|
|
|
 |
Homeland Security Focus
Areas NYTimes.com June 23, 2008 Reporters Say Networks Put Wars on Back BurnerGetting a story on the evening news isn’t easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News. So she has devised a solution when she is talking to the network. “Generally what I say is, ‘I’m holding the armor-piercing R.P.G.,’ ” she said last week in an appearance on “The Daily Show,” referring to the initials for rocket-propelled grenade. “ ‘It’s aimed at the bureau chief, and if you don’t put my story on the air, I’m going to pull the trigger.’ ” Ms. Logan let a sly just-kidding smile sneak through as she spoke, but her point was serious. Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever. “If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,” Ms. Logan said. According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.) CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed. Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS News, said the news division does not get reports from Iraq on television “with enough frequency to justify keeping a very, very large bureau in Baghdad.” He said CBS correspondents can “get in there very quickly when a story merits it.” In a telephone interview last week, Ms. Logan said the CBS News bureau in Baghdad was “drastically downsized” in the spring. The network now keeps a producer in the country, making it less of a bureau and more of an office. Interviews with executives and correspondents at television news networks suggested that while the CBS cutbacks are the most extensive to date in Baghdad, many journalists shared varying levels of frustration about placing war stories onto newscasts. “I’ve never met a journalist who hasn’t been frustrated about getting his or her stories on the air,” said Terry McCarthy, an ABC News correspondent in Baghdad. By telephone from Baghdad, Mr. McCarthy said he was not as busy as he was a year ago. A decline in the relative amount of violence “is taking the urgency out” of some of the coverage, he said. Still, he gets on ABC’s “World News” and other programs with stories, including one on Friday about American gains in northern Iraq. Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel, agreed. “The violence itself is not the story anymore,” she said. She counted eight reports she had filed since arriving in Baghdad six weeks ago, noting that cable news channels like Fox News and CNN have considerably more time to fill with news than the networks. CNN and Fox each have two fulltime correspondents in Iraq. Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, who splits his time between Iraq and other countries, said he found his producers “very receptive to stories about Iraq.” He and other journalists noted that the heated presidential primary campaign put other news stories on the back burner earlier this year. Ms. Logan said she begged for months to be embedded with a group of Navy Seals, and when she came back with the story, a CBS producer said to her, “One guy in uniform looks like any other guy in a uniform.” In the follow-up phone interview, Ms. Logan said the producer no longer worked at CBS. And in both interviews, she emphasized that many journalists at CBS News are pushing for war coverage, specifically citing Jeff Fager, the executive producer of “60 Minutes.” CBS News won a Peabody Award last week for a “60 Minutes” report about a Marine charged in the killings at Haditha. On “The Daily Show,” Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists when she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr. McCarthy said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner party “is like a conversation killer.” Coverage of the war in Afghanistan has increased slightly this year, with 46 minutes of total coverage year-to-date compared with 83 minutes for all of 2007. NBC has spent 25 minutes covering Afghanistan, partly because the anchor Brian Williams visited the country earlier in the month. Through Wednesday, when an ABC correspondent was in the middle of a prolonged visit to the country, ABC had spent 13 minutes covering Afghanistan. CBS has spent eight minutes covering Afghanistan so far this year. Both Ms. Logan and Mr. McCarthy noted that more coalition soldiers were killed in Afghanistan in May than in Iraq. No American television network has a full-time correspondent in Afghanistan, although CNN recently said it would open a bureau in Kabul. “It’s terrible,” Ms. Logan said in the telephone interview. She called it a financial decision. “We can’t afford to maintain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time,” she said. “It’s so expensive and the security risks are so great that it’s prohibitive.” Mr. Friedman said coverage of Iraq is enormously expensive, mostly due to the security risks. He said meetings with other television networks about sharing the costs of coverage have faltered for logistical reasons. Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
NYTimes.com June 20, 2008 For Bush, a New Town, a New Disaster, but Always the Memory of New OrleansIOWA CITY — Try as he might, President Bush cannot escape the haunting memory of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Bush toured flood-stricken areas here on Thursday, the latest in a string of disaster-zone visits he has made in his role as comforter in chief. As always, he gave solace and prayers and hopeful words; he called Iowans a “tough-minded people” who would “come back better.” As always, he met the governor and local mayors, pored over maps, dropped in on a shelter, promised federal aid. As always, he brought with him R. David Paulison, the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a man so skilled at Hurricane Katrina comparisons that he no longer has to be asked. “I’m sorry we’re going through this,” the president said, against the backdrop of the swollen Iowa River, in a lovely middle-class neighborhood called Parkview Terrace near the University of