connot's Blog

TO THE LAND OF FREEDOM WHERE ALL IS WELCOME AND HURRY UP, ONLY 50,000 FAMILIES ARE INVITED---------

 

  Select your language: English |  Español |  Deutsch |  Français |  Dutch |  Português |  Italiano |  ???????? |  Dansk |  ????????? |  ??????? |  Cesky |  ??????? |  ???? |  ??? |  ????? |  Magyar |  norsk |  svenska |  Türkçe |  ??????? | 
Actual Green Card Approved green Card Winning Notification

USAFIS organization invites you to participate in the American Green Card Lottery program where you may win a green card and live and work in the United States. If you are not an American citizen, you must join the program and take advantage of the opportunity that has been offered to you by a program of the American government, through a law that has been passed by Congress - the "Diversity Green Card Lottery" program.


--> The Usafis Organization Website is now accepting applications online and be submitted into this year's program. The Usafis Organization website, as a non governmental entity providing value added services, will forward your registration in due time to the State Department dedicated website. The Usafis Organization is a private website that enables you to register online for the American Green Card Lottery Program. Click here to read the benefits of registering with Usafis.


50,000 people and their families will live and work in the USA Official US Government program, Congress approved. Your Chance to Live and Work in the USA. Easy Online Registration and Assistance in every step. Double Chances for Married People to win the Green Card.



The majority of the world's inhabitants are eligible to participate in the lottery. Eligibility is determined according to the participant's country of birth. If your country of birth does not appear on the list of eligible countries, you can register as a native of the country of birth of your spouse or parents. With the help of a three questions test you will be able to find out whether you are eligible.



It is free of charge. It does not cost anything to participate in the annual green card lottery. Usafis charges for application service, data inspection, correct completion of the form and sending it on time to the correct address. Usafis job is to make sure that your form will be entered in the lottery and not disqualifies.For further information, please fill out a contact form or read the following questions and answers.

You decide! Here are all the pros and cons for registering through Usafis Organization website http://www.usafis.org/masterssl/ versus the US State Department website. You decide where you want to register!
Feature Offered US State Department Website Usafis Organization Website Registration Available now --> Same chance to all participants to win Free of charge Open 365 days a year Free airline ticket to winners to come to the USA* Allow sending photos by regular mail Allow uploading photos Photo update available anytime Notify winners by regular mail Notify winners by phone, email and fax multiple times Contact details update at anytime Multiple years submission Online support to questions by experts

-->State Department News
"Green Card Registration, will be available only online at the State Department dedicated website - No more regular mailing of applications." Published August 18th 2003

From the State Departement Rule for the DV2009:"Alien petitioners for the Diversity Visa Program will no longer be permitted to submit a petition by mail. Instead, the Department will require that all petitions be submitted to it in an electronic format, using an Internet website dedicated specifically to the submission and receipt of Diversity Visa." More Info

 

 

Terms and Conditions   Privacy Policy   About   Info   Contact Us   Press
   Affiliates   Site Map   Green Card Links   -->
Green Card Lottery online application services
© Copyright 2006 USAFIS.ORG All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
usafis.org website is a private entity and is not a governmental agency
Official-green-card   Green Card   Program Information   Natively.com
* Green Card Lottery winners will receive airline ticket1 for free, up to $500 value.
Terms mentioned herein are limited to winners who registered
through usafis.org and hired Usafis.org affiliated law firm to process their Green Card application.

 

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered,  ISG judges that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed it's undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad has resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy that ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered  intellectual, or it's fear of force against it, should WMD be discovered.

