdullah survived the killings by American troops in Haditha last Nov. 19, but said seven others at her father-in-law's home did not. She said American troops shot and killed her husband, Rashid Abdul Hamid. They killed her father-in-law, Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali, a 77-year-old in a wheelchair, shooting him in the chest and abdomen, she said.

Her sister-in-law, Asma, "collapsed when her husband was killed in front of her eyes," Ms. Abdullah said. As Asma fell, she dropped her 5-month-old infant. Ms. Abdullah said she picked up the baby girl and sprinted out of the house, and when she returned, Asma was dead.

Four people who identified themselves as survivors of the killings in Haditha, including some who had never spoken publicly, described the killings to an Iraqi writer and historian who was recruited by The New York Times to travel to Haditha and interview survivors and witnesses of what military officials have said appear to be unjustified killings of two dozen Iraqis by marines. Some in Congress fear the killings could do greater harm to the image of the United States military around the world than the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

The four survivors' accounts could not be independently corroborated, and it was unclear in some cases whether they actually saw the killings. But much of what they said was consistent with broad outlines of the events of that day provided by military and government officials who have been briefed on the military's investigations into the killings, which the officials have said are likely to lead to charges that may include murder and a cover-up of what really happened.

The name of the Iraqi who conducted the interviews for The Times is being withheld for his own safety, because insurgents often make a target of Iraqis deemed collaborators.

Haditha, a sand-swept farming town flecked with date palms on the upper Euphrates River, is in one of Iraq's most dangerous areas, ridden with insurgents in the heart of Sunni-dominated Anbar Province.

Three months earlier, 20 marines from a different unit were killed around Haditha over a three-day span. Fourteen were killed by a bomb that destroyed their troop carrier. Six others, all snipers, were ambushed and killed on a foot patrol. Insurgents appeared later to rejoice and boast about the sniper ambush, releasing a video over the Internet that appeared to show the attack and the mangled and burned body of a dead American serviceman.

Haditha is under the control of insurgents that include Tawhid and Jihad, a name that has been used by the terrorist organization of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said Miysar al-Dulaimi, a human rights lawyer who has relatives in Haditha and who returned there two days after the killings and spoke to witnesses and neighbors. Mr. Dulaimi said that outside their bases, the Americans controlled almost nothing.

"People are so scared," he said. "They have lost confidence in the Americans. If the Americans show up in the neighborhood the insurgents will come and take away people they accuse of being stooges of the Americans."

But just over six months ago, 24 people in the Subhani district of Haditha faced a different death, witnesses and survivors say.

The killings began after 7:15 a.m., as the neighborhood was stirring awake, when insurgents detonated a roadside bomb in Subhani that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas of El Paso, Tex., as his patrol drove through the area.

According to one United States defense official, who declined to be identified because details of the investigation are not supposed to be revealed, most of the subsequent killings are believed to have been committed by a handful of marines led by a staff sergeant who was their squad leader, although other marines are also under investigation.

In the home Ms. Abdullah escaped from, she said American troops also shot and killed a 4-year-old nephew named Abdullah Walid. She said her mother-in-law, Khumaysa Tuma Ali, 66, died after being shot in the back. Two brothers-in-law, Jahid Abdul Hamid Hassan and Walid Abdul Hamid Hassan, were also killed, she said.

In addition to Ms. Abdullah and Asma's baby, two others survived. One, 9-year-old Iman Walid Abdul Hamid, said she ran quickly, still clad in her pajamas, to hide under the bed with her younger brother, Abdul Rahman Walid Abdul Hamid, when she saw what was happening.

"We were scared and could not move for two hours. I tried to hide under the bed," she said, but both her and her brother, Abdul Rahman, were hit with shrapnel.

Abdul Rahman, 7, said very little about that day. "When they killed my father Walid, I hid in bed," he said.

Hiba Abdullah assumed the two children had died, but she said they were later found at a local hospital.

One Haditha victim was an elderly man, close to 80 years old, killed in his wheelchair as he appeared to be holding a Koran, according to the United States defense official, who described information collected during the investigation. An elderly woman was also killed, as were a mother and a child who were "in what appeared to be a prayer position," the official said.

Some victims had single gunshot wounds to the head, and at least one home where people were shot to death had no bullet marks on the walls, inconsistent with a clearing operation that would typically leave bullet holes, the official added.

Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who leads the Armed Services Committee, pledged Sunday to hold hearings on the Haditha killings as soon as the military investigation is concluded.

"I'll do exactly what we did with Abu Ghraib," he said on the ABC News program "This Week," referring to hearings. He added that there were serious questions of "what was the immediate reaction of the senior officers in the Marine Corps."

Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and former marine who has become a fierce critic of the Iraq war, said he had no doubt marines killed innocent civilians in Haditha and tried to cover up the deaths. Marine Corps officials, he said on the same television program, have told him that troops shot one woman "in cold blood" who was bending over her child begging for mercy.

In all, 19 people were killed in three separate homes in Haditha, and 5 were killed after they approached the scene in a taxi, survivors and people in the neighborhood said.

Hiba Abdullah said that after the killings in her father-in-law's home, the American troops moved to the house of a neighbor, Younis Salim Nisaif. She said he was killed along with his wife, Aida, and Aida's sister, Huda. She said five children were also killed at that home, all 3 to 14 years old.

There was one survivor, Safa Younis Salim, 13, who in an interview said she lived by faking her death. "I pretended that I was dead when my brother's body fell on me and he was bleeding like a faucet," she said. She said that she saw American troops kick her family members and that one American shouted in the face of one relative before he was killed.

Military officials declined Sunday to comment on details of the killings described by survivors. "The investigations are ongoing, therefore any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process," said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a Marine spokesman.

David P. Sheldon, a defense lawyer advising a marine under investigation in the case, said what was publicly known about the case "raises a disturbing picture, but I think the situation was very confusing." He added that "the insurgent pressure in that part of Iraq has been particularly virulent" which caused "a very stressful environment."

Three days before a roadside bomb attack that preceded the Nov. 19 killings, another marine from the same unit had been killed when a bomb detonated under his vehicle in Haditha. It was the first combat death that the unit, the Third Battalion of the First Marine Regiment, had suffered on that deployment to Iraq.

Neighbors said that in the third home assaulted on Nov. 19, four brothers were killed by American troops. The wife of one of the brothers, who would identify herself only as the widow of a brother named Jamal, said the four victims were all between the ages of 20 and 38.

The troops forced women in the home to leave at gunpoint, the widow said. Afterward, she said the women heard gunshots coming from the home, but the troops forbade them from returning. Eventually, she said, they went inside and found the bodies of Jamal and three brothers, Marwan, Jassib and Kahatan.

Mr. Dulaimi, the human rights lawyer who traveled to Haditha two days after the killings, said neighbors told him the father of the four victims and owner of the home was Ayad Ahmed al-Gharria, who does odd jobs and has a shop in Haditha. The neighbors, Mr. Dulaimi said, told him the troops killed Marwan first. The three other brothers were killed after they came to see what was happening, he said.

Five more Iraqi men died that day after they approached the American troops in a taxi, according to people in the neighborhood. Four were students and the fifth was the driver of the taxi, and all were between the ages of 18 and 25, they said.

After the killings, Mr. Dulaimi said Haditha clerics and elders led a protest march on the American base near a dam on the Euphrates. From the city's mosques, Mr. Dulaimi said, clerics condemned the killings and said the Americans "promise they will bring peace and security to this country, but what has happened is they are spreading panic, fear and terror among the people."

One person from the neighborhood, Salim Abdullah, said relatives from two of the families had taken compensation payments of as much as $2,500 per victim from American officials who later visited. Relatives of other victims have not taken payments, he said.

The United States defense official said the payments were also a focus of investigators trying to determine whether the killings were improperly covered up. On "This Week," Representative Murtha suggested that the decision to make payments was strong evidence that Marine officers up the chain of command had knowledge of the events. "That doesn't happen at the lowest level," he said. "That happens at the highest level before they make a decision to make payments to the families."