Iowa, where homes were so submerged it looked as if they were accessible only by boat. “Tell people that oftentimes you get dealt a hand you didn’t expect to have to play, and the question is not whether you’re going to get dealt the hand; the question is how do you play it.” An estimated 35,000 people have been displaced by the floods, and 24 have been killed, mostly in Iowa, said Mr. Paulison, who described the disaster as the biggest his agency has handled since Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Bush’s tour took him to the hard-hit areas of Iowa City and Cedar Rapids; he was joined by two Democratic members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation, Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Dave Loebsack, a freshman who had only kind words for the president. “I think he has a very good sense when he’s on the ground with people of what they’re going through,” Mr. Loebsack said. One politician Mr. Bush did not see while in Iowa was Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who on Thursday conducted his own tour of the soggy devastation of southeastern Iowa. The senator canceled his morning events, leaving most of his entourage, security and traveling press corps behind, while he inspected the flooded town of Columbus Junction, population 1,900, where the Iowa and Cedar Rivers meet. “I know that I speak for all Americans,” Mr. McCain said. “We’ll do everything necessary to try and rebuild their lives.” Mr. Bush is often at his best in such situations and is typically greeted warmly. Beverly Jones and her husband, Doug, a computer science professor at the university, stood outside their home in Parkview Terrace (“We call it Mosquito Flats,” Mr. Jones said) and watched Mr. Bush’s entourage down the street. In their front window was a big “O” sign, for the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. No matter. “I’m impressed that he’s here,” Mrs. Jones said of Mr. Bush. There is a sameness to these trips, with their requisite photo opportunities and helicopter aerial tours, and Thursday’s was not quite as emotional as some. In Greensburg, Kan., a small town flattened by a tornado in May 2007, Mr. Bush was mobbed as he walked block by block to comfort the newly homeless. In California, he spoke of the “sadness and worry” he saw in people’s eyes, as a woman whose home was destroyed by wildfires cried on his shoulder. When a bridge collapsed on Interstate 35W in Minneapolis last August, he met with family members of those killed. Always, the question of Hurricane Katrina hovers, with its enduring image of a seemingly detached Mr. Bush, peering out at the devastation from the window of Air Force One. “That was the biggest event of his presidency outside 9/11,” said John Feehery, a Republican strategist, “and he can no more escape Katrina than he can escape 9/11.” Still, Mr. Bush and his advisers are trying. Mr. Paulison said it took as long as five hours for callers to get through to his agency during Hurricane Katrina; the response time now, he said proudly on Thursday, “is 12 seconds, and we’re answering 99.7 percent of the calls.” Already, FEMA has sent 180,000 liters of water and two million sandbags to Missouri, a state that has not yet been hit hard by flooding, just in case. Mr. Loebsack has been impressed. “So far, so good,” he said, clutching his packet of giveaways from Air Force One, including M&M candies in boxes that bear the presidential seal. But, fresh from the president’s hospitality, the congressman demurred on the question of whether Mr. Bush’s visit to his district could repair the damage done by Hurricane Katrina. “I don’t want to get into that,” he said.
chicagotribune.comHouse votes to provide $162 billion in war fundingBy ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer 2:55 AM CDT, June 20, 2008 WASHINGTON A much-delayed Iraq war funding bill sailed through the House on Thursday, along with a doubling of college aid for returning troops and help for the unemployed and Midwestern flood victims.
NYTimes.com June 19, 2008 An Unlikely Antagonist in the Detainees’ CornerWhen he speaks publicly, Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler, a military lawyer for a Guantánamo detainee, is careful to say his remarks do not reflect the views of the Pentagon. As if anybody would make that mistake. In his Navy blues, the youthful commander could pass for an eager cadet. But give him a minute on the subject of his client, a terrorism suspect named Omar Khadr, and he sounds like some 1960s radical lawyer, an apple-cheeked William Kunstler in uniform. The Bush administration’s war crimes system “is designed to get criminal convictions” with “no real evidence,” Commander Kuebler says. Or he lets fly that military prosecutors “launder evidence derived from torture.” “You put the whole package together and it stinks,” he said in an interview. When President Bush announced plans for military commission trials in 2001, critics said military defense lawyers would not put up much of a fight on behalf of men labeled terrorists. “They wanted us to just be good little boys,” one of the lawyers, Maj. Michael D. Mori of the Marines, once told an interviewer. But nearly seven years later, not one trial has been held, partly because the military defense lawyers have raised a continuous ruckus, challenging the commission system rather than simply defending their clients. After the Supreme Court said last week that the Constitution gave detainees a right to challenge their detention in federal court, some of the military defense lawyers, including Commander Kuebler, seized on the ruling as another opportunity to paralyze the war crimes system with new claims that detainees are entitled to even broader constitutional rights. The lawyers, trained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, were selected to defend detainees in a judicial system established especially for terrorism suspects. But many of them share a sense of