We can thank the CIA for the release of this information concerning Iraq's WMD under the FOIA Created 9/30/2004 but released much later. Although the findings stated that Iraq could in 6 months time, possibly less, implement and create CW but ISG Judges found no credible evidence of their existence. You will find it's efforts and findings in:

 VOL III COMPREHENSIVE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL ADVISOR TO THE DCI ON IRAQ'S WMD

FOR KEY FINDINGS please visit the following web address and go to page 6 of 248:

http://www.foia.ucia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=00
01156478&title=VOL+III+COMPREHENSIVE+REPORT+OF+THE+SPEC
IAL+ADVISOR+TO+THE+DCI+ON+IRAQ'S+WMD&abstract=&no_pages
=0248&pub_date=9/30/2004&release_date=10/15/2004&keywor
ds=IRAQ|IAEA|WMD|UNSCOM|WEAPONS+OF+MASS+DESTRUCTION|OFF
+PROGRAM|IRAQ+SURVEY+GROUP|DUELFER+CHARLES&case_no=SC-2
004-00005&copyright=0&release_dec=RIFPUB&classification
=U&showPage=0001

 

The reason for "cut and paste?" I could not have covered/written this news as accurately and punctuational, as it was presented here by Reuters. One by one, as I predicted, Bush is losing his own. Republicans reignite Iraq war debate

 

By Susan Cornwell

Reuters
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; 5:09 PM

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's Iraq war policy suffered a second blow in as many days on Tuesday when another senior senator from his Republican party publicly called for U.S. troop withdrawals.

A day after Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar declared that Bush's "surge" policy of adding troops was not working, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio sent Bush a letter "expressing his belief that our nation must begin to develop a comprehensive plan for our gradual military disengagement from Iraq," Voinovich's office announced.

 

Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and Voinovich is a member of that panel. The Ohioan made his move even as Democrats were hailing Lugar for publicly criticizing the Iraq war, saying Lugar had reignited what had seemed a stalled debate.

In a Senate floor speech on Monday night, Lugar said the United States should draw down its troops in Iraq and redeploy some of them in the region before it is too late to do so politically -- before the U.S. 2008 presidential campaign gets into full swing and partisan confrontation limits options.

U.S. policy was limiting America's diplomatic effectiveness around the world and straining the U.S. military, Lugar said. "The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved."

Although Democrats believe they were catapulted to power in Congress by voters who wanted to end the war, they have been unable to translate that mandate into legislation bringing about an end to the conflict, largely because not enough Republicans have joined them in the narrowly-divided Senate,

"I believe that Senator Lugar's words yesterday could be remembered as the turning point in this intractable civil war in Iraq," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002 but soured on the conflict.

"But that will depend on whether more Republicans take the stand that Senator Lugar took, the courageous stand," Reid said.

Lugar told reporters on Tuesday he was not as not looking for a showdown with the White House, but a bipartisan consensus on getting the United States to reduce its presence in Iraq, where America now has 157,000 troops.

"I'm going to find out who else agrees with me, how I can work with other senators, how I can work with the president," Lugar, who chaired the Foreign Relations Committee until Democrats took power in January, said outside the Senate.

Since delivering the speech, the White House had telephoned him and he will be meeting administration officials "soon," Lugar said. Other Republican senators had been "generally supportive" of his remarks, he added.

The White House tried to play down Lugar's speech, saying he had been a thoughtful critic of the war for some time. Lugar told reporters it was true he had made many of his criticisms privately to Bush as far back as January -- but not publicly.

Even Lugar's fellow Republicans said his move had recharged the Iraq debate. One, Virginia Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, suggested a tipping point in Congress could come as soon as next month, when a defense policy bill comes to the Senate floor -- instead of holding until September, when Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus is due to report.

But one Republican supporter of the war, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, was unmoved by Lugar's public change in stance. "As much as I respect Senator Lugar, I think it's unfair to the troops in the field to say that the surge is not working," he said.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted on Tuesday to approve Bush's nomination of a "war czar" for Iraq and Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, and confirmed Preston Geren as Army secretary.

(additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan)

 

---

Why Did Bush Not Act On Sept 11?