The Marines also face an inquiry into the killing of an Iraqi man on April 26 near Hamandiyah, west of Baghdad. A preliminary inquiry found "sufficient information" for a criminal investigation, the Marines said. Representative Murtha said a marine fired an AK-47 rifle so there would be spent cartridges near the body, making it look as if the victim had been firing a weapon.

A spokesman for the First Marine Division, Lt. Lawton King, said several marines suspected of involvement in the incident had been put in the brig at Camp Pendleton, Calif., or restricted to the base.

An Iraqi reporter contributed reporting from Haditha for this article, and David S. Cloud and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.



Friday, May 26, 2006

 

NYT: Armed Groups Propel Iraq Toward Chaos



 
 
 
Christoph Bangert/Polaris, for The New York Times

Haider Hamid was arrested in Baghdad on April 15 by officers wearing Interior Ministry uniforms, according to Mr. Hamid’s brother, Majid. Majid Hamid found his brother’s body, above, showing signs of torture, five days later in the city morgue. He said he received no explanation for what happened.

 

 

May 24, 2006

Armed Groups Propel Iraq Toward Chaos

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 23 — Even in a country beset by murder and death, the 16th Brigade represented a new frontier.

The brigade, a 1,000-man force set up by Iraq's Ministry of Defense in early 2005, was charged with guarding a stretch of oil pipeline that ran through the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dawra. Heavily armed and lightly supervised, some members of the largely Sunni brigade transformed themselves into a death squad, cooperating with insurgents and executing government collaborators, Iraqi officials say.

"They were killing innocent people, anyone who was affiliated with the government," said Hassan Thuwaini, the director of the Iraqi Oil Ministry's protection force.

Forty-two members of the brigade were arrested in January, according to officials at the Ministry of the Interior and the police department in Dawra.

Since then, Iraqi officials say, individual gunmen have confessed to carrying out dozens of assassinations, including the killing of their own commander, Col. Mohsin Najdi, when he threatened to turn them in.

Some of the men assigned to guard the oil pipeline, the officials say, appear to have maintained links to the major Iraqi insurgent groups. For months, American and Iraqi officials have been trying to track down death squads singling out Sunnis that operated inside the Shiite-led Interior Ministry.

But the 16th Brigade was different. Unlike the others, the 16th Brigade was a Sunni outfit, accused of killing Shiites. And it was not, like the others, part of the Iraqi police or even the Interior Ministry. It was run by another Iraqi ministry altogether.

Such is the country that the new Iraqi leaders who took office Saturday are inheriting. The headlong, American-backed effort to arm tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and officers, coupled with a failure to curb a nearly equal number of militia gunmen, has created a galaxy of armed groups, each with its own loyalty and agenda, which are accelerating the country's slide into chaos.

Indeed, the 16th Brigade stands as a model for how freelance government violence has spread far beyond the ranks of the Shiite-backed police force and Interior Ministry to encompass other government ministries, private militias and people in the upper levels of the Shiite government.

Sometimes, the lines between one government force and another — and between the police and the militias — are so blurry that it is impossible to determine who the killers are.

"No one knows who is who right now," said Adil Abdul Mahdi, one of Iraq's vice presidents.

The armed groups operating across Iraq include not just the 145,000 officially sanctioned police officers and commandos who have come under scrutiny for widespread human rights violations. They also include thousands of armed guards and militia gunmen: some Shiite, some Sunni; some, like the 145,000-member Facilities Protection Service, operating with official backing; and some, like the Shiite-led Badr Brigade militia, conducting operations with the government's tacit approval, sometimes even wearing government uniforms.

Some of these armed groups, like the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police, often carry out legitimate missions to combat crime and the insurgency. Others, like members of another Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, specialize in torture, murder, kidnapping and the settling of scores for political parties.

Reining in Iraq's official and unofficial armies is the most urgent task confronting Iraq's new leaders. In speeches and private conversations, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki says he intends to clamp down on the death squads operating within the Iraqi government, and to disarm the militias that provide the street muscle for Iraq's political parties.

That presages an enormous political battle, one that extends beyond the Interior Ministry's police officers and paramilitary soldiers.

A larger and possibly more decisive struggle looms to disarm myriad other armed groups, including the Shiite militias, most of them answerable to the Shiite political parties that dominate the new government.

The outcome of the struggle has far-reaching implications for Iraq's future, as Iraqi and American officials try to curb the abuses that threaten to push the country closer to a sectarian war without impeding the government's ability to fight the Sunni-led guerrilla insurgency.

"I think they have the evidence now as to who is doing most of the killing," said an American official in Baghdad who is not authorized to speak publicly. "It's a question of political will, the political will to do what needs to be done."

"I have just not seen it yet," the official said.

Tales of Uniformed Killers

Every week, mothers and wives from Baghdad's Sunni neighborhoods stream into the makeshift human rights office at the Iraqi Islam Party, bearing tales of torture, kidnapping and murder at the hands of government security forces.

Most of the tales unfold in a grimly similar way: a group of Iraqis wearing official uniforms showed up at the house of a Sunni family and took away a young man. The family found his body a few days later, tossed into a ditch or laid out at the city morgue.

"It's the Ministry of Interior," said Omar al-Jabouri, who runs the Islamic Party's human rights office. Some of Iraq's new leaders, including its Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, are calling for a wholesale purging of the Interior Ministry, saying there are "thousands" of corrupt and brutal officers who need to be fired if the government ever hopes to secure the trust of Iraq's Sunnis.

"You ask me who is doing these things," Mr. Hashemi said. "The police, the militias, the political parties — we don't know. But some of these people are criminals. In the Sunni areas, there is no confidence in them at all."

It is impossible to know just how many rogue units exist among the 145,000 police officers, commandos and other officers operating out of the ministry, most of them trained under American supervision.

That uncertainty lies at the heart of the political struggle that is now shaping up in Baghdad: Sunni and Shiite leaders disagree fundamentally on the nature and scope of the problem itself, which makes it harder to solve.

Leaders of the Shiite coalition, the largest partner in the new government, say the protests about the security forces, as well as their own militias, are being exaggerated for political effect. They say they plan to resist any wholesale transformation of the Interior Ministry.

Car bombings and suicide attacks have markedly dropped in Baghdad over the past several months, and the Shiite leaders say a large-scale purge of the Interior Ministry, or a rehiring of officers fired after the fall of Saddam Hussein, would probably revive the insurgency.

"A lot of noise comes from the fact that they are doing their jobs," Mr. Mahdi, the Shiite vice president, said of the Iraqi security forces. "We are in a war."

Indeed, to Iraq's main Shiite leaders, complaints about the Interior Ministry distract from the far larger problem of Sunni death squads, consisting of people whom they refer to as "taqfiris," the Arabic word that describes someone who hunts down apostates and violators of the faith. It has come to be a shorthand for insurgents who kill Shiites. In this formulation, the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry is merely doing to Sunni insurgents what Sunni insurgents have been doing to the Shiites since April 2003.

"The problem is the Saddamists and the taqfiris," said Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the main Shiite parties that controls the government. "These groups are committing genocide against the Shiite people."

Rogue Units Suspected

Bayan Jabr, who until Saturday served as interior minister, hears the complaints about his forces and dismisses them with a wave of the hand.

"It's only rumor," Mr. Jabr said with a smile.

With a quick laugh and a fondness for powder-blue leisure suits, Mr. Jabr hardly seems a diabolical figure. A businessman and former newspaper editor, he portrays himself as a humble man thrust into a distasteful job.

"I'm not interested in occupying this job for myself," Mr. Jabr said. "This job does not suit my nature. Anything related to trade or business would be much better."

It was Mr. Jabr who presided over the rapid growth of the Iraqi security forces, and he has been the target of much of the criticism from Sunni leaders. He is a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which oversees its own militia, the Badr Brigade. He was once one of the brigade's commanders.

Upon taking the helm of the Interior Ministry last spring, he purged more than 170 employees who had been hired by the previous, more secular-minded Iraqi government. And he brought the first of thousands of Badr gunmen into the ranks of the police.

