Iraq at a glance

At the start of the week, we learned that police were being targeted in Iraq and that they were training . . . in Australia and South Korea.







Thursday US war resister Robin Long was released from the brig and Friday he held a press conference to explain he had no regrets for standing against the illegal war: "I had to do what I felt was right."



Wednesday US Admiral Mike Mullen declared at the National Press Club in DC, "Clearly we're at a point now, in Iraq, where the violence level is down -- dramatically so. In fact, it's the lowest level of violence since 2003, 2004." The words were still lingering in the air when word from Iraq was a double car bombing in Mosul had resulted in a reported 16 deaths.



Thursday saw twin suicide bombings in Tal Afar with at least 35 reported dead.



Also on Thursday, Lucas M. Bregg became the first announced death in Iraq for the month of July bringing the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war to 4322.



Same day, Marine General James Amos appeared before the US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Joint Readiness, Air and Land Forces and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and explained, "We will be out of Iraq, the marines will be, with the exception of just a few, by this time next year, the equipment will be out of Iraq, being repaired and going to the home stations." With the exception of just a few. Since 2006, the marine leadership has made it clear they wanted out of Iraq (and into Afghanistan) and press reports this year have declared that the marines will all be out of Iraq by 2010. Yet Amos was saying something a bit different to the Congress.



Saturday the US military announced that Sgt. Miguel A. Vegaquinones landed a three year sentence, a reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge following his guilty plea "in the accidental shooting death of Pfc. Sean McCune".



Thursday saw the US military release 5 Iranian diplomats they'd held for over two years to Nouri al-Maliki who released them to the Iranian embassy. And that's when UNESCO released [PDF format warning] "FINAL REPORT on Damage Assessment in Babylon" about the damages to the historical archaeological site as a result of the US' decision to construct a base on the site, Camp Alpha, which was running from April 21, 2003 through December 22, 2004.



Those are not all the events and they're not even just all the key events. But for those who've been busy or dependent upon broadcast TV 'news,' that's some of the Iraq news from last week.

Lady nO

Michelle Obama would love to be stylish. She'd give anything to be stylish.



Sadly, though she tries to be Lady O!, she always ends up Lady NO!







Above, the non-Catholic attempts to impress the Pope who, heretofore, has never been thought of as a fashion maven.



Wearing something from the spring Mafia Widow line, Michelle goes widow weeds hanging from her head and draping over her ugly bulky frock with a huge bow that brings to mind a frightening bride's maid dress from 1971 and what appears to be a "Bedazzled" fanny pack around her midriff.

The return of Times Select

"The New York Times website, nytimes.com, is considering charging a monthly fee of $5.00 to access its content, including all its articles, blogs and multimedia. All of this content is currently available for free.
"When answering the following questions, please think about whether you would be willing to pay for continued unlimited access to nytimes.com.
"How likely would you be to pay a $2.50 monthly fee -- which would be a 50% discount for home delivery subscribers -- for continued, unlimited access to nytimes.com?"

According to Bill Mitchell (Poynter), the above was stated in a survey The New York Times e-mailed to all subscribers Thursday. Bill Mitchell is incorrect. You've got four print subscribers working on this article and none of them received that survey.

No surprise that The New York Times can't even handle the distribution of a survey.


They can't handle much of anything.

Remember "Times Select"?

Started in 2005, Times Select was a "service" that, if you paid $7.95 a month ($49.95 a year), provided you with all new content to the paper (including the columnists who had been placed behind a "wall") and allowed you the chance to read X number of archived articles. If you were a subscriber to the print edition (paying basically for one month what the Times Select 'subscriber' was paying for one year), you already had access to these "services" for free.

In September 2007, despite insisting that Times Select was a "hit" and had brought in $10 million in revenues for the paper each year, the service was ended.

Now the paper wants to return to it.

And get this, subscribers to the print edition will have to pay.

Subscribers who are already paying will have to fork over an additional $30 a year just to be able to do online what they currently can for free and could for free when Times Select was in effect.

Way to screw your subscribers. Way to piss of your base.

In an economy that's tanking, someone should have grasped that you don't want to piss people off further but telling them that the $600 or so they pay each year for the paper isn't enough and that anyone can pay $30 and get more than they do is just the thing to have people say, "You know I think I'll cancel my print subscription."

Why On A Clear Day failed

On a clear day . . .

On a clear day . . .



So sings Barbra Streisand in the first scene of On a Clear Day You Can See Forever, her third big-budget musical in a row and one of the most maddening films she's ever done. On Broadway, the part(s) had been played by Barbara Harris. "Part(s)" because the lead character is Daisy Gamble who, under regression hypnosis, shares of her previous life as Melinda Tentrees.