1999 CNN report on off-course Learjet aircraft
Confirms Vital Role of President During Air Threats to US Cities
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATlearjet.h
tm

'America is under attack'
Sarasota, Florida, 11 September 2001
The moment the US Commander-in-Chief
didn't burst into action

---

What Did Bush Know On Sept 11

For complete story, please go to:

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/WA
Tlearjet.htm

I really do not think that you will find statistics as accurate as these. All studies/surveys have their error margins. However,  considering the sources, (DOD etc.,) and those responsible for this report, it is the most preferred and factual report yet to be conducted on this conflict.  The following is just a brief run-down of this report as it is quite extensive and covers an incredible amount of work. You will find no where, accuracy as at this site. Please click of the following website rather than read the small bits of info that I have chose:

FOR ENTIRE REPORT PLEASE GO TO :  http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

 

 

               SOURCES

(1) Department of Defense press releases @  DoD
(2) CENTCOM press releases @ CENTCOM
(3) MNF press releases @ MNF
(4) British Ministry of Defense website @ MoD

: By Time Period News   Current Time in Baghdad: 6:53:47 PM 

FOR ENTIRE REPORT PLEASE GO TO :  http://icasualties.org/oif/

 
Time Periods Defined U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3536 Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 19 Total 3555 DoD Confirmation List Latest Coalition Fatality: Jun 23, 2007

 

New pages added to the site:
U.S. Wounded By State
U.S. Fatalities By Base
U.S. Fatalities By Divisions
U.S. Fatalities by Occupation Code
Interactive - Deaths By Iraq Province

05-Jun-07
Totals updated Monthly by the DoD Totals updated weekly by the DoD Wounded By Branch of Service View Complete Weekly Report Some of The Wounded...   Fatality Details 06/23/07

Notes

Latest Military Fatality Date: Jun 23, 2007
Total Fatalities since May 1, 2003: 3664
March 20th through May 1st: 140 Hostile US Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 2822
Hostile Fatalities Since May 1, 2003: 3007
US deaths since July 22, 2003: 3318
(the deaths of Odai & Qusai Hussein) US deaths since July 2, 2003: 3348
(Pres. Bush announces, "Bring Them On") Total Hostile Fatalities since December 13, 2003: 2767
(Saddam Hussein is captured) Coalition Deaths Since January 30, 2005: 2239
(First Nationwide election since the toppling of Saddam Hussein Coalition Deaths Since December 15, 2005: 1481
(General election to elect a permanent Iraqi National Assembly) Coalition Deaths Since June 7, 2006: 1122
(Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi) Estimate of Iraqi Deaths Since February 22, 2006: 30176
(Al Askari Mosque bombing) Estimate of Iraqi Deaths Since April 22, 2006 27807
(al-Maliki tapped as Iraq's prime minister designate) Estimate of Iraqi Deaths Since June 7, 2006 26218
(Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)

Support Our Troops and Their Families 

 

From Newsweek.com
Narrated by Glenn Kutler, iCasualties.org
Dec. 11, 2006: Three years and nine months after the U.S.-led Coalition began its war against Saddam Hussein, researchers have quietly recorded another grim milestone in the cost of the conflict. American military casualties have now exceeded 25,000.

 About This Site Sources:

 

 

Contact Us Our Methodology Designed and maintained by Michael White Data Analysis Glenn Kutler Correspondence: Michal, Piotr, and Karen U.S. City fatality map: Pete Chamberlain iCasualties logo: Carrie Phillips

 

View Fatality Names and Details

 

Fatality Details

View Fatality Names and Details

Deaths out of Theater

Search By Last Name

 

US Casualties

U.S. Fatalities confirmed/pending

U.S. Fatalities City Map

U.S. Fatalities State Map U.S. Fatalities By State U.S. Fatalities By Month U.S. Fatalities By Service U.S. Fatalities By Base U.S. Fatalities By Division U.S. Wounded by State U.S. Wounded Month U.S. Wounded Month and Service Some of the Wounded Statistics

Fatality Metrics Hostile/NonHostile Deaths Coalition Deaths By Country Coalition Deaths By Year and Country Casualties Trends Since Fall of Baghdad Coalition Deaths By Province Map Coalition Deaths By Province Year, Month Female Fatalities Deaths By IED Cumulative Fatalities