The Sunnis accused Mr. Jabr of allowing the largely Shiite police force to run wild in Sunni neighborhoods. American officials thought that was an exaggerated view of Mr. Jabr; they described him as a well-intentioned man who lost control of his ministry. For example, they point out, hundreds and possibly thousands of gunmen from the Mahdi Army militia, a rival to Mr. Jabr's Badr Brigade and loyal to the renegade cleric Moktada al-Sadr, also joined the police forces across the country.

While acknowledging the well-publicized cases of murder and torture within the Interior Ministry, American officers say that most of the atrocities are being carried out by a small number of rogues inside the government, or by groups, like the militias, that are not under Iraqi government control.

"The size of the problem is basically within a couple of brigades," said a senior American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of the subject.

The official, who works closely with the Iraqi government, said he believed there was one group inside the Interior Ministry that was responsible for many of the atrocities: the 28th Battalion, whose official assignment is to provide security for the ministry itself.

The American official did not specify which atrocities he believed the battalion was responsible for. "We are very concerned about it," the official said. "They form the core of the death squads."

The official was reluctant to go into detail. American and Iraqi leaders agree that the subject of rogue elements operating inside the ministry is a delicate topic, particularly since they are trying to bring Sunni leaders into the government. Some declined to talk about the 28th Battalion, while others, like Mr. Jabr, said they had not heard of it.

In an interview in his Green Zone office before his new appointment as finance minister on Saturday, Mr. Jabr seemed eager to prove that he was in command of his ministry; at one point, he passed around a photo book containing the confessions of insurgents. They were all Sunnis.

According to Mr. Jabr, forces under the control of the Interior Ministry cover only about 25 percent of Baghdad; the Iraqi Army and American army cover the rest.

"Why are we just talking about MOI?" Mr. Jabr said. "The issue is fighting terrorists. We are just a small part of those who are battling them."

Indeed, the possibilities for government-sponsored violence are enormous: aside from the police and commandos in the Interior Ministry, approximately 117,000 soldiers are trained and equipped in the Iraqi Army. There are more than 50,000 private security guards, most of them armed, roaming the country. Another 145,000 men are assigned to protect Iraq's infrastructure.

Each of these units, Mr. Jabr said, could be infiltrated by insurgents or commit atrocities against Iraqi civilians, with few people in the senior levels of the government ever being aware.

"I am not responsible for these people," Mr. Jabr said of the other Iraqi forces. "You can imagine. This is out of my control. Out of control."

Mr. Jabr offered an example: two weeks ago, his men arrested a team of bodyguards protecting a person whom Mr. Jabr would describe only as a "very senior Iraqi official." The bodyguards, Mr. Jabr said, were using their government identification cards and official positions to run a kidnapping ring and death squad.

The senior Iraqi official, Mr. Jabr said, apparently did not know what his bodyguards were up to. "They said, 'We sent him home,' referring to their boss, 'and then we do our job.' "

Mr. Jabr said criminals and terrorists often impersonated police officers, wearing uniforms that can be bought at bazaars.

One woman, interviewed in the Baghdad neighborhood of Ur, said a group of eight men wearing Iraqi Army uniforms pulled into a side street near her home and parked their two cars, a black sport utility vehicle and white sedan, earlier this month. From the back of the S.U.V., the woman said, the men in army uniforms hauled out a blindfolded passenger, who appeared to be still alive, and moved him to the trunk of the sedan. Then the men shed their uniforms, tossed them into the vehicles and drove away.

The woman, whose name was not made public to protect her from possible retribution, said she never saw the men again.

"They were terrorists," the woman said. "It's such a terrible situation."

Ministries' 'Little Armies'

Where Sunnis point to the Interior Ministry, Shiite leaders are indignant about the Facilities Protection Service, a 145,000-man force spread throughout 27 Iraqi ministries, each with its own agenda. The officers, Iraqi officials say, are at the disposal of each minister.

"Now, in every ministry, there are 7 to 15,000 men who carry weapons and official identification cards," said Mr. Hakim, the Shiite leader. "They are under the command of the ministries. Some of them have committed many crimes."

One of the largest forces is assigned to the Oil Ministry, which maintains 20,000 troops to protect refineries and other parts of the country's oil infrastructure.

According to the force's director, Mr. Thuwaini, the first 16,000-member paramilitary police force was cobbled together in a haphazard way by a British-based consulting firm that neither trained the men nor checked their backgrounds for criminal records or ties to Mr. Hussein's security services.

"The British company hired people randomly, without training — they were profiteers," said Mr. Thuwaini, a Shiite civil servant not affiliated with any of the major parties. He took over the oil protection force in July 2005. "That is what we are trying to survive now."

The Facilities Protection Service was first set up in 2003 with only 4,000 men to protect crucial parts of Iraqi utilities like power plants and oil refineries. As insurgents stepped up their attacks, and the Americans needed to free up their troops for combat, the service was rapidly expanded. From August 2004 to January 2005, the number of the service's men grew to 60,000 from 4,000.

The man who oversaw that expansion was B. J. Turner, a 64-year-old consultant from Florida. Mr. Turner said he was the lone American assigned to the effort for the first several months. Facilities Protection Service guards received just three days of training and half the pay of regular police officers. They had no power of arrest.

"We actually trained people at times, firing one to two rounds, "Mr. Turner said. "Because that's all the ammunition we had."

Once the ministries starting paying their salaries, Mr. Turner said, the individual F.P.S. units became "little armies," loyal to the ministers who paid them.

Last month, an inspector general assigned to check American programs in Iraq released an audit of the $147 million F.P.S. program. The report said the auditors were never able to determine basic facts like how many Iraqis were trained, how many weapons were purchased and where much of the equipment ended up.

Of 21,000 guards who were supposed to be trained to protect oil equipment, for example, probably only about 11,000 received the training, the report said. And of 9,792 automatic rifles purchased for those guards, auditors were able to track just 3,015.

The Americans exercise no oversight over the F.P.S., nor does any central authority in the Iraqi government.

Oil Pipelines at Risk

As much as Mr. Thuwaini despairs over the men under his command, he saved his fiercest criticism for the pipeline protection units run by the Ministry of Defense. One of those units was the 16th Brigade, which he and other Iraqi officials said was operating as a death squad in Dawra.

Mr. Thuwaini said there were at least three other such brigades operating in Iraq that were also similarly out of control: the 9th, 10th and 11th Brigades of the Ministry of Defense's pipeline protection forces. Those three groups, Mr. Thuwaini said, appear to be cooperating with insurgents, regularly allowing oil pipelines to be destroyed.

Maj. Gen. Mahdi al-Gharawai, a senior official at the Interior Ministry, said he had no specific information on the 9th, 10th or 11th Brigades. But he said the Iraqi units assigned to guard the oil pipelines were widely regarded as useless. "Most of these oil pipeline protection brigades are corrupt and have ties to the insurgents," General Gharawai said.

Among the responsibilities assigned to Mr. Thuwaini's men is the protection of the oil refinery in Dawra. That, Mr. Thuwaini said, was a good thing.

"If those guys guarded the refinery," he said of the Ministry of Defense pipeline units, "it would be sabotaged every day."

Curbing the violence in Iraq, American officials say, means shutting down the private militias that roam the streets of most cities. That includes the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army, both allied to the Shiite-led government.

American and Iraqi officials say they believe that the Badr Brigade is responsible for killing hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Baathists after the fall of Mr. Hussein. The militia was set up in the early 1980's and trained in Iran, where many Shiite leaders were forced into exile during Mr. Hussein's rule.

The Mahdi Army, an informal militia that emerged after the American invasion to support Mr. Sadr, has engaged in two armed uprisings against the Americans and the Iraqi governments they backed.

Shortly after invading Iraq, the Americans outlawed the militias, but, despite many pledges to do so, they never disarmed them.

Now Shiite politicians say they need the militias to protect themselves from the insurgency. When the Shiite-led coalition first took power last spring, Mr. Hakim, whose party controls the Badr Brigade, publicly announced that it would carry on.