indignation that Guantánamo makes military justice seem like watered-down justice. Representing detainees, said one of them, Lt. Cmdr. Brian L. Mizer, “is a historic opportunity to defend the rule of law.” Commander Kuebler (pronounced KEEB-ler) is the latest example of a lawyer in uniform attacking the Pentagon’s legal system. He is no natural agitator. At 37, he is in some ways deeply conventional. Married to the first girl he ever dated in high school, he is a self-described born-again Christian and conservative who has “never voted for a Democrat.” Tom Fleener, a former Guantánamo military defense lawyer, described Commander Kuebler, saying, “Take the average conservative guy in the street and multiply that by a million.” Commander Kuebler is prone to begin provocative comments with a deep sigh, as if giving himself a shove. But he has emerged recently as one of the Pentagon’s most persistent challengers, working the news media with incendiary claims about the military’s case, filing motion after motion in court and traveling to Canada to whip up support for his client, a Canadian who is charged with throwing a hand grenade that killed an American serviceman in Afghanistan in 2002 and other offenses. The Kuebler strategy is obvious: to irritate the powers that be into sending his client, the last citizen of a Western country at Guantánamo, home to Canada. There is no sign yet of a ticket out for Mr. Khadr, 21, the son of a family once so close to Osama bin Laden that it is sometimes called Canada’s first family of terrorism. But the irritation strategy seems to be driving the prosecutors to distraction. The latest incident, this month, was an assertion that found a quick audience. In a news release, he described learning of a Guantánamo manual that encouraged interrogators to destroy their notes. He suggested it was to evade questions about torture. Countless news accounts carried his claims. The military prosecutors had complained about Commander Kuebler’s tactics before, but after the torture-concealment accusations it seemed they had reached their limit. “One defense counsel in particular,” said the chief military prosecutor, Col. Lawrence J. Morris, “has habitually flouted the rules” and was responsible for “grossly distorting” and “fabricating information.” Commander Kuebler responded that he “abides by military commission secrecy rules, as draconian as they are.” However scrappy he may appear, Commander Kuebler does not claim the typical lawyer’s zest for a fight for its own sake. Instead, he said, his faith and his work are intertwined. “It is a powerful way to be a witness for Christ,” he said, “by demonstrating your capacity to not judge the way everybody else is judging and to serve unconditionally.” His sister, Karen Picard, said his search for meaningful work began when he was in his late 20s and a business lawyer in San Diego. His mother died suddenly. He found religion. He joined the Navy. “I think he started to realize,” Ms. Picard said, “there’s more to life than driving a BMW and having your initials on your cuff.” As a Navy lawyer, his work has included criminal defense. His clients have included a sailor charged with rape. Since he was appointed Mr. Khadr’s lawyer last year, Commander Kuebler has taken on his cause with a drip-drip-drip of attacks on the prosecution. He has raised questions about the government’s description of the firefight in July 2002, when the American, Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, was fatally wounded. Officials have suggested that Mr. Khadr, then 15, was the last survivor of a group of anti-American fighters who “popped up and threw a grenade.” But in February, Commander Kuebler highlighted a military report that said another enemy fighter was still alive in the compound when the grenade was thrown, suggesting that Mr. Khadr might not have been the killer. In March, he took note of an American commander’s report that said the assailant had been killed, which would also seem to eliminate Mr. Khadr as the attacker. He often aims at a Canadian audience as he works to pressure the Conservative government in Canada, which has been supportive of the Bush administration, to request Mr. Khadr’s return. The Toronto Star: “U.S. Doctored Evidence to Implicate Khadr, Lawyer Says.” The Edmonton Journal: “Khadr Was Likely Tortured.” In April, Commander Kuebler appeared before a Canadian Parliament committee. “Lies have been told about Omar,” he testified. Maj. Jeffrey D. Groharing of the Marines, the prosecutor in the Khadr case, told a military judge that “the time the defense has spent lobbying the Canadian Parliament would be better spent interviewing the witnesses.” Asked about the role the military defense lawyers have been playing, Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said military defense lawyers have a duty to represent their clients zealously and to follow the ethical standards of their profession. He added, without naming any of the lawyers, that “it is disappointing when counsel do not live up to these standards.” But Commander Kuebler argued that such attacks on Guantánamo were necessary. “If we’re not advocating against the process,” he said, “we’re not competently representing our clients.” Commander Kuebler’s strategy follows energetic efforts by other military lawyers to undercut the commissions. Lt. Cmdr. Charles D. Swift, who has since retired from the military, helped take the case of Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, to the Supreme Court. The ruling in 2006 invalidated the Bush administration’s first military commission system. Commander Swift, now a visiting associate professor at Emory University, said he and other lawyers worried that focusing only on a defense in a commission trial would help the Pentagon argue that its system was fair enough to encourage zealous defense lawyers. “We were concerned,” Professor Swift said, “that fighting would serve to validate the system.” The strategy to avoid that, he said, was: “Attack the system.” Outsiders to the culture of military lawyers sometimes find their willingness to challenge their commanders’ system surprising. John D. Altenburg Jr., a retired major general who headed the Office of Military Commissions at the Pentagon until 2006, said administration planners of the commissions may have misunderstood military lawyers. They may have been influenced, he said, by old movies that showed quick military trials and perfunctory defense presentations. “I can just imagine,” he said, “a bunch of guys sitting around and saying, ‘Hey, I know, we can do military trials because the defense lawyers will all roll over.’ ” The reality has been far different, said General Altenburg, a former senior Army lawyer. Commander Kuebler said many of the lawyers feel the role they have been assigned “is not career enhancing” in climbing the Pentagon ladder. And at times, defense lawyers have been met with hostility within the military for their aggressive tactics. Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, an Air Force reservist from Pennsylvania, was once nearly sent to the brig when she angered a military judge by asserting that legal ethics barred her from participating in the proceedings. Commander Mizer, the fourth-generation military man in his family, challenged a Pentagon general by filing a successful claim that the general had exerted unlawful influence over the commissions. After Major Mori made seven trips to Australia on behalf of the detainee David Hicks, an Australian Qaeda trainee, the chief military prosecutor at the time suggested that the major could be prosecuted for using “contemptuous words” against American leaders. In Australia, Major Mori had told audiences that Guantánamo commissions were “kangaroo courts” and that Mr. Hicks was “like a monkey in a cage.” In 2007, after Australia’s prime minister at the time, John Howard, came under pressure over the case, the United States government reached a plea deal. Mr. Hicks was soon released. Major Mori was not prosecuted, and is now serving in Iraq. As the military defense lawyers prepare for a new constitutional challenge to the Pentagon’s commissions, they are facing an unforeseen obstacle. Many detainees are refusing to cooperate with them because they see the lawyers as agents of their captors. Mr. Khadr, however, is working with Commander Kuebler on his defense, preparing for a trial that could come as soon as this summer. But the cooperation is not because Commander Kuebler offers any hope for a courtroom victory. If there is a trial, he said, he expects Mr. Khadr to be convicted. “I don’t believe it is a fair process,” Commander Kuebler said. As if anyone thought he did.
NYTimes.com June 18, 2008 At Least 51 Are Killed in Blast at Baghdad MarketBy RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr., MUDHAFER AL-HUSAINI and ALI HAMID This article was reported by Richard A. Oppel Jr., Mudhafer al-Husaini and Ali Hameed, and written by Mr. Oppel. BAGHDAD — Explosives stowed in a minibus obliterated part of a bustling marketplace and set ablaze a crowded apartment building in the heavily Shiite Huriya district of northwest Baghdad, killing at least 51 people and wounding 75 late Tuesday afternoon, Iraqi security officials said. There were immediate and angry calls for revenge from Shiites, a display of sectarian tensions that had been ebbing as the overall violence dropped in Iraq. The blast occurred in the heart of a neighborhood where Sunnis had been brutally driven out — and some of the current residents blamed the displaced Sunnis for the attack. In their rage, others faulted the new pro-American neighborhood patrols, brought in from outside the area, for not preventing the attack. It was the deadliest bombing in Baghdad in more than three months. “Now the Americans are bringing outsiders to secure our neighborhood, and look what happened!” screamed a man named Muhammad who said his wife and child were killed. “Maybe we should bring back the old days.” What he meant was that perhaps the time had come for the Mahdi Army, the militia of the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to re-emerge from its self-imposed retreat and begin more active patrols and protection of fellow Shiites. The explosion at a crowded bus terminal just before 6 p.m. seemed timed to kill people heading home from work, as well as those leaving their homes to do evening shopping at the market that surrounds the terminal. The precision of the explosion, aimed to kill so many, raised the possibility that it was set off specifically to fan sectarian tensions, as has often been the case in this war. The strong sentiment in the crowd was that the attack was the work of Sunni extremists. But Lt. Col. Steven Stover, an American military spokesman in Baghdad, said that shortly after the attack “a special group extremist claimed responsibility, saying the cell was targeting coalition forces.” In military parlance “special groups” refers to Shiite militants who have broken off from large Shiite militias, or who are suspected of receiving weapons and training from Iranian sources. While a number of survivors said American troops had been near the explosion, Colonel Stover said “no coalition forces were injured or present during the attack.” He suggested in a e-mail statement that that called into question “the validity of the claim” of responsibility made by the Shiite militants. “This is simply an evil act,” he said. In the bombing, some victims burned to death or died from smoke inhalation in the apartment building, according to an Interior Ministry official. Bystanders climbed onto rooftops 20 to 30 yards away to gather flesh strewn by the force of the blast. Iraqi policemen stacked bodies several feet high in a pickup truck, but some fell out of the truckbed when they drove away. Other people rushed to the street to drape the bodies with sheets. Interior Ministry officials said the death toll, which