Iraqis Iraqi Police and Guardsmen Deaths Attacks on Iraqis Other Deaths An Incomplete List of Contractors Killed in Iraq Journalists Killed in Iraq Operation Enduring Freedom Fatalities External Links Coalition Fatalities By Location Across Time Iraqi Body Count The Lancet Study (PDF) The Brookings Iraq Index

 

IraqSide:Iraqi Diary

ON THE BRINK? Iraqis Flee Homes in Wake of Samarra Bombing Sectarian Attacks Reported, IDP Camps Being Overwhelmed 06/14/2007 12:58 PM ET

 

Dia Hamid/AFP/Getty Samarra, IRAQ: Smoke billows from the Shiite Imam al-Askari shrine in the restive city of Samarra, north of Baghdad, 13 June 2007.

BAGHDAD, 14 June 2007 (IRIN) - Civilians are defying a curfew to flee their homes in fear of an increase in sectarian violence after insurgents blew up two minarets at a revered Shia shrine in Samarra on 13 June. Partial destruction of the shrine last year sparked spiralling sectarian bloodshed.

"The curfew is preventing everyone from moving but some families insist on leaving their homes trying to save themselves. We have been informed than many people have been killed while trying to flee and others have been killed in their homes by militias," said Fatah Ahmed, an Iraq Aid Association spokesman.

"Some displacement camps on the outskirts of Baghdad have received a huge number of people since yesterday and cannot cope. Also, NGOs, because of the curfew and violence, are unable to reach families in need," Ahmed added.

Since 13 June, Mahdi army militants have been targeting Sunni mosques and families. At least six Sunni mosques have been burned in the capital and many civilians killed, said some observers.

"They entered our home, took my father and brother outside and executed them. We are desperate because the bodies cannot be buried because of the curfew. We need help, they shouldn't let this attack bring more violence again to so many desperate families," said Rabab Salim, 21, a Sunni resident of the capital, Baghdad.

"Militants reacted badly to the attack but they shouldn't let this bad action bring more violence to Iraqi families. People are desperate and many have died since yesterday , including innocent children and women," said Barak Mashadanny, a member of the Iraq Security Consul.

"This will affect the security in Iraq badly. More troops have gone into streets and clashes are continuing between militias and insurgents. Wherever you are you can hear the desperate screaming of women while their husbands are being killed in front of their doors," Mashadanny added.

Ibraheem Saleh, a doctor at the emergency department at Yarmouk hospital, said many injured people were ferried to the hospital and if the situation continued, they would have serious problems because of a lack of emergency materials, and called on local NGOs for help.

"We urge fighters to stop before chaos in the Iraq health system unfolds. Innocent people are coming to get treatment for their injuries, including children. There have been dozens since yesterday," Saleh added.

Since 13 June, the Iraqi police have released many reports about bodies found handcuffed, blindfolded and riddled with bullets in various locations, many with signs of torture.

"Since yesterday, more than 40 bodies were found and it doesn't include those killed inside or in the doors of their homes. There might be dozens more," said Lt Col Ali Hazeem, senior officer in the Ministry of Interior.

"We urge all parties to calm down and think before the lives of innocent civilians are lost. We are working seriously to tackle insurgency in Iraq without affecting the life of the local population. Such sectarian violence will just delay the peace in Iraq," Hazeem said.

"We call on all local NGOs to prepare themselves for the possible increase in displacement and try to continue sending convoys to displacement camps as families are without supplies and cannot move. We call on government and all parties to afford aid workers protection during their work as they are just trying to save lives," said Ahmed of Iraq Aid.