Barbra Streisand isn't bad in the part(s) Audrey Hepburn turned down but the play had a problem that should have kept it from ever being filmed, certainly with Barbra in the lead.



In January of 1969, Streisand, director Vincent Minnelli and assorted others began filming the musical. Yves Montand plays Dr. Marc Chabot and he's just awful in the role. He is as awful as Rex Reed called in real time, bleating his lyrics in a thick accent and without any warmth or humanity. He's also thickening around the middle and efforts to hide that only emphasize it. When he attempts to sing, you want ear plugs.



As awful as he is -- far worse than we've indicated -- he doesn't kill the picture.



The storyline does.



The doctor accidentally hypnotizes Daisy who shows up at one of his classes in order to stop smoking because her fiance's on her case about it. Due to that accident, Daisy ends up getting a one-on-one with the doctor followed by another and another . . . The doctor notes Daisy has unique gifts -- knowing a phone's about to ring, knowing where something is when a person is looking for it, etc. He asks her about that 'trick' and she reveals she's always been able to do it and travels back to an earlier time, the 18th century, when she was Melinda Tentrees in England.



1969 was the year Barbra would win the Academy Award for Best Actress (Funny Girl) and, having already conquered Broadway, recording and TV, this was yet another huge accomplishment for the actress. Barbra mania was high.



And no one involved in On a Clear Day You Can See Forever, seems to have grasped that.



As Daisy Gamble, Barbra used the delivery and voice America associated with her. As Melinda, she used a British accent and a more polished manner.



Montand's character falls in love with . . . Melinda.



He loathes Daisy Gamble.



He hates her. He feels she's beneath him and that she prevents him from the beauty of Melinda.



So what's happening is, audiences paying to see Barbra (no one paid to see Yves) were seeing a story onscreen that required them to root for Barbra or root for love.



Barbra or love.



"Barbra" because, again, Daisy is the public's conception of Streisand at that time. The character is how they see the actress.



And they paid to see her so it's only natural that they would root for her.



But Yves Montand's character doesn't like the character of Daisy (to the audience: Barbra) so rooting for "love" and a "happy ending" means the audience has to reject Streisand.



They weren't prepared to and that's why the film (which did make back it's cost and turn a profit when TV was taken into account) fared so poorly at the box office.



And it's why those who enjoy it today generally watch with the premise that Montand is playing a pompous blowhard.



It's easy to see why Barbra would be attracted to the part. Among other things, it allowed her to play two very distinct characters. But what does it say about the studio (Paramount) and the way they really saw Streisand?



This is not My Fair Lady. Daisy does not (and could not) become Melinda. So to feel the 'sting' the studio wanted you to, you had to regret that, you had to mourn that fact. But who wants Melinda when you've got Daisy?



Besides Paramount.



On a Clear Day You Can See Forever should be seen as one of the most curious products, a film that, to succeed, needs for you to want to dispense with the performer you paid to see.





1970. With Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. DVD release is in letterbox format. No special features on DVD.

NYT serving less than half the US population

Wednesday, July 8, 2009, The New York Times made it clear on their front page that, circulation crisis not withstanding, they really don't care if they have female readers or not.







That's where they made clear what they thought should really matter to the paper's readers. Matt Richtel filed "Lights, Camera, Lots of Action. Forget the Script" ("With pornographic movies being sold online in chunks, moviemakers are now even less interested in story lines.") because cute-angle on porn is so . . . classy? Tasteful? No, just smutty. Just smutty little boys getting their ha-has and ya-yas and pretending their doing a public service.



We're not done. On the same front page you could find David Leonhardt's "In Health Reform, a Cancer Offers an Acid Test" in which Leonhardt argued that success or failure in any 'fix' on health care in the US could be determined by how it addresses prostate cancer.



Health care reform could be judged, the paper argued, by how it addressed . . . a disease effecting only men. Women don't get prostate cancer, they don't have prostates.



That didn't even cross the minds of the paper's editorial staff because pro-porn fluff and judging health care only by how it effects men seems perfectly normal to them.

Truth in a Senate committee hearing

Tuesday the US Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing entiled Military Commission and the Trial of Detainees for Violations of the Law of War. The hearing was composed of two panels, six witnesses and only one made sense and appeared to have a strong handle on the roots of the American legal system. That was retired Rear Admiral John Huston who is Dean and President of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. His opening remarks can be found posted there and also posted [PDF format warning on this link] at the Senate Committee's website.