was expected to grow, was the worst for any attack in Baghdad since March 6, when two bombs in the Karada shopping district killed more than 60 people. At Kadhimiya Hospital, frantic relatives unable to find out what happened to family members cursed the Iraqi government for allowing the blast and called on God for revenge. At the hospital morgue, victims were placed in two rooms: one for bodies that were recognizable and could be examined by relatives, and one for charred and unidentifiable remains. Huriya once had a large population of Sunnis, but after the American-led invasion, Shiite militias and death squads in the neighborhood killed or drove out thousands of Sunnis. The raw and unresolved emotions from the bloodshed and convulsions that swept the district during those years poured out after Tuesday’s attack. But even amid the rage and anger, some residents said the solution was not vengeance, but for the neighborhood to go back to the way it was before the death squads — when Iraqis lived together regardless of sect. “Don’t think we like the Mahdi Army,” said Jassim Abbas, a resident. “I want the Sunnis to come back, so we won’t be an easy target for the terrorists.” The blast site was at the heart of the market that was the scene of two huge explosions in 2005 and 2006 that killed a total of more than 100 people. Ali Mustafa, 25, was in his clothing store during the explosion. “My shop collapsed on my head,” he said. Dazed but still conscious, he scrambled and clawed his way outside. “There was a huge hole and a lake of blood and the burnt flesh of men and women and kids,” he said, adding that an American patrol was nearby. “They went crazy, but they tried to help the people.” According to one Iraqi policeman at the scene, the bomber struck as Iraqi and American troops attended a neighborhood meeting. Afterward, the policeman said, some people surrounded Humvees and angrily started throwing rocks and other objects. A rumor swept the crowd of frantic survivors that there was still one car bomb left that had yet to be detonated. People near the blast site said there had been two bombs, not the single explosion that Iraqi officials described. Iraqi forces sealed off the area and allowed in only ambulances and police vehicles. One worker at the Kadhimiya Hospital morgue said 35 to 40 bodies were delivered during the first two hours. Outside the morgue, one man was stopped by three others who asked him if he had seen one of their relatives. “I’m sure he’s all right,” the man said. After the three men rushed off, the man revealed that he had seen the body of their relative cut in half by the blast. “I couldn’t tell them the truth,” he explained. Riyadh Muhammad and Anwar J. Ali contributed reporting.
College city loses battle with river University of Iowa has 16 buildings swamped by flood
Monday, June 16, 2008 3:03 AM By Allen G. Breed and Jim Salter ASSOCIATED PRESS
IOWA CITY, Iowa -- A week's work of frantic sandbagging by students, professors and the National Guard couldn't spare the bucolic college town of Iowa City from the surging Iowa River, which has swamped more than a dozen campus buildings and forced the evacuation yesterday of hundreds of nearby homes. The swollen river, which bisects the city of about 60,000, was topping out at about 31.5 feet, a foot and a half below predictions. But it posed a lingering threat, and wasn't expected to begin receding until tonight. "I'm focused on what we can save," University of Iowa President Sally Mason said as she toured her stricken campus. "We'll deal with this when we get past the crisis. We're not past the crisis yet." The university said 16 buildings had been flooded, including one designed by acclaimed architect Frank O. Gehry, and said others were at risk. Iowa City Mayor Regenia Bailey said residents of 500 to 600 homes were ordered to evacuate, and hundreds of others were under a voluntary evacuation order through the morning. The city had no estimate of the number of homes that had flooded. Bailey said homeowners will not be allowed back until the city determines it's safe. Gov. Chet Culver said it was "a little bit of good news" that the river had crested, but he cautioned that the situation was still precarious. "Just because a river crests does not mean it's not a serious situation," he said. "You're still talking about a very, very dangerous public-safety threat." Elsewhere, state officials girded for serious flooding threats in Burlington and smaller southeastern Iowa towns such as Fort Madison and Keokuk. Officials said 500 National Guard troops had been sent to Burlington, a Mississippi River town of about 27,000, and some people were being evacuated. Culver said the southeastern part of the state is likely to "see major and serious flooding." The Iowa River breached levees in the town of Columbus Junction on Saturday evening, leaving much of the downtown, including a medical center, a senior center, a water plant and a couple of dozen other businesses under about 10 feet of water. "So we ended up losing the battle, but there are a lot of good things that come out of an effort like that," Mayor Dan Wilson said. "The community spirit has been phenomenal. ... It broke my heart to tell people we had to stop filling sandbags and we were probably going to lose the battle." In Cedar Rapids, where flooding had forced the evacuation of about 24,000 people from their homes, residents waited hours to get their first close look at the damage since most of the city was inundated last week. Some grew angry after long waits to pass through checkpoints. Cedar Rapids officials also were inspecting homes for possible electrical and structural hazards. The municipal water system was back to 50 percent of capacity yesterday, a big victory after three of the city's four drinking-water collection wells were contaminated by petroleum-laden floodwater. That contamination had left only about 15 million gallons a day for the city of more than 120,000.