These days, the Mahdi Army is the most fearsome of the Shiite militias: after the bombing of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra in February, the militia's black-suited gunmen poured into Baghdad's mixed neighborhoods and killed hundreds of Sunnis. Through most of those chaotic days, the American military and the Iraqi police did nothing to stop them.

Militiamen or Policemen?

But confronting the Shiite militias head-on is a delicate and difficult task.

The two — government security forces on one hand, private militias on the other — are often indistinguishable. Many of the militiamen-turned-policemen, wearing Iraqi uniforms and driving Iraqi vehicles, carry out operations at the behest of their old commanders, sometimes after work.

Take, for instance, the case of Saud Abdullah Obeid, a 47-year-old Sunni man who disappeared from his Baghdad home last fall. According to his family, Mr. Obeid was taken away by a group of men wearing Iraqi commando uniforms and driving trucks bearing Interior Ministry insignia.

Shortly after Mr. Obeid was taken, the family said, they were contacted by members of the Mahdi Army, who demanded a ransom for Mr. Obeid's release. Iraqi officials told the family that Mr. Obeid was being held at the Mustafa Husseiniya, a Mahdi Army stronghold near Sadr City.

Mr. Obeid's relatives said they borrowed $50,000 from friends and turned it over to a middleman to deliver to the Mahdi Army. Mr. Obeid never came home. Instead, his body turned up in the city morgue, burned with acid and shot twice in the mouth.

"I can tell you, this government is the Mahdi Army," said Abdullah Obeid, the surviving son. "The government did this."

Late last year, a senior American commander said, American soldiers captured Mahdi Army fighters dressed in Iraqi police uniforms, carting away prisoners in Iraqi police cars to be tried in front of one of the Mahdi Army's Shariah courts, which operate independently of the government and deliver a harsh brand of Islamic justice.

"There are extremist elements of Badr and of the Mahdi Army who are using their positions in the police to carry out operations against the Sunni population," said a senior American military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

A Test of Political Will

Mr. Maliki, the new Iraqi prime minister, has taken the first small steps to control the militias. This month, the government decided to combine the different branches of the security forces in Baghdad to bring them under tighter control and curb the sectarian violence.

The key to Mr. Maliki's plan is a single uniform and a single identification card which, Iraqi leaders say, will allow them to spot private militiamen and rogue officers within the security forces.

Mr. Maliki also traveled to Najaf, the Shiite holy city, to persuade Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite religious leader, to deliver a religious pronouncement against militias.

"Weapons should be carried only by government forces," Ayatollah Sistani said in his pronouncement. For all of his moral authority, though, it seems unlikely that the militias would disband merely at his command.

Mr. Maliki said he wanted to enforce a militia-demobilization law enacted by L. Paul Bremer III, who ran the Coalition Provisional Authority that ruled Iraq until June 2004.

But neither he nor subsequent Iraqi governments carried it out. The Bremer plan calls for militia fighters to be dispersed across the security forces so that their old units and chains of command are broken up.

In January, American military commanders said they would deploy more than 2,000 military personnel to work directly with Iraqi officers on the job, a four-fold increase.

Disbanding the militias means confronting the parties that control them, and the parties control the government. The Supreme Council, which controls the Badr Brigade, has 30 seats in the new Parliament; Mr. Sadr, who controls the Mahdi Army, has 31 seats.

Both parties appear to be reluctant to disband their forces, if only because of the inability of the government to guarantee their safety.

"We don't think the problem in Iraq is militias," Mr. Mahdi, the vice president, said. "People have to defend themselves."

In the end, whether the Iraqi government and their American backers are able to rein in the security forces will probably depend, more than anything, on political will. On that point, the Iraqis and the Americans appear to diverge.

Some American commanders say that a confrontation with Mr. Sadr and his militia is probably inevitable. Very few Iraqi leaders publicly agree.

Yet the dilemma for the Americans and the Iraqis seems clear enough. Without confronting Mr. Sadr, there seems to be little prospect of cleaning up the police force or the Mahdi Army. But, having faced two armed uprisings by Mr. Sadr in the past, the Americans hardly seem eager to incur the political fallout that another uprising would bring.

For their part, the Americans, privately at least, are hoping the Iraqis will take the lead. But they are not holding their breath.

"They need to begin by setting examples," an American official in Baghdad said of the Iraqi government. "It is just very noticeable to me that they are not making any examples."

"None," the official said. "Zero."

John F. Burns, Qais Mizher, Khalid al-Ansary and Ali Adeeb contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article, and David Rohde from New York.

 

 

The New York Times

Thursday, May 25, 2006

 

NYT: A Now-Common Attack, and a Family Loses Its Men + NYT: 30 Iraqis Die in Attacks Across the Nation

 


 
 
Scott Nelson/WorldPictureNetwork, for The New York Times

The Lazim family, now 11 women and girls headed by Ghazala Kamel, second from left, lost its four male members and its livelihood in an attack.

 

 

May 22, 2006

A Now-Common Attack, and a Family Loses Its Men

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 21 — The Lazim family lost all four of its men early Wednesday morning.

A man walked up to them as they got out of their pickup truck at a house they were building and sprayed them with gunfire. The youngest, 12, was asleep in the back. Two bullets tore through his chest.

In the patterns of violence in this city, sectarian killings like this one — the Lazims are Shiites and blame Sunni insurgents — have become routine, barely registering as blips on the screens of the authorities, and sometimes vanishing without ever being counted.

But behind each number is a story of piercing loss, one of fresh hardships for those who survive and of vivid memories of their last moments with loved ones.

The four men — Jodeh, 50, and his three sons, Falah, 25; Salah, 20; and Ali, 12 — left behind a family of women: a wife, nine daughters and a daughter-in-law. On Friday, the first day of mourning, they dressed in long black abayas, some with sleepy children in their arms, and received relatives from Kut and Basra in the south.

Deprived of the $67-a-day total that the four brought in, the women have no obvious means of support.

On a mat in the corner of a spare room in Sadr City, a poor Shiite neighborhood of back alleys, open sewage and brightly colored flags, Jodeh's widow, Ghazala Kamel, lamented her family's fate. They might have survived: the pickup would not start that morning and had to be pushed to get moving. Her youngest son, Ali, said he was tired, but his father, knowing that just two days of work on the house remained, told him he had to come and help.

Ali had quit school two years ago to help support his family, a practice not unusual for poor Shiites here.

"I made them breakfast, rice and sauce," she said, rocking slightly.

Mr. Lazim's nephew Sattar Awad, a philosophy student with an open face, learned of the deaths when he called one of the brothers' phones that morning, and a soldier answered saying he had been killed.

Those responsible were Sunni extremists bitter at losing power, Mr. Awad said. "They were pushed out, so they started to kill people to get control of the country back," he said.

Mrs. Kamel, in the corner, was too consumed by sadness to offer a theory. "I buried these four with my hands," she said, holding her hands in front of her and shaking them. "I saw them washing their bodies. They were so handsome. So handsome."

Hosham Hussein contributed reporting for this article.

 

----------

 

May 24, 2006

30 Iraqis Die in Attacks Across the Nation

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 23 — More than 30 Iraqis died in car bombings, drive-by shootings, assassinations and other attacks on Tuesday, including 11 killed when a bomber riding a motorbike detonated his explosives at a falafel stand after dinnertime near a heavily Sunni area of northern Baghdad.

The killings, whose victims included children and a university professor, underscored the tremendous challenges facing the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. He is trying to find candidates for Iraq's three security ministries who will not be vetoed by the rival political groups in his fragile coalition.

One day after Mr. Maliki predicted that American and British troops would be able to withdraw from all but two provinces by the year's end, Bush administration officials repeatedly tried Tuesday to tamp down expectations that major troop withdrawals could occur quickly.

"We are not going to harness ourself to an artificial timetable," said Tony Snow, the White House spokesman. "The conditions on the ground tell us that our job's not done."

The deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said at a news conference at the Pentagon that he was unaware of any plans for a specific number of troops to be withdrawn.

"You can't do it too fast," General Ham said. "We've talked some about rushing to failure, and we've got to be very careful to not do that."