I am the Dean and President of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. I served as a Judge
Advocate in the United States Navy from 1973‐2000 and as the Judge Advocate
General of the Navy from 1997‐2000. I am very aware of the honor and privilege of
testifying before this Committee on the matter of military commissions. I thank the Committee for this opportunity.
Even greater than democracy itself, the greatest export of all from the United States is Justice. Daniel Webster once said, "Justice, Sir, is the greatest interest of man on earth. It's the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together."
But Justice is fragile and easily disparaged. It must be nurtured and handled with
great care.
I was an early and ardent supporter of military commissions. Initially, I was drawn to their historical precedents and, more importantly, I was confident that the United States Armed Forces could and would conduct fair trials even of reprehensible defendants. My own experience gained during 28 years in the Navy and our long history of providing due process while trying our own military personnel in courtsmartial gave me this confidence.
Unfortunately, as it turned out, the commissions that were created did not live up to the traditions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Predictably, they became a significant distraction for the military. I hasten to add that this was in spite of the stalwart, honorable effort of many, many military personnel themselves. Indeed, that is one of the great tragedies of this saga, and largely makes one of the points that I wish to underline.
The primary role of the military is to fight and win our Nation's wars or, stated more precisely, to provide the time and space necessary for real solutions -- economic, cultural, social, religious -- to take place. Prosecution of miscreants is an occasionally necessary sidebar to that mission but shouldn’t distract from it. We have the UCMJ and the military court‐martial system to expedite the legitimate role of the military, not interfere with it.
If a sailor on a ship is alleged to have committed a crime, we must expeditiously and fairly resolve that problem. Otherwise, it can fester and interfere with unit cohesion and impede an effective fighting force. The UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial serve that purpose alone. They solve problems for the armed forces; not create them. Our recent history with military commissions has been the opposite. I've come to realize that even a perfect commission regime would be a distraction for the military. It's simply not part of its mission. I am very concerned when the military is called upon to perform functions outside of its core mission even when I'm confident that it can do it well. Preserving and ensuring justice in the United States is the primary mission of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense.
If there will be criticism of our prosecution of alleged terrorists—and there will
be -- the Department of Justice and the U. S. Federal Court system are equipped to
deal with that criticism. Indeed, it is part of their responsibility to face it, address it, and resolve it.
Notably, the criticism will come not only critics outside the judicial process such as the media, foreign allies and enemies, and domestic commentators but also from the legitimate appeal process. Some of the criticism may actually be justified or, at least, defensible. There is no reason in law or logic for the military to be the target of that.
Convictions from military commissions will be appealed until Dooms Day just
because of the forum of the conviction. Federal courts are impervious to that.
It is decidedly not the responsibility of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
military to deal with criticism of such prosecutions. It would, in fact, be detrimental to the military mission. There are valid and important reasons why our military is the most highly respected institution in America. One of them certainly is that the military limits itself to its mission and performs that mission very well. Taking on duties outside of that core mission on an ongoing basis will surely undermine the public's confidence in the military…and divert important resources, human and otherwise, from that mission in order to take on the new one.
We already have proof of this. Besides being a distraction to the vital mission of
DoD, military commissions have, to a large extent, become a discredit in spite of the valiant and highly credible efforts of many, many people in uniform. Rather than showcasing the military justice system of which we all are justifiably proud,
commissions represent something else entirely. They have not worked often or
well. "Fixing" them would help, but won't eliminate undeserved but inevitable
criticism.
On the other hand, during the same period, U.S. District Courts have successfully
prosecuted literally hundreds of terrorists who now reside in Federal prisons
around the country, keeping all Americans safer. Federal courts, including judges,
prosecutors, marshals, and other court personnel have decades of experience in
these cases. They have developed a justifiable and universally held reputation for
fairness, and consequently, they are largely immune to criticism.
There is also now a large body of law that has been developed over the years in the
Federal court system. It would take an equal number of cases and decades of trials
for DoD to match the Federal precedent contained in the Federal Reporters.
Military judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel rotate out of one assignment into another every three years or so. Without significant changes to longstanding DoD personnel policy, none of them will ever, ever gain the experience in these cases that is enjoyed by scores of their civilian federal counterparts. We could do that, we could change longstanding DoD personnel policy but again, if we did we would have the tail of terrorist prosecutions wagging the warfighting dog.
It is not only unnecessary, it is inappropriate for DoD to operate a system of justice in parallel to DoJ. The UCMJ and the courts‐martial it creates are absolutely necessary to ensure our effective fighting force. But for some of the same reasons that the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from enforcing laws against U.S. civilians, we should resist the temptation of using the military to prosecute foreign criminals when DoJ can perform that critical function quite well.
Let us not forget, these are not legitimate warfighters. They are common criminals.
They are thugs, cowards who target innocent civilians. We should treat them as
such and not elevate their status to that of legitimate enemies. They don’t belong in the same category as Major Andre or the German saboteurs.
We don't ask DoJ to fight wars. We shouldn't ask DoD to prosecute terrorists.
If the point of this exercise is to create a court system that will ensure convictions of alleged terrorists against whom we don't have sufficient admissible evidence, then we have missed the point. You can’t have a legitimate court unless you are willing to risk an acquittal. If you aren't willing to accept the possibility that a jury will acquit the accused based on the evidence fairly presented, then it isn’t really a court. It's a charade.
The corollary to that is that you can't have a real court if the rules of evidence and procedure are so stacked against the defendant that he has no real chance to
present his case or defend against the government's case. The admissible evidence
against him based on the facts may be so overwhelming that conviction is assured
but that must be the consequence of facts, not rules of evidence tilted in favor of the prosecution.
Over the years, federal courts have displayed remarkable ingenuity, flexibility, and resourcefulness in prosecuting terrorists. The Federal Rules of Evidence and
Procedure are sufficiently adaptable to accommodate the vagaries of trying those
individuals who are captured overseas by military personnel in the midst of
performing military operations. I believe the image of the "strategic corporal"
having to give Miranda warnings after risking his life to break into the bunker is a
red herring.
If you as members of this Committee believe or suspect that the Federal Rule of
Evidence or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should be amended to
accommodate certain cases and situations, it is preferable to superimpose modest
new rules on an extant, tried and true judicial system than to create a whole new
system -- particularly in light of recent efforts.
It might be wise to set up a task force of experienced judges, prosecutors, and
defense counsel to make recommendations to Congress in this regard.
However, if we create yet another military commission system that "contains all the judicial guarantees considered to be indispensible by all civilized peoples" as
required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, then we have essentially
duplicated our own Federal courts. There is no logical reason to create a system
that mirrors one already in existence and is functioning so well. We should strive
for the minimum change necessary to accomplish the purpose, not a wholesale
change to an already effectively functioning system.
Clearly and undeniably, the Administration and this Committee are dedicated to
untying this Gordian knot in a way that serves the very best interest of the country.
We are now operating under the Military Commission Act of 2006 which many find
to be badly flawed. I very much respect and admire your effort to improve it. My
recommendation, however, is to repeal it rather than improve it. In the process, I
urge you to express this body's preference to prosecute alleged terrorists in federal court and thereby demonstrate to the world, friend and foe alike, what kind of Justice the United States wishes to export.