 

Iraqi parliament votes on US troops Source: Al Jazeera

Iraqi politicians have passed a resolution requiring the government to seek parliamentary permission before asking the UN to extend the mandate for US-led forces in Iraq.
The measure was approved on Tuesday and reflects a growing disenchantment with the US-backed government.
The Sadrist-drafted resolution passed with a vote of 85 to 59.
The members of parliament voted along party lines, with Sunnis joining the bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, and another Shia party at odds with the leadership.

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D40BB67B-86
96-4E...

http://www.alternet.org/story/53230 /

While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -- now representing a majority of the body -- continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.

The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the U.N. mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.

The law requires the parliament's approval of any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's prime minister. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "This new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the U.N. mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the U.N. mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "There will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the U.N. mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."



http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53230

---

Exclusive: Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End to Occupation
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on June 5, 2007, Printed on June 6, 2007

Wednesday, June 06, 2007 Declare Victory, because Victory is won

With Iraq's response to every outrage and bombing, the thousand-year victorybecomes more complete. In November, less than one million Iraqis (nearly all of whom were part of the Sunni Arab regime) had left the country. Now the number is more than two million.

At the same time, the parliament of Iraq wishes to be consulted before the UN reauthorizes the US Mandate over Iraq. The civil war which Iraqi Sunni rejectionists started, to beat the people of Iraq into submission, is all but won by the people of Iraq.

Our Victorious Ally

It is hard to imagine a path where they could return to power, though many still advocate paying danegeld to baathists and the antidemocratic tribes, reasoning that cool self-interest on the part of the Sunni Arab tribes which would have prevented this civil war will spontaneously appear when money is put on the tabel.

America does not need to be in Iraq. We should leave Iraq. We merely need to provide money, materiel, and air cover to Iraq. American forces would be better spend in intensively building up Kuwait and Kurdistan (the so-called "2K Solution") than directly fighting a civil war which is now a foregone conclusion.

President Bush, declare victory. Because you have won. America has won. Iraq has won.

And those who respond to ballots with bullets have lost. 15:25 Posted by Dan tdaxp in Iraq

The Two Iraqs: Leaked Memo Paints Darker Image Than Bush, Officials Portrayed Before President Bush's Surprise Baghdad Visit, U.S. Embassy Gave Bleak Assessment By KIRIT RADIA
June 20, 2006 Iraq's central government does not provide security for many of its citizens, according to an internal memo sent from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department in Washington.

Instead, unofficial "neighborhood governments" are responsible for ensuring the safety of ordinary Iraqis, according to the cable, which cites staff members as saying so.

 The June 6 memo entitled "Snapshots from the Office" was sent by the Public Affairs Office staff at the American Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department in Washington and painted a bleak picture of the security situation in and around Baghdad.

The six-page message, obtained by ABC News and whose authenticity has been confirmed by the State Department, is in stark contrast to the rosy image of Iraq frequently depicted by American and Iraqi government officials.

"Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders," the cable says. It adds: "The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars [authorities] have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."

 

Employees Hide Use of American Cell Phones, English

The memo compiles a string of vignettes from the lives of Iraqis who work in the U.S. Embassy. It describes the extra precautions these workers take to avoid being discovered as employees of the American government -- something that would mean certain persecution at the hands of some groups.

According to the cable, many of the workers do not take their American cell phones home for fear of being detected. Similarly, others avoid speaking in English when called at home so as not to raise suspicion.

One line from the message illustrates this best: "Of nine employees in March only four had family members who knew they worked at the embassy."

In one example outlined in the cable, an embassy worker had to flee the country after her family members were threatened.

Furthermore, the memo warns of increasing sectarian violence in the city, threats against embassy workers, deteriorating womens' rights, and many specific cases of dangers faced by embassy workers and ordinary Iraqis every day.

According to the cable, women have recently come under mounting pressure to wear a headscarf in public, and even to cover their faces -- a practice which smacks of the harsh conservative rule under Afghanistan's Taliban. It even describes how some conservative groups are calling for a dress code for men, under which some men have been attacked for wearing shorts, or even jeans, in public.