Iraqis reject latest proposal for long-term U.S. presence Plan goes too far, lawmakers say; quick deal unlikely
Friday, June 13, 2008 2:57 AM By Qassim Abdul-Zahra Associated Press
BAGHDAD -- New U.S. proposals have failed to overcome Iraqi opposition to a proposed security pact, two lawmakers said yesterday. A senior government official expressed doubt that an agreement could be reached before the U.S. presidential election in November. Iraqi reinforcements, meanwhile, arrived in the oil-producing southern city of Amarah yesterday as the military geared up for another crackdown against Shiite militia fighters, officials said. Meanwhile, the U.S. military said an American soldier was killed yesterday by a roadside bomb in Baghdad and that a Marine died Wednesday in a noncombat related incident elsewhere in Iraq. The security agreement would provide a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. Failure to strike a deal would leave the future of the American military presence to the next administration. U.S. negotiators offered new proposals this week after Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage over the direction of the negotiations, saying accepting the U.S. position would cement American military, political and economic domination of their country. Iman al-Asadi, a Shiite member of the parliamentary committee on legal affairs, said the latest American version "wasn't satisfactory to say the least." She said the American proposals contained "some good points, but they were not up to what we had expected." Al-Asadi said the committee had recommended to the negotiators that they reject the latest draft, the fourth since the talks began in March. Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman confirmed al-Asadi's comments, adding that "we will not sign" the agreement as proposed by Washington. U.S. officials have refused to release details of the talks while they are under way but have expressed their respect for Iraqi sovereignty. The top State Department adviser on Iraq, David Satterfield, said this week that the two sides would meet a July target date to finish the agreement, which must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament. This week in Germany, President Bush said he was also confident that a deal would be reached. But a senior Iraqi official said the chance of finalizing an agreement before the U.S. presidential election was "slim," although he added that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government was interested in a deal if it served Iraqi interests. The official said Iraqis were disappointed that the Americans were not offering a firm commitment to defend the country from foreign invasion -- a move that would require U.S. Senate ratification. The Bush administration has said it does not need congressional approval for the agreement despite demands from Democrats that Congress have a role if the pact commits U.S. forces to remain in Iraq long-term. Several Iraqi lawmakers said a major obstacle was the U.S. demand for immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American personnel -- troops and civilian contractors. Meanwhile, al-Maliki met yesterday with Jordan's King Abdullah II during a one-day visit to Amman. The two leaders discussed resuming oil exports to Jordan and ways to prevent Islamic militants from joining the insurgency in Iraq. Sunni Muslim Jordan has been critical of al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government, which Arabs accuse of favoring Iran. Jordan says that hard-line Iranian leaders want to spread Shiite influence across the largely Sunni Arab world. Al-Maliki visited Iran last weekend.
NYtimes.com U.S. Troops Causing Instability, Iran’s Religious Leader Tells Iraqi PremierBy NAZILA FATHI and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. TEHRAN — Iran’s supreme leader told Iraq’s prime minister on Monday that the American forces in Iraq were the biggest obstacle to Iraqi stability. The message from the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was the most authoritative public word to date on Iran’s objections to long-term security agreements currently under negotiation between the Bush administration and the government of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The American military has been operating in Iraq under a United Nations resolution that expires at the end of this year. At a meeting with Mr. Maliki as part of the Iraqi leader’s three-day visit to Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei told him that “the most fundamental problem of Iraq is the presence of the foreign forces,” according to excerpts of their meeting reported by the news agency ISNA. “The Iraqi government, Parliament and all the authorities who have been elected with public vote should take charge,” the ayatollah said. Iranian officials strongly oppose the American military presence in Iraq, which they consider a major threat on their border. Yet it was the American-led effort that overthrew their hated enemy, Saddam Hussein, and brought about a coalition government in Baghdad dominated by Shiite political leaders, including Mr. Maliki, with strong ties to Iran. “When a foreign force gradually increases its interference and domination in all the affairs of Iraq, it becomes the most important obstacle in development and prosperity of the Iraqi people,” the ayatollah said, without directly referring to the security agreements. The Iranian accounts of the meeting between Ayatollah Khamenei and Mr. Maliki did not give Mr. Maliki’s response. But he had assured Iranian authorities on Sunday that his country would not become “a platform for harming the security of Iran and its neighbors.” Tensions between the governments in Tehran and Washington have escalated under the Bush administration, which has accused the Iranians of working on a nuclear weapons program in secret and of financing and supplying deadly weapons to anti-American militants in Iraq. Iran denies the accusations. In Iraq, negotiations over the security pact have become a major political issue, further splitting Shiite allies of Mr. Maliki and the political movement of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric. The New York Times reported last month that aides to Mr. Maliki from his Dawa Party said that American negotiators were demanding continued control of Iraqi airspace, immunity for American soldiers and security contractors, authority for more than 50 long-term bases, and the right to continue to carry out unimpeded military operations. Iraqi officials object to those terms, and are particularly insistent about limiting immunity for security contractors and ensuring that future American military operations are restricted and have the blessing of the Iraqi government, according to Ali Adeeb, a senior Dawa official close to Mr. Maliki. Some Iraqi officials have also complained that while the American military would maintain a large presence under the pact, it would not be obligated to protect the Iraqi government from aggression, either from outside or inside its borders. American officials have denied any plans for long-term military bases, but have acknowledged that they are seeking some other terms that Iraqi officials object to. The Sadrists have long opposed the occupation, and they also complain that Mr. Maliki’s recent operations against Sadr militiamen in Basra and Baghdad never would have succeeded without the backing of American military forces. During Friday Prayer last week, Sadrist clerics excoriated Mr. Maliki’s political allies over their recent criticism of elements of the proposed security pact, saying that their public comments were only a pretense and that they were sure to sign the agreement after making minor changes. “Shall we follow those who refuse the agreement totally, or shall we follow those who temporarily refuse it, but who will later agree to it after making some amendments?” Sheik Salah al-Obaidi, a top Sadrist official, said during prayers in Kufa, where he singled out Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, another powerful Shiite party. Also on Monday, Iraqi security officials said three people were killed, including an Iraqi soldier, and 12 were wounded by a car bomb in central Baghdad. Gunmen also killed three people during a robbery at two gold shops in Baghdad. And three unidentified bodies were found in the capital. In the northern city of Mosul, gunmen killed two sheiks from nearby Tal Afar who were visiting the city and who had been important leaders of reconciliation efforts in Tal Afar and in the fight against Sunni militants, according to Tal Afar officials. Nazila Fathi reported from Tehran, and Richard A. Oppel Jr. from Baghdad. Reporting was contributed by Qais Mizher, Tareq Maher and Mohammed Hussein from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Mosul.