Congressional attention on East Timor

From ETAN:

House of Representatives Signals Ongoing Concern About Human Rights in Indonesia and E Timor

Contact: John M. Miller, New York +1/917-690-4391; etan@etan.org
Ed McWilliams, +1-575-648-2078

July 10, 2009 - The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) today praised continued congressional attention to issues of human rights in Indonesia and Timor-Leste (East Timor).

The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010 (HR 3081) as passed last night by the House of Representatives withholds $2 million in military assistance pending a State Department report on for human rights, accountability and military reform in Indonesia and justice for Timor-Leste, as well as access to West Papua.

"An honest report will find that military reform in Indonesia is stalled and accountability lacking for a range of atrocities committed in East Timor and Indonesia," said John M. Miller, National Coordinator of ETAN. "This bill draws attention to issues which should be central to U.S.-Indonesia relations," he added.

"With this legislation, Congress continues to reflect a deep concern about human rights in West Papua. Papuans continue to suffer repression at the hands of Indonesian security forces," said WPAT's Ed McWilliams, a former foreign service officer.

Continuing threats to Papuan civilians were recently underscored by a recent Human Rights Watch report, which documented beatings and torture of Papuan civilians by Kopassus, Indonesia's "special forces."

"Indonesia's security forces continue to enjoy impunity. They are shielded against international criticism by restrictions on access to West Papua by journalists, diplomats and others," McWilliams added.

"The recent Indonesian elections are not likely to end impunity or improve conditions in West Papua. The candidates list was populated by know human rights violators and others who have a history of allowing blocking genuine accountability for human rights crimes," said Miller.

"Indonesian security forces should be denied U.S. military assistance unless and until they end their abusive treatment of civilians, become accountable for their human rights and other crimes, and undertake serious genuine reform," added McWilliams.

"Unfortunately, the administration is seeking to increase military assistance to Indonesia without any apparent plan to hold Indonesia's security forces accountable for past or ongoing human rights violations." Miller added.

The administration and the House bill call for $20 million in Foreign Military Finance (FMF) funding, an increase of $4.3 million over last year's allocation. International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds would rise to $1.8 million.