Embassy workers have even become suspicious of the guards that protect the entrances to the Green Zone, the fortified area in Baghdad that houses the U.S. Embassy and is considered relatively safer than the surrounding areas of the city.

ABC News has also learned that President Bush read the cable on his way to Baghdad during his surprise visit to the new Iraqi government last week.

The cable's author remains unknown, but State Department officials told reporters that U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad was not the author. Although Khalilzad's name appears at the bottom of the message, it is standard practice for an ambassador's name to appear below all such correspondence leaving the embassy.

Iraq
Killings of civilians in Basra and al-'Amara

Introduction

More than a year after the occupation of Iraq, civilians are still being killed unlawfully every day by Coalition Forces, armed groups and individuals. In recent weeks hundreds of civilians have been killed as clashes between Coalition Forces and armed groups and individuals opposed to the occupation have intensified. In Falluja alone, at least 600 people, including many children, have been killed during clashes between Coalition Forces and insurgents.(1) On 4 April US forces launched major operations in Falluja following the killing, burning and mutilation of four US private security guards by insurgents on 31 March. Clashes have also erupted between Coalition Forces and supporters of the Shi’a leader Muqtada al-Sadr in parts of Baghdad and in several other cities and towns. These clashes were prompted by the closure at the end of March of al-Hawza al-Natiqa newspaper, mouthpiece of Muqtada al-Sadr’s group, and the arrest of one of his closest aides, Mustafa al-Ya’qubi, on charges relating to the April 2003 assassination in al-Najaf of well-known Shi’a cleric ‘Abd al-Majid al-Khoie. The newspaper was closed down by order of Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, on the grounds that it was inciting violence.

CLICK FOR ENTIRE ARTICLE

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde14007200
4

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.

A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'

The extent to which American exceptionalism is embedded in the national psyche is awesome to behold.

While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with surprise at the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as heinous as a war crime.

From the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines to the first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima to the unprovoked invasion of Baghdad, U.S.-sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong and worthy of prosecution in internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the gory, bload-soaked atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and most certainly not the Nazis -- most certainly not. Howard Zinn recently described this as our "inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior."

Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it.

But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."

Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."

Challenges to the legality of this war can also be found at the ground level. First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, cites the rules of the U.N. Charter as a principle reason for his dissent.

Ferencz isn't using the invasion of Iraq as a convenient prop to exercise his longstanding American hatred: he has a decades-old paper trail of calls for every suspect of war crimes to be brought to international justice. When the United States captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, Ferencz wrote that Hussein's offenses included "the supreme international crime of aggression, to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, and a long list of atrocities condemned by both international and national laws."

Ferencz isn't the first to make the suggestion that the United States has committed state-sponsored war crimes against another nation -- not only have leading war critics made this argument, but so had legal experts in the British government before the 2003 invasion. In a short essay in 2005, Ferencz lays out the inner deliberations of British and American officials as the preparations for the war were made:

U.K. military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in The Hague."

Ferencz quotes the British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry who, in the lead-up to the invasion, quit abruptly and wrote in her resignation letter: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution … [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

While the United Kingdom is a signatory of the ICC, and therefore under jurisdiction of that court, the United States is not, thanks to a Republican majority in Congress that has "attacks on America's sovereignty" and "manipulation by the United Nations" in its pantheon of knee-jerk neuroses. Ferencz concedes that even though Britain and its leadership could be prosecuted, the international legal climate isn't at a place where justice is blind enough to try it -- or as Ferencz put it, humanity isn't yet "civilized enough to prevent this type of illegal behavior." And Ferencz said that while he believes the United States is guilty of war crimes, "the international community is not sufficiently organized to prosecute such a case. … There is no court at the moment that is competent to try that crime."

As Ferencz said, the world is still a long way away from establishing norms that put all nations under the rule of law, but the battle to do so is a worthy one: "There's no such thing as a war without atrocities, but war-making is the biggest atrocity of all."