And in a stark admission of the security problems Iraq faces, three years after President Bush asserted that "major combat operations" in Iraq were complete, the American ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, acknowledged that American forces do not control regions of western Iraq.

"I believe that parts of Anbar are under the control of terrorists and insurgents," Mr. Khalilzad said in an interview on CNN. Anbar Province stretches from Falluja, just west of Baghdad, all the way to the Syrian and Jordanian borders. The province has long been a stronghold of Sunni insurgents, and residents along the Euphrates River say the group once known as Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and similar organizations hold sway in some towns.

For his part, Mr. Bush pledged Tuesday that he would make a "new assessment" of what Iraq's military needs are, now that a constitutionally elected government has taken power.

"We haven't gotten to the point yet where the new government is sitting down with our commanders to come up with a joint way forward," Mr. Bush said during an appearance with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

"Trying to stop suiciders — which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion — is difficult to do," he added.

Indeed, the relentless killings throughout Iraq have called into question whether some regions will ever be stable enough that American troops can be pulled out without risking a tumble into civil war.

In Sadr City, the huge Shiite slum in eastern Baghdad, a car bomb in a crowded marketplace killed 5 people and wounded at least 15 about 6 p.m. on Tuesday, an Interior Ministry official said.

In eastern Baghdad, a bomb in a parked car detonated late Tuesday morning as a convoy of Iraqi commandos passed by, killing five Iraqis and wounding five more, according to the official. Gunmen also assassinated a professor and a Ministry of Industry official.

Khalid W. Hassan and Ali Adeeb contributed reporting for this article.


Wednesday, May 24, 2006

 

The Guardian: Amnesty attacks US 'disappearances'



Amnesty attacks US 'disappearances'

Peter Walker
Tuesday May 23, 2006


The United States' reported use of secret CIA-run prisons for terrorism suspects amounts to a policy of "disappearances", human rights watchdog Amnesty International said today in its annual report.

In a sometimes scathing assessment of Washington's rights record, the London-based group also raised serious concerns about detainees held without trial in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Washington had failed to bring to account those potentially guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity, it added.

Britain also faced condemnation, with Amnesty saying the government had "continued to erode fundamental human rights" through new anti-terrorism laws and the possible use of evidence obtained through the torture of suspects in other countries.

The 238-page report for 2005 carries a lengthy catalogue of abuses in dozens of countries, with some of the most-criticised including China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Russia.

While Washington traditionally dismisses such complaints - President Bush labelled last year's Amnesty report "absurd" for likening Guantanamo Bay to a gulag - it remains embarrassing for the US to be bracketed in such company.

The latest document considers widespread reports that the CIA has run a network of secret detention centres in countries including Afghanistan, Poland and Romania, transporting suspects via unlisted 'rendition' flights.

"Such facilities were alleged to detain individuals incommunicado outside the protection of the law in circumstances amounting to 'disappearances'," Amnesty noted, saying it had spoken to three Yemeni detainees held in secret locations for up to 18 months.

"Their cases suggested that such detentions were not confined to a small number of 'high value' detainees as previously suspected."

Amnesty also warned of increasing evidence of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and the US-run prison in Guantanamo Bay, which the rights group has repeatedly demanded be closed.

"Despite evidence that the US government had sanctioned interrogation techniques constituting torture or ill-treatment, and 'disappearances', there was a failure to hold officials at the highest levels accountable, including individuals who may have been guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity," Amnesty said.

In an almost equally lengthy entry for Britain, Amnesty condemned the Prevention of Terrorism Act passed by Tony Blair's government last year, saying it "allowed for violations of a wide range of human rights" such as control orders against terrorism suspects.

"The imposition of 'control orders' was tantamount to the executive charging, trying and sentencing a person without the fair trial guarantees required in criminal cases," Amnesty noted.

It also raised concerns at the death last July of Jean Charles de Menezes, the young Brazilian electrician shot dead by police at Stockwell Underground station in south London after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

"Evidence emerged giving rise to suspicion of an early attempt at a cover-up by the police," Amnesty said.

There were also harsh words for the US and Britain over the actions of their troops and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Both the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) and Iraqi security forces committed grave human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention without charge or trial, and excessive use of force resulting in civilian deaths," Amnesty said, while noting that insurgents were "responsible for grave human rights abuses".

In Afghanistan, US forces "continued to arbitrarily detain hundreds of people beyond the reach of the courts and their own families".

More generally, almost five years after the Taliban regime was ousted, "the (Afghan) government and its international partners remained incapable of providing security to the people".

China - which routinely dismisses allegations - was heavily condemned for no real change in its appalling rights record, despite some limited legal and judicial reforms.

"Tens of thousands of people continued to be detained in violation of their human rights and were at risk of torture or ill-treatment," Amnesty said.

Freedoms were especially restricted in Tibet and Xinjiang, the Muslim-majority region in far-west China where dissent has been severely repressed under the guise of a "war on terror", the report noted.

Widespread abuses in long-time dictatorships North Korea and Burma were also listed at length, while the regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe was condemned for "widespread and systematic violations of the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, and the protection of the law".

Sudan's government was cited for allowing "grave abuses of human rights" by both government forces and government-allied militias in its western region of Darfur.

Russia was also given a long entry, listing complaints ranging from racist attacks and ill-treatment in prisons to "serious human rights abuses" such as torture and killings in Chechnya. "Impunity remained the norm for those committing human rights violations," Amnesty noted.


Tuesday, May 23, 2006

 

Knight Ridder: Americans don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either

This Modern World By Tom Tomorrow

Fri, May. 19, 2006

 

Americans don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either


Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - It's not just the way he's doing his job. Americans apparently don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either.

A drop in his personal popularity, as measured by several public polls, has shadowed the decline in Bush's job-approval ratings and weakened his political armor when he and his party need it most.

Losing that political protection - dubbed "Teflon" when Ronald Reagan had it - is costing Bush what the late political scientist Richard Neustadt called the "leeway" to survive hard times and maintain his grip on the nation's agenda. Without it, Bush is a more tempting target for political enemies. And members of his party in Congress are less inclined to stand with him.

"When he loses likeability, the president loses the benefit of the doubt," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. "That makes it much harder for him to steer."

Aides in the president's circle say Bush still has it. They suggest that his likeability will serve as a get-out-of-trouble card no matter how mad people get about the war in Iraq or other woes.

"The American people like this president," White House political guru Karl Rove said last week. "People like him. They respect him. He's somebody they feel a connection with. But they're just sour right now on the war. And that's the way it's going to be. And we will fight our way through."

Rove said he based his confidence on a private poll done for the Republican National Committee that showed Bush's personal approval rating higher than 60 percent, far above his job approval. "The polls I believe are the polls that get run through the RNC," Rove said. "I look at the polls all the time."

The Republican National Committee wouldn't release a copy of the poll. Spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said she couldn't explain why public polls show a decline in Bush's personal popularity except to say that, "you can ask a poll question four different ways and get four different answers."

Six public polls in recent weeks showed the opposite of Rove's account - that Bush's personal approval ratings have dropped since he was re-elected in 2004:

-A recent Gallup poll for USA Today showed that 39 percent had a favorable opinion of Bush, while 60 percent had an unfavorable opinion. In mid-November 2004, 60 percent had a favorable opinion and 39 percent unfavorable.

-Pollster John Zogby found 42 percent with a favorable opinion and 55 percent unfavorable. In November 2004, it was 58 percent favorable, 40 percent unfavorable.

-A poll for CBS and the New York Times showed that 29 percent had a favorable opinion of Bush, while 55 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

"The president's public perception problem is not only about his dismal job performance, but also his striking lack of personal favorability," said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg.

Personal favorability can encompass many things in the minds of voters: character, respect, warmth, kinship, even whether a voter would want to have a beer with a politician. Or in the case of the teetotaling Bush, a soda.

Bush has lost ground on most of those measures.

Gallup, for example, found drops in the number of people who think that Bush is honest and trustworthy, that he shares their values and that he cares about people like them.

Personal popularity can swing elections and affect governing.

Ask Al Gore, whose wooden personality likely cost him votes in the 2000 campaign against the warmer Bush.