Al-Maliki has tried to push Iranian leaders to back off their fierce opposition to the proposed pact, promising that Iraq will not be a launching pad for any attack on Iran. But the agreement has become a point of contention as Baghdad tries to balance its close ties to rivals Washington and Tehran. Iran, which has repeatedly said the way to end instability in Iraq is for U.S. forces to withdraw, believes the proposed pact could lead to permanent U.S bases on its doorstep amid fears of an eventual American attack. "Occupiers who interfere in Iraq's affairs through their military and security might ... are the main problems," Iran's state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying Monday. Khamenei said Iraqis have to "think of a solution to free" themselves from the U.S. military. Though he did not explicitly mention the security agreement, he said Iraqis — not Americans — must decide the fate of their country. "That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation," the TV quoted Khamenei as saying. Khamenei, who has the final say in Iran over government decisions, said the U.S. will fail to achieve its goals in Iraq. "We are certain that the Iraqi people, through unity and effort, will get past these difficult conditions. For sure, America's dream for Iraq will not come true," Khamenei was quoted as telling al-Maliki. Al-Maliki's visit to Tehran, his second this year, appeared aimed at getting Iran to tone down its opposition and ease criticism within Iraq. Followers of anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — who has close ties to Tehran — have held weekly protests in Iraq against the deal. The proposed security pact also faces strong criticism from members of al-Maliki's own Shiite-dominated coalition. Two Iraqi officials familiar with the negotiations warned on Sunday that a deal is unlikely to be reached before the end of President Bush's term in January unless Washington backs off some demands seen as giving American forces too much freedom to operate in Iraq and infringing on Iraqi sovereignty. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy surrounding the negotiations. Though both Iraq and Iran are Shiite-majority countries, the two were hostile to each other throughout Saddam Hussein's regime. Their eight-year war after Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 cost about 1 million lives. But when Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime fell and Iraq's Shiite majority took power after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, long-standing ties between the Shiites of both countries improved, though the two neighbors have yet to sign a peace treaty.
Bomber kills nine at Iraq police facilityAttack prompts fears of Qaeda resurgenceBy Sameer N. Yacoub, Associated Press | June 3, 2008 BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber targeted the provincial police headquarters in Mosul yesterday, killing at least nine people and wounding dozens, police said. The attack underscored fears that Sunni insurgents are regrouping despite a US-Iraqi offensive in the northern city. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but suicide operations are commonly associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq - the main target of US-Iraqi military operations to clear the city 225 miles northwest of Baghdad. Salim Shakir said he was walking toward his house in the area when he was hit with shrapnel in the stomach and legs. "We are shocked because we thought that the violent days had ended," the 47-year-old taxi driver said from his hospital bed. "This explosion shows that the insurgents are still active, and much is needed to stop them." The US military has said the Qaeda network in Iraq is on the run but retains the ability to conduct high-profile car bombings and suicide attacks. American and Iraqi troops have faced relatively little resistance since launching the offensive May 10, but commanders warn that many key insurgent leaders have fled to outlying areas and are planning future attacks. Yesterday, the attacker detonated his explosives-laden car about 8 p.m. as he approached a checkpoint allowing cars through concrete blast barriers surrounding the headquarters, located in a busy commercial district. Those killed included five policemen and four civilians, while 46 other people were wounded, according to a police officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The blast highlighted the fragility of recent security gains even as the Iraqi government struggles to take advantage of the relative calm in the country to make political progress. Iraqi lawmakers said yesterday they are stepping up negotiations on a draft law setting rules for provincial elections, to begin in October. They warned that failure to reach agreement within the next two weeks may lead to a delay in the key vote to redistribute power among Iraq's fractured parties. The elections to choose councils for Iraq's 18 provinces are seen as an important step in repairing the country's sectarian rifts, particularly by opening the door for greater Sunni Arab political representation. Many Sunnis boycotted the last election for provincial officials in January 2005, enabling Shi'ites and Kurds to win a disproportionate share of power at their expense - even in areas with substantial Sunni populations. Followers of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr also are hoping to make large gains in southern provinces, where many of the councils are dominated by rival Shi'ite parties in the government coalition.