The suggestion that the Bush administration's conduct in the "war on terror" amounts to a string of war crimes and human rights abuses is gaining credence in even the most ossified establishment circles of Washington. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the Supreme Court suggests that Bush's attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions in his approved treatment of terror suspects may leave him open to prosecution for war crimes. As Sidney Blumenthal points out, the Court rejected Bush's attempt to ignore Common Article 3, which bans "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

And since Congress enacted the Geneva Conventions, making them the law of the United States, any violations that Bush or any other American commits "are considered 'war crimes' punishable as federal offenses," as Justice Kennedy wrote.

George W. Bush in the dock facing a charge of war crimes? That's well beyond the scope of possibility … or is it?

 

How the World Can Help Americans Halt Bush Administration War Crimes

By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
Brendan Smith and Jeremy Brecher are co-editors, with Jill Cutler, of the forthcoming book In The Name Of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (New York: Metropolitan/Holt, 2005) and regular contributors to Foreign Policy In Focus  On May 17 a legal summons was delivered to U.S. and UK embassies in capitals around the world—including Istanbul, Tokyo, Lisbon, and Brussels—on behalf of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI). The summons requested the attendance of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to defend charges that they are in “violation of common values of humanity, international treaties, and international law” for waging war in Iraq.        The Istanbul session to which Bush and Blair are invited is the culminating tribunal of WTIs held in Paris, Tokyo, New York, and elsewhere around the world. While the summons was signed by leading international figures, including international legal scholar Richard Falk and former Assistant UN Secretary General Dennis Halliday, President Bush’s attendance is not anticipated.

To read the rest of this artivle please click-on:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0614-27.htma>

 

Why Do Republicans Hate America's Veterans?

Submitted by Bob Geiger on June 27, 2006 - 6:35am.

• John Murtha
• Swiftboating
• Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

In his quiet moments, Rep. John Murtha must sometimes catch himself thinking about how much easier his life would be if he had just kept his damn mouth shut and gone along to get along on the Iraq war. The Democrat, who has represented Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District for 32 years, began angering the Republican party in late 2005 when, having seen enough of the Bush administration's incompetence, he became the most vocal critic of the White House's failed and dishonest Iraq policies.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," said Murtha, in November 2005, in calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf regime."

Despite Murtha's standing as a highly-decorated combat Veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 37 years, it was off to the races for the right-wing smear machine. They immediately set upon Murtha, who just turned 74, for requesting moderation and a cautious course when risking the lives of our military men and women stationed in Iraq.

And who did most of the attacking? Conservative chickenhawks, who have never served a day in uniform in their lives, but who immediately began talking tough and accusing a man of Murtha's stature of running from a fight.

It started on Nov. 18, 2005, the day after Murtha's initial remarks, when Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, the most junior member of the House of Representatives at the time, implied loudly on the House floor that Murtha was a coward.

"Cowards cut and run, Marines never do," crowed Schmidt, as the House chamber erupted in shouting and came to a standstill. Schmidt was eventually forced to withdraw her statement as inappropriate but, knowing how the GOP leadership operates, it's safe to assume she was given major kudos behind closed doors for taking one for the team.

Dick Cheney, told in advance of Murtha's new stance on the war, had begun insulting former Marine Murtha almost immediately saying, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone."

Meanwhile, Murtha, who was fighting in Southeast Asia while Cheney was kicking back on one of his five military deferments, fired back at the vice president.

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that," said a disgusted Murtha. "I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

But that didn't stop the likes of Cheney and Schmidt at the time, and it's proceeded to get worse ever since -- the same ugly specter of Republicans who claim to be so patriotic and to worship at the military altar smearing decorated veterans at every turn for the crime of being Democrats and voicing dissent with GOP policies.

They did it with former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, famously brought out the Swift Boat Liars to smear John Kerry's war record, and they immediately started doing the same with Murtha, who volunteered for Vietnam in 1966 and for his service was awarded the Bronze Star with Combat "V," two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

In January 2006, a pseudo-news organization known as the Cybercast News Service (CNS) picked up with Murtha where the Swift Boat Liars left off with Kerry by questioning the circumstances in Vietnam that led to Murtha's two Purple Hearts.