"Likeability certainly was an issue in 2000," said Chris Lehane, an aide to Gore in the vice president's office and later in the campaign. He noted, however, that he thought job approval ratings were a better measure of voter sentiment. He also said that likeability was more important in a time of seeming peace and prosperity than it will be in the next election. With the country at war, he said, voters will be less interested in personality and more concerned with competence.

Or ask former California Gov. Gray Davis, a cool and standoffish politician who had no reserve of personal goodwill when his state faced a budget crisis. He fell in a recall election to charismatic movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Popularity can help a politician govern.

Reagan, for example, enjoyed a personal bond with Americans that helped him when the country went through a wrenching recession and when his administration was rocked by the Iran-Contra scandal.

"It protected him," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

"Look at where Bush is today. You could argue that, even though his job approval rating was low, if he had a significantly higher personal approval rating, congressional Republicans would not have strayed as far from him."

(The Gallup Poll of 1,011 adults was conducted April 28-30 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The CBS-New York Times poll of 1,241 adults was conducted May 4-8 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Zogby poll surveyed 979 likely voters May 12-16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.)



Monday, May 22, 2006

 

NYT: As Death Stalks Iraq, Middle-Class Exodus Begins

 
 
Christoph Bangert/Polaris, for The New York Times

Roula Kubba, 13, whose family plans to leave Baghdad because of the rising sectarian violence. They live in the wealthy Mansour district.

 
Graphic: Driven Away by Violence

 

 

May 19, 2006

As Death Stalks Iraq, Middle-Class Exodus Begins

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 18 — Deaths run like water through the life of the Bahjat family. Four neighbors. A barber. Three grocers. Two men who ran a currency exchange shop.

But when six armed men stormed into their sons' primary school this month, shot a guard dead, and left fliers ordering it to close, Assad Bahjat knew it was time to leave.

"The main thing now is to just get out of Iraq," said Mr. Bahjat, standing in a room heaped with suitcases and bedroom furniture in eastern Baghdad.

In the latest indication of the crushing hardships weighing on the lives of Iraqis, increasing portions of the middle class seem to be doing everything they can to leave the country. In the last 10 months, the state has issued new passports to 1.85 million Iraqis, 7 percent of the population and a quarter of the country's estimated middle class.

The school system offers another clue: Since 2004, the Ministry of Education has issued 39,554 letters permitting parents to take their children's academic records abroad. The number of such letters issued in 2005 was double that in 2004, according to the director of the ministry's examination department. Iraqi officials and international organizations put the number of Iraqis in Jordan at close to a million. Syrian cities also have growing Iraqi populations.

Since the bombing of a shrine in Samarra in February touched off a sectarian rampage, crime and killing have spread further through Iraqi society, paralyzing neighborhoods and smashing families. Now, on the brink of a new, permanent government, Iraqis are expressing the darkest view of their future in three years. "We're like sheep at a slaughter farm," said a businessman, who is arranging a move to Jordan. "We are just waiting for our time." The Samarra bombing produced a new kind of sectarian violence. Gangs of Shiites in Baghdad pulled Sunni Arabs out of houses and mosques and killed them in a spree that prompted retaliatory attacks and displaced 14,500 families in three months, according to the Ministry for Migration.

Most frightening, many middle-class Iraqis say, was how little the government did to stop the violence. That failure boded ominously for the future, leaving them feeling that the government was incapable of protecting them and more darkly, that perhaps it helped in the killing. Shiite-dominated government forces have been accused of carrying out sectarian killings.

"Now I am isolated," said Monkath Abdul Razzaq, a middle-class Sunni Arab, who decided to leave after the bombing. "I have no government. I have no protection from the government. Anyone can come to my house, take me, kill me and throw me in the trash."

Traces of the leaving are sprinkled throughout daily life. Mr. Abdul Razzaq, who will move his family to Syria next month, where he has already rented an apartment, said a fistfight broke out while he waited for five hours in a packed passport office to fill out applications for his two young sons. In Salheyah, a commercial district in central Baghdad, bus companies that specialize in Syria and Jordan say ticket sales have surged.

Karim al-Ani, the owner of one of the firms, Tiger Company, said a busy day last year used to be three buses, but in recent months it comes close to 10. "Before it was more tourists," he said. "Now we are taking everything, even furniture."

The impact can be seen in neighborhoods here. While much of the city bustles during daytime hours, the more war-torn areas, like in the south and in Ameriya, Ghazaliya, and Khadra in the west, are eerily empty at midday. On Mr. Bahjat's block in Dawra, only about 5 houses out of 40 remain occupied. Empty houses in the area are scrawled with the words "Omar Brigade," a Sunni group that kills Shiites.

Residents have been known to protest, at least on paper. In an act of helpless fury this winter, a large banner hung across a house in Dawra that read, "Do God and Islam agree that I should leave my house to live in a camp with my five children and wife?"

"Shadows," said Eileen Bahjat, Mr. Bahjat's wife, standing with her two sons and describing what is left in the neighborhood. "Shadows and killing."

In Dawra, one of the worst areas in all of Baghdad, public life has ground to a halt. Four teachers have been killed in the past 10 days in Mr. Bahjat's area alone, and the Ahmed al-Waily primary school where the Bahjat boys, ages 12 and 8, studied, may not be able to hold final exams because of the killings. And three teachers from the Batoul secondary school were shot in late April.

Trash is collected only sporadically. On April 3, insurgents shot seven garbage collectors to death near their truck, and their bodies lay in the area for eight hours before the authorities could collect them, said Naeem al-Kaabi, deputy mayor for municipal affairs in Baghdad. In all, 312 trash workers have been killed in Baghdad in the past six months.

"Sunnis, Shiites, Christians," said Mr. Bahjat, a Christian who this month moved his family to New Baghdad, an eastern suburb, to live with a relative, before leaving for Syria. "They just want to empty this place of all people."

"We must start from zero," he said. "Maybe under zero. But there is no other choice. Even with more time, the security will not improve."

It is more than just the killing that has sapped hope for the future. Iraqis have waited for five months for a permanent government, after voting in a national election in December, and though political leaders are on the brink of announcing it, some Iraqis say the amount of haggling it took to form it makes them skeptical that it will be able to solve bigger problems.

Abd al-Kareem al-Mahamedawy, a tribal sheik from Amara in southern Iraq who fought for years against Saddam Hussein, compared the process to "giving birth to a deformed child."

As if to underscore the point, a scene of sorrow unfolded just outside Mr. Mahamedawy's gate, where an extended family gathered, full of nervous movement, and absorbed the news of the strangling death of their 13-year-old boy by kidnappers. A woman brought her hands to her head in the timeworn motion of mourning.

Even with the resolve to leave, many departing Iraqis said they consider the move only temporary and hope to return if Iraq's fractious groups are united and stem the tide of the killings.

Cars and furniture are sold, but those who can afford it, like the Abdul Razzaq family, hang on to their properties. In Khadra in western Baghdad, Nesma Abdul Razzaq, Mr. Abdul Razzaq's wife, has spent the past months carefully wrapping their photographs, vases and furniture in cloth and packing them in boxes. She spoke of the sadness of the empty rooms and the pain of having to build a new life in a strange place.

"I have a rage inside myself," Mrs. Abdul Razzaq said by telephone, as her area, since last autumn, has become unsafe for a Western reporter to visit. "I feel desperate."

"I don't want to leave Iraq. But I have to for the kids. They have seen enough."

In a quiet block in Mansour, a wealthy neighborhood in central Baghdad, where stately, gated homes are lined with pruned hedges, the Kubba family spends most of its time indoors. They have hung onto their lifestyle: three of their children study violin, flute, and ballet in an arts school outside the neighborhood despite encroaching violence.

Last fall, a foul smell led neighbors to the bodies of seven family members in a house several doors down from the Kubbas. They had been robbed. Fehed Kubba, 15, went to buy bread last year and saw a crowd near the bakery that he assumed was watching a backgammon game. When he pushed in to look, he saw a man who had just been shot to death.