Shiites Across Iraq Protest U.S. Presence By Sudarsan Raghavan BAGHDAD, May 30 -- Thousands of followers of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr protested Friday in Shiite enclaves across Iraq against plans for a long-term security pact that would allow for an extended U.S. military presence in the country. "No, no to America. No, no to the occupation," demonstrators waving Iraqi flags and banners chanted after afternoon prayers in Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City. "Yes, yes, Moqtada. Long live al-Sadr." Some protesters carried pictures of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dressed as former president Saddam Hussein. One group burned an effigy of Maliki, then danced and stomped on it, as Iraqi government soldiers kept their distance. The protests highlighted Sadr's still-formidable power and popularity among poor Shiites, even as the Shiite-led Iraqi government, backed by U.S. and British forces, has waged a campaign in recent months to weaken his movement and undermine his leadership credentials. After his Mahdi Army militia engaged in fierce battles with U.S. and Iraqi forces last month, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths, Sadr negotiated a pact that allowed Iraqi troops into Sadr City but barred American soldiers. The arrangement was viewed as a victory for Maliki's government and for U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq. But Sadr's image and popularity have since enjoyed a boost in Sadr City. Raids and airstrikes have decreased in the enclave, home to more than 2 million people, and U.S. and Iraqi government efforts are starting to bring basic services to his impoverished core constituency. Friday's demonstrations were an attempt to bolster Sadr's nationalist aspirations and to rally more support among Iraqis who perceive that he has made face-saving concessions to the government and U.S. forces -- and as his militia comes under pressure in other parts of Iraq. Many Iraqi army soldiers now in the enclave are Shiites who sympathize with Sadr and his movement. "Most soldiers here are from southern parts of Iraq, and half of them are affiliated with the Sadr trend," said Salah Sabieh, an Iraqi soldier who was watching the protests. On the windshield of his military truck was a picture of Sadr. "He is the leader. We can't remove his picture. We are all Shiites," he said. "Moqtada Sadr represents all Iraq." Sabieh said he supports Sadr's call against allowing any long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq, which, like many of the protesters, Sabieh considers humiliating. Sadr's primary ambition has long been a U.S. troop withdrawal. In recent years, his fighters have fought pitched battles against U.S. forces and his followers have staged numerous demonstrations. When Maliki refused to demand a timetable last year for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, Sadr pulled his political bloc from the ruling coalition. The proposed Iraqi-American agreement would provide a legal framework for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their U.N. mandate expires. Sadr views the pact as a blow to Iraq's sovereignty. His main Shiite rival, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who heads the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq -- an influential Shiite political party that is part of Maliki's ruling coalition -- has also denounced the plans. Aides to Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have also expressed concern. Sadr has called for any pact reached with the Americans to be put to a referendum, so that his followers can "collect millions of signatures" rejecting it. He has vowed to hold protests across Iraq every week after Friday prayers until the plan is canceled. Demonstrations Friday also took place in the southern cities of Kut, Nasiriyah and Najaf. In Kufa, 2,500 protesters marched from Kufa mosque to another mosque, chanting: "We would rather die than compromise. No, no, America." Many protesters carried pistols, which they laid on prayer mats as they prayed. Photographers and television cameramen were told not to zoom in on faces because senior Mahdi Army figures who had fled the government crackdown in other provinces were present. There were no major protests in the southern city of Basra. Many of Sadr's followers have fled or gone underground since an Iraqi government offensive there in late March. Sadrists in Basra accuse Iraqi forces of representing their Shiite rivals, not the government, saying they are trying to weaken the cleric's supporters before local elections later this year. Iraqi army commanders in Basra have denied the allegations. Such sentiments were also heard Friday in Sadr City, suggesting that Sadr's followers are wary of at least some of the Iraqi soldiers in their community. "Some of the soldiers here are militia belonging to some parties but wearing uniforms of the government," Sheik Muhanned al-Gharawi told the thousands of protesters. He warned that those soldiers who turned against Sadr followers for political reasons would be "pointed out" and action would be taken. But he noted that many of their "brothers" in the Iraqi army were joining them this day in prayers and protest. Gharawi spent the rest of his sermon denouncing the pact that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq. "The agreement is dipped in poison, not in honey," he told the crowds. "The cancer has spread and has to be removed." When the sermon ended, the crowds stood up and chanted and waved Iraqi flags. Some sang, "We are with you, Sayyid Moqtada." "Get out, get out, occupier," others chanted. Special correspondents Saad al-Izzi in Baghdad and Saad Sarhan in Najaf contributed to this report.
| ||||