The bill must also pass the U.S. Senate before becoming law. Similar provisions have been included by Congress in recent foreign aid appropriations.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), the chair of the State, Foreign Operations subcommittee ,has a long-standing concern for human rights in both Indonesia and Timor-Leste.

A joint statement by KontraS, a leading human rights group in Indonesia, and ETAN recently concluded that "The international community can greatly assist efforts for genuine accountability and military reform by restricting military assistance to Indonesia. Together Indonesia's government, its citizens, and the international community must push for human rights accountability no matter who assumes office."

ETAN was formed in 1991. The U.S.-based organization advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for Timor-Leste and Indonesia. ETAN recently won the John Rumbiak Human Rights Defenders Award. For more information, see ETAN's web site: http://www.etan.org. WPAT produces the monthly West Papua Report.

---

The foreign operations subcommittee explained its action as follows:

The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for FMF programs for Indonesia. Within that amount, section 7071(c) requires that $2,000,000 be withheld from obligation until the Secretary of State submits a report to the Committees on Appropriations pursuant to section 7071 (c) that contains the following information:

(1) Steps taken by the Government of Indonesia to revise the Code of Military Justice, Uniform Criminal Code and other relevant statutes, to permit trying of members of the military alleged to have committed human rights abuses in Timor-Leste and elsewhere in civilian courts and to deny promotion, suspend from active service, and/or pursue prosecution of military officers indicted for serious crimes and to modernize and professionalize the management of the Government of Indonesias defense forces, improve transparency and accountability in defense spending and operations respectively, refine further the mission of the Armed Forces and develop an appropriate national defense budget to execute that mission;

(2) Efforts by the Armed Forces to cooperate with civilian judicial authorities and with international efforts to resolve cases of gross violations of human rights;

(3) Efforts by the Government to implement reforms that increase the transparency and accountability of the Armed Forces operations and financial management and concrete steps taken to achieve divestment of all military businesses;

and

(4) Whether the Government of Indonesia is allowing public access to Papua, including for foreign diplomats, nongovernmental organizations, and journalists.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights. Illustration is the movie poster for The Hurt Locker which opened Friday in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC.






"I Hate The War" -- Most requested highlight. C.I. walks you through the law.

"Kat's Korner: Regina Spektor takes you Far" -- Kat's latest album review.


"More wisdom from Bill Bennett's Book of Virtuous Weight Loss" -- Isaiah dips into the archives for this comic.



"Roland Burris announces he won't run in 2010" & "John Pilger, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Senator Burris" -- Stan covers Roland Burris decision not to run for re-election.


"Snapshot (C.I.)""Legal abuses by Bush and Barack""War Hawks, CIA"

"Barry and his dresser" & "THIS JUST IN! CELEBRITIES NEED DOWN TIME!" -- Cedric and Wally on our Celebrity In Chief.

"We need answers" -- We do need them, as Betty points out. And we hope to address her topic here this week. This edition is a nightmare. So much so that Betty, Ava and C.I. just dashed off a film analysis because we have no theme or purpose this week. That's not an insult to what they wrote, it's just noting that this is a topic they've covered (in conversations) before but Dona's asking us to all think of what we can do and do quickly.

"Baked tuna casserole" -- Trina's back from Hawaii. (And Mike and Elaine have gone there.)


"Politco goes down on Huffington Post" -- Jayson begged, begged, his grandmother to use this title. Ruth did and was surprised at how well received it was.


"Barack's attempts to bury universal health care" -- Ruth notes she's echoing a point Mike made before she left on vacation.


"Abortion rights" -- Kat on what we lost and how.

"The shameful David Kris" & "Legal abuses by Bush and Barack" -- Marcia and Ann on David Kris' embarrassing testimony to the Senate. With this post, Ann begins filling in for Mike.

"gordo and british escapades," "gordo, gordo, anchor drag," and "gordo killed the mg?" -- Rebecca continues her Gordon Brown coverage.


"Snapshot (C.I.)" -- C.I. will be filling in for Elaine while Elaine's in Hawaii.

"Iraq snapshot" and "House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee"; "Iraq snapshot" and
"National Press Club"; and "Iraq snapshot" and "Senate Armed Service Committee" -- C.I. and Kat report on Congress and the National Press Club.


"Tennesse Guerilla Women: Home to Racists" -- Marcia addresses online racism.

"Sex-segregation in Alabama and on PBS" -- Stan ties the sex segreation of PBS together with the classroom sex-segregation that was taking place in Alabama.

"ACLU, McNamara, Trash TV" -- Elaine offers a grab bag post.

"ACLU on state secrets, Third" -- Mike breaks down last week's edition.