But it was the increasingly sectarian nature of the violence, deeply painful to Iraqis who are proud of their intermarried heritage, that tipped the scales as Falah Kubba and his wife, Samira, considered leaving with Fehed, Roula, 13, and Heya, 12.

"The past few months convinced us," said Mr. Kubba, a businessman whose wife is Sunni. "Now they are killing by ID's. The killing around Americans was something different, but the ID's, you can't move around on the streets."

"At the beginning we said, 'Let's wait, maybe it will be better tomorrow,' " Mr. Kubba said.

"Now I know it is time to go."

Mona Mahmoud, Sahar Nageeb and Qais Mizher contributed reporting for this article.



Sunday, May 21, 2006

 

NYT: Saying No to Bush's Yes Men

 
 
May 17, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Saying No to Bush's Yes Men

President Bush has slipped in one recent poll to a 29 percent approval rating. Frankly, I can't believe that. Those polls can't possibly be accurate. I mean, really, ask yourself: How could there still be 29 percent of the people who approve of this presidency?

Personally, I think the president can reshuffle his cabinet all he wants, but his poll ratings are not going to substantially recover — ever. Americans are slow to judgment about a president, very slow. And in times of war, in particular, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I think a lot of Americans in recent months have simply lost confidence in this administration's competence and honesty.

What has eaten away most at the support for this administration, I believe, has been the fact that time and time again, it has put politics and ideology ahead of the interests of the United States, and I think a lot of people are just sick of it. I know I sure am.

To me, the most baffling thing about the Bush presidency is this: If you had worked for so long to be president, wouldn't you want to staff your administration with the very best people you could find, especially in national security and especially in the area of intelligence, which has been the source of so much controversy — from 9/11 to Iraq?

Wouldn't that be your instinct? Well, not only did the president put the C.I.A. in the hands of a complete partisan hack named Porter Goss, but he then allowed Mr. Goss to appoint as the No. 3 man at the agency — the C.I.A.'s executive director — Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, whose previous position was chief of the C.I.A.'s logistics office in Germany, which provides its Middle East stations with supplies.

Mr. Foggo has spent almost his entire undistinguished C.I.A. career in midlevel administrative jobs. He ingratiated himself with Mr. Goss during his days as a congressman by funneling inside dope about the C.I.A. under George Tenet to Mr. Goss, Newsweek reported. When Mr. Goss was tapped by the president to head the C.I.A., he plucked Mr. Foggo from obscurity to handle day-to-day operations at the agency, where he immediately made his mark by purging the C.I.A. of veteran spies and managers deemed unfriendly to the White House. I feel safer already.

Mr. Foggo resigned, along with Mr. Goss, after the C.I.A.'s chief internal watchdog opened an investigation to determine whether Mr. Foggo had helped steer a contract, apparently involving bottled water, to a company run by his old friend Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor who has been identified as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case involving the corrupt San Diego congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is now in prison. Mr. Foggo is not an expert on Iran or Iraq or Russia, but rather on Perrier, Poland Spring and Fiji water. That is the guy the Bush team chose as its chief operating officer at the C.I.A.

Is there no job in this administration that is too important to be handed over to a political hack? No. In his excellent book on the Iraq war, "The Assassins' Gate," George Packer tells the story of how some of the State Department's best Iraq experts were barred from going to Iraq immediately after the invasion — when they were needed most — because that didn't pass Dick Cheney's or Don Rumsfeld's ideology tests. And that is the core of the matter: the Bush team believes in loyalty over expertise. When ideology always trumps reality, loyalty always trumps expertise.

Yes, Mr. Bush has seen the error of his ways and has sacked the Goss crew, but we just wasted a year and saw a number of experienced C.I.A. people quit the agency in disgust.

It's comical to think of this administration hoping to get a popularity lift from shaking up the president's cabinet, considering the fact that it has kept its cabinet secretaries so out of sight — even the good ones, and there are good ones — so the president will always dominate the landscape.

When you centralize power the way Mr. Bush did, you alone get stuck with all the responsibility when things go bad. And that is what is happening now. The idea that the president's poll numbers would go up if he replaced his Treasury secretary is ludicrous. Replacing him would be like replacing one ghost with another.

I understand that loyalty is important, but what good is it to have loyal crew members when the ship is sinking? So they can sing your praises on the way down to the ocean floor? I just don't understand how a president whose whole legacy depends on getting national security and intelligence right would have tolerated anything but the very best in those areas. What in the world was he thinking?

 
-------------
 
May 19, 2006

A Deficit of Honesty and Confidence (3 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Saying No to Bush's Yes Men" (column, May 17):

Thomas L. Friedman is correct: many Americans "have simply lost confidence in this administration's competence and honesty."

Even before significant questions of integrity arose, as early as 2000, many of us feared the consequences of putting someone in the presidency with so little experience and with few apparent skills. Others contended that George W. Bush was not that bad, and that regardless of his limited abilities, he would surround himself with only the best.

Six years later we find many government agencies wrecked, our treasury gutted, our country's moral stature in the world diminished, our national security threatened, more than 2,400 American service members' lives needlessly lost in Iraq and many thousands more disabled for a lifetime by that foolish war.

Indeed, he was that bad, and he did not surround himself with the best.

The lesson? Somehow, we must foster a national consciousness of the need to elect competent leaders.

John E. Colbert
Chicago, May 17, 2006

To the Editor:

Thomas L. Friedman wonders why President Bush appointed so many of his cronies to oversee crucial national security operations. The answer is not news to most Americans. Our president owed a lot of people a lot of favors for getting him elected.

He fulfilled his obligations by giving handouts to the corporations those people represent, filling important government posts with them and their friends, and showering them with tax cuts at the expense of ordinary Americans.

This orgy of back scratching has gotten us to where we are today. I am not surprised by the recent C.I.A. scandal. In fact, I expect more such revelations as the approval rating of this most regrettable of administrations continues its descent toward the single digits.

Neil Kernis
Astoria, Queens, May 17, 2006

To the Editor:

Americans have lost confidence in this administration's competence and honesty, but not for the reasons Thomas L. Friedman cited (although they were good reasons).

My husband disclosed an even better reason the other day when he told me that he was voting a straight Democratic ticket for the first time in his life. His reason? Lack of information from this administration. Lack of information always breeds mistrust, no matter what relationship it is found in.

Mary Anne Thomas
Black Mountain, N.C., May 17, 2006


Saturday, May 20, 2006

 

Knight Ridder: Tax cuts lose more money than they generate, studies conclude


 
 
 
Tax cuts lose more money than they generate, studies conclude


Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - When President Bush signed legislation Wednesday to extend lower tax rates for capital gains and dividend income through 2010, he suggested that his tax cuts are behind a surge of new revenue into the Treasury, and implied that it's enough to offset the revenue lost by these reductions.

At a ceremony on the White House lawn, Bush said his tax cuts had helped the economy grow, "which means more tax revenue for the federal Treasury."

That's just not true. A host of studies, some of them written by economists who served in the Bush administration, have concluded that tax reductions mean less money for the Treasury.

The cuts Bush extended Wednesday will cost the Treasury an estimated $70 billion over five years. They may help spur economic growth, but they still lose more revenue than they generate. And unless they're matched by lower federal spending, they worsen federal budget deficits.

To be sure, tax revenues grew by $274 billion in 2005, a 15 percent increase over the previous year, and receipts are growing this year too.

But does that mean the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts generated enough additional revenue to pay for themselves?

"No," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He was the chief economist for Bush's Council of Economic Advisers in 2001 and 2002, then the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until late last year.

Holtz-Eakin said other factors were behind the surge in tax revenues. One is that revenues rise as the population and the economy grow. Revenues would have risen in the post-2001 economic recovery with or without tax reductions, just as they did in the `90s.

Treasury Secretary John Snow conceded Tuesday that the much-touted tax cuts for capital gains and dividend income don't drive today's strong economy.

Asked by Knight Ridder if the tax reductions paid for themselves, Snow acknowledged that they don't. He also acknowledged that economic growth and stock market gains were strong in the late 1990s, when the capital-gains tax stood at 20 percent and dividend income was taxed at rates as high as 38.6 percent.