This time it was David Thibault, editor in chief of CNS, who picked up the prevailing tactic of the GOP, which is to smear the patriotism and good name of any Democrat who dares question Bush and the war -- even if, like Murtha, you happen to be a 37-year military veteran and a former Parris Island drill instructor decorated for valor in combat.

CNS, which is part of the ultraconservative Media Research Center, trotted out the familiar, slimy routine of questioning the seriousness of Murtha's war injuries and the extent to which they were worthy of the Purple Heart awards. Thibault made his motivation clear, saying that Murtha had brought the attack on himself because "the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the anti-war movement." There's the theme again: Shut up and go along with Bush or get slimed beyond recognition.

Which begs the obvious question: Why do the likes of Thibault and so many Republican operatives who so righteously question the courage and patriotism of guys like John Kerry, Max Cleland or John Murtha hate our veterans and the military so much?

Their deeds speak louder than their words, and one wonders how they would treat liberals who questioned the guts of men who put their lives on the line and bled for our country. The wailing and outrage would be deafening, and yet they believe it's perfectly acceptable to vilify certain veterans if they happen to be Democrats and it furthers the far-right political agenda.

And what of their disgracefully insulting treatment of the very military institutions they claim to support? Those of us who have served know that you don't just walk into the PX and buy yourself a Bronze Star or a Purple Heart -- they're awarded at great discretion by the leadership of the military. Yet even those who have reached the upper echelons of our Defense Department now have their wisdom and integrity called into question by people who will stoop so low as to question whether or not someone came close enough to dying in combat to receive a Purple Heart.

My guess is that it's just a matter of time before House Republicans don Purple Heart bandages to ridicule Murtha's service as their people did on the floor of the GOP national convention in 2004 in an effort to minimize John Kerry's service.

It's repulsive, insulting and demeaning to every veteran, whether or not they have ever been unfortunate enough to receive that decoration.

The latest salvo appears to be a new smear site, MurthaLied.com, which is about to be drawn out from under a rock and it certainly has all the looks of the same people who brought you pure fiction about Kerry in 2004. The website is run by a woman named Amanda Doss, who has a long alliance with -- guess who? -- the Swift Boat Liars and a whack job named Ted Sampley, who runs the hate site, The U.S. Veteran Dispatch.

That name may sound familiar to you. This is the same guy who once wrote of John McCain as "The Manchurian Candidate" and suggested that McCain had been brainwashed during his lengthy captivity while a POW in Vietnam. Oh, yeah, he also said McCain was a KGB Spy. It's also the same Sampley who headed Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry and was responsible in 1992 for faking a photo of Kerry allegedly shooting an American MIA in Vietnam.

It was Republican McCain who called Sampley "one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter" and said "Sampley has a nose for publicity and knack for making money from invented controversies."

If you want to know what kind of people are going after a legitimate American hero like John Murtha, look no further than the likes of Sampley, Doss, Thibault and their Republican backers.

There's also right-wing prom queen Ann Coulter, who recently said that Murtha was "the reason soldiers invented fragging," suggesting that Murtha should be killed. She followed that up by saying that "if he did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."

Only time will tell how much more repulsive this gets, but the mainstream media needs to explain how these cretins keep managing to get ink and air time. At least in Coulter's case, it can be partially explained in her being a high-profile cretin who may be good for ratings. But the mystery endures of how little-known -- and discredited -- "sources" like Sampley and the laughable CNS continue to get attention and relevance.

So we'll watch and see what happens in the coming days and weeks to Rep. Murtha, a man who has dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and in the halls of Congress. How much character assassination will the 74-year-old Murtha have to endure for simply being a veteran who has seen war, doesn't like war and believes that a solid national security posture has nothing to do with starting wars for no reason?

And how much stomach do the American people have to continue watching Republicans and