Bush and Congress cut both to 15 percent in 2003; the legislation that the president signed Wednesday extended that rate through 2010.

Still, Snow said, given a choice between good economic performance with high taxes or with lower taxes, "I'll vote for the good performance and the lower taxes every time."

But if the president's tax reductions have spurred the economy to grow larger than it otherwise would have, haven't they generated some more revenue to offset their cost?

A Harvard University paper last December concluded that up to 50 percent of a cut in capital-gains taxes would flow back to the Treasury in new revenues.

"The feedback is surprisingly large," concluded N. Gregory Mankiw, the study's co-author. He headed Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005.

Mankiw's study also concluded that the Treasury payback would be 17 percent of the tax-cut's cost if the reduction were on wages instead of capital.

That's in line with a December study by the CBO. It looked at a hypothetical 10 percent cut in income-tax rates. It concluded that up to 22 percent of the lost revenue could be regained over five years, and up to 32 percent over five more years.

But paybacks of 50, 17, 22 or 32 percent still mean a net revenue loss for the Treasury.

That doesn't mean that economists oppose reducing taxes on capital gains and dividends. They just want them to be balanced so they don't worsen budget deficits.

"I'd be quite in favor of such cuts, if you made up for them with other revenue increases or spending cuts," said Rudolph Penner, who was the CBO director from 1983 to 1987.

But that hasn't happened.

The federal budget held a $236 billion surplus in fiscal 2000. After Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax reductions, it went into annual deficits, peaking at $412 billion in fiscal 2004. This year's is projected to be about $300 billion.


Friday, May 19, 2006

 

WSJ: Murtha Discusses Military Findings Of Iraq Incident + Knight Ridder: Pentagon report said to find killing of Iraqi civilians deliberate

 

Murtha Discusses Military Findings Of Iraq Incident

Pennsylvania Congressman
Says Inquiry Into Deaths
Shows Higher Civilian Toll
By DAVID ROGERS and MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS
May 18, 2006; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- A top Democratic lawmaker on defense matters said a military inquiry found that more Iraqi civilians were killed than previously reported in a bloody incident last November involving U.S. Marines in Haditha.

"It's much worse than reported," said Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, a critic of the war, but also a Marine combat veteran with close ties to the Marine command. While early reports estimated 15 civilians were killed, Mr. Murtha said the military now believes the number was 24 and that "our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

[John Murtha]

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children," Mr. Murtha said. "It's a very serious incident unfortunately and it shows the tremendous pressure these guys are under every day when they're out in combat and the stress and the consequences."

The Marines announced last month that three officers were relieved of command after the battalion involved in the Nov. 19 incident in Haditha ended its tour of Iraq and returned to the U.S. Those relieved included both the commander of the rifle company involved in the events under investigation and his direct superior. Neither of the two was willing to comment Wednesday, according to a Marine Corps spokesman at their base, Camp Pendleton, in Southern California.

Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, spokesman for the Marine Corps Forces at Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said the officers were relieved for "a series of things that took place during their tour in Iraq" but he wouldn't say whether the alleged killing of civilians was one of the reasons the officers were relieved of duty. Nor would he say whether Mr. Murtha's description of the investigators' findings was accurate.

"There is an ongoing investigation, therefore any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process," he said in a statement. "As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable."

A spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service also refused to comment on its part in the inquiry.

Mr. Murtha had traveled in the Haditha area last summer. After Time magazine published a detailed article in March challenging the initial military account of the incident, prompting an investigation, Mr. Murtha sought out top Marine commanders. He has spoken privately before of his concerns about the alleged killings, but Wednesday was the first time he had discussed the matter so openly.

The occasion was a news conference more generally on the course of the war in Iraq, six months after Mr. Murtha had called for U.S. withdrawal. He first alluded to the alleged killings, which occurred two days after he introduced his resolution calling for withdrawal. And then when questioned by a reporter, he went into more detail.

"I kept hearing reports from Marines who had come out of the field that something like this had happened," he said. The investigation since, he said, has contradicted an early Marine communiqué that 15 civilians had been killed by an explosives blast, that also cost the life of a Marine in the same unit.

"There was no fire fight. There was no explosion that killed the civilians in a bus. There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There were only bullet holes inside the houses where the Marines had gone in."

He said he hasn't seen a final investigative report, but he appeared to be prodding the Marine command to acknowledge the incident more openly. "This is going to be a very bad thing for the United States," he said. "I don't make excuses for them," he said of the Marines involved. "I'm just understanding what their problem is."

Write to David Rogers at david.rogers@wsj.com1 and Michael M. Phillips at michael.phillips@wsj.com2

  URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114792069511456310.html

  Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:david.rogers@wsj.com
(2) mailto:michael.phillips@wsj.com
 
----------
 
Pentagon report said to find killing of Iraqi civilians deliberate


Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon report on an incident in Haditha, Iraq, where U.S. Marines shot and killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last November will show that those killings were deliberate and worse than initially reported, a Pennsylvania congressman said Wednesday.

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell."

Murtha's comments were the first on-the-record remarks by a U.S. official characterizing the findings of military investigators looking into the Nov. 19 incident. Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and an opponent of Bush administration policy in Iraq, said he hadn't read the report but had learned about its findings from military commanders and other sources.

Military public affairs officers said the investigation isn't completed and declined to provide further information. "There is an ongoing investigation," said Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a Marine spokesman at Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "Any comment at this time would be inappropriate."

Both Gibson and Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said that the military has yet to decide what, if any action, might be taken against Marines involved in the incident.

"It would be premature to judge any individual or unit until the investigation is complete," Irwin said. Said Gibson, "No charges have been made as we have to go through the entire investigatory process and determine whether or not that is a course of action."

Three Marine commanders whose troops were involved in the incident were relieved of duty in April, but the Marines didn't link their dismissals to the incident, saying only that Gen. Richard Natonski, commander of 1st Marine Division, had lost confidence in the officers' ability to command. Gibson reiterated that point Wednesday. "It's important to remember that the officers were relieved by the commanding general of 1st Marine Division as a result of events that took place throughout their tour of duty in Iraq," he said.

The dismissed officers were Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and two of his company commanders, Capt. James S. Kimber and Capt. Lucas M. McConnell. Gibson said all three have been assigned to staff jobs with the 1st Division.

U.S. military authorities in Iraq initially reported that one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians traveling in a bus were killed by a roadside bomb in the western Iraq insurgent stronghold of Haditha. They said eight insurgents were killed in an ensuing firefight.

But Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the ground commander of coalition forces in Iraq, ordered an investigation on Feb. 14 after a reporter with Time magazine told military authorities of allegations that the Marines had killed innocent civilians.

After CNN broke the news of the initial investigation in March, military officials told Knight Ridder that the civilians were killed not in the initial blast but were apparently caught in the crossfire of a subsequent gun battle as 12 to 15 Marines fought insurgents from house to house over the next five hours. At that time, military officials told Knight Ridder that four of the civilians killed were women and five were children.

Subsequent reporting from Haditha by Time and Knight Ridder revealed a still different account of events, with survivors describing Marines breaking down the door of a house and indiscriminately shooting the building's occupants.

Twenty-three people were killed in the incident, relatives of the dead told Knight Ridder.

The uncle of one survivor, a 13-year-old girl, told Knight Ridder that the girl had watched the Marines open fire on her family and that she had held her 5-year-old brother in her arms as he died. The girl shook visibly as her uncle relayed her account, too traumatized to recount what happened herself.

"I understand the investigation shows that in fact there was no firefight, there was no explosion that killed the civilians on a bus," Murtha said. "There was no bus. There was no shrapnel. There was only bullet holes inside the house where the Marines had gone in. So it's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure these guys are under every day when they're out in combat and the stress and consequences."

Murtha, who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the Marine Corps, said nothing indicates that the Iraqis killed in the incident were at fault.

"One man was killed with an IED," Murtha said, referring to a Marine killed by the roadside bomb. "And after that, they actually went into the houses and killed women and children."

Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Steven Thomma contributed to this report.

 
 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?