|
Friday,
September 21, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, today is both National
POW/MIA Recognition Day in the US and International Peace Day around
the world, Kim Rivera is arrested, Nouri whines to Joe Biden, bragging
rights go to John Kerry not the sad little State Dept spokesperson,
sequestration, and more.
Today
is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the
Chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and he issued the
following statement today:
On
the third Friday of every September we pay tribute to the lives and
contributions of the more than 83,000 Americans who are still listed as
Prisoners of War or Missing in Action. "Leave no one behind" is a
familiar refrain which echoes through the ranks of our Armed Forces.
This motto is also what propels the men and women of Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command (JPAC), who devote their lives to finding the remains
of those unaccounted for in foreign lands.
While
JPAC's task is challenging, their cause is worthy. Those who never made
it home hold a special place in our hearts, and it is the
responsibility of the living to give them a proper resting place here at
home on American soil.
This past July, the
remains of Lt. Col. Clarence F. Blanton of the U.S. Air Force, who was
lost on March 11, 1968, in Housphan Province, Laos, were recovered. Lt.
Col. Blanton is a symbol for all those who are missing. No matter how
much time elapses -- in his case 42 years -- no cause is lost.
We
are committed to finding all 83,000 POW/MIA and bringing them back to
the home they sacrificed so much to defend, and to give their families
an answer.
At
the Pentagon today, there was a National POW/MIA Recognition Day
ceremony attended by many including Adm James Innefeld, the Vice Chair
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former US Senator Chuck Hagel.
Chuck
Hagel: Today the US military is one institution in this country -- by
any metric -- that still enjoys the overwhelming support, confidence and
trust of theAmerican people. No other institution in America can say
that. That is a result of a generation after generation after generation
of commitment, to what Ash Carter noted in his speech -- quoting my
firend and former colleage [US Senator and former POW] John McCain --
what any POW has said, believes lived, continues to say: "If there is
anything more important in society than to anchor that society with a
belief in something greater than one's self interest in the future for
your children, for your family, for the world, I don't know what it is.
This institution, the military, all who sacrifice and serve daily, who
have done that for years and through wars have built that institution
that still anchors more than ever confidence and trust in our -- our
free people, in our free society, and not only how we serve that
society but how we keep that free society. Imperfect issues, problems,
like all institutions, the world is imperfect. People are imperfect. But
it is the POWs and their families, MIAs, those who serve who constantly
remind this country of what's good, of what's strong, what's vital and
what's decent.
Of this generation's wars -- the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War -- CNN notes
there are 9 POWs and MIAs who were rescued. In addition there are two
prisoners of war remaining from these two wars. In the Afghanistan War,
the POW is Pfc Bowe R. Bergdahl of Ketchum, Idaho who was "Captured in
Paktika province, Afgahnistan, on June 30, 2009. The Pentagon declared
him Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown on July 1, 2009, and his status was
changed to Missing-Captured on July 3, 2009." The Iraq War POW is Spc
Ahmed K. Altaie of Ann Arbor, Michigan: "On October 23, 2006, Altaie was
categorized as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown when he allegedly was
kidnapped while on his way to visit family in Baghdad, Iraq. The
Pentagon changed his status to Missing-Captured on December 11, 2006."
Staying
in the US, sequestration appears to be coming shortly. The Congress
voted for automatic sequestration to kick in if they were not able to
come up with $1.2 trillion cuts to the budget and get it signed by the
White House. Veterans services will not be effected by sequestration.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta have both testified to Congress about that. The VA will be
effected administratively if sequestration kicks in but both have
testified it will not effect veterans care.
The
House Armed Services Committee held a hearing yesterday to explore what
sequestration, if it happens, will mean for DoD. US House Rep Buck
McKeon is the Chair, US House Rep Adam Smith is the Ranking Member.
Appearing before the Committee: DoD's Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) Robert Hale, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen Lloyd
J. Austin III, Vice Chair of the Navy, Adm Mark Ferguson, Assistant
Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen Joseph F. Dunford and Vice Chief of
Staff of the Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer.
Chair
Buck McKeon: The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive
testimony on the Department of Defense planning for sequestration, The
Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, and the way forward. Thank you
all for being here. This will be the last week that the House is in
session until mid-November. Today's hearing will provide members a final
opportunity before the lame duck session to inform themselves and their
constitutents about how sequestration will be implemented and how those
decisions will effect our men and women in uniform and our national
security. We had hoped that the President would provide this information
in the report required by The Sequestration Transparency Act.
Unfortunately, he failed to comply with both the letter and the spirit
of the law. Not only was the report late but the report submitted to
Congress merely paid lip service to the dire national security
implications of these cuts after the president has had over a year to
consider this crisis. Moreover, the White House has even gone so far to
instruct the Department of Defense not to make preparations for
sequestration. Nevertheless, as previous testimony to this Committee has
provided many of our military leaders believe that initial preparation
for sequestration must occur well in advance of the January 2, 2013
implementation date. For example, when the Secretary of the Army, John
McHugh, was asked this spring if plans for sequestration were underway,
he stated "We are not doing as yet any hard planning. That would
probably happen later this summer."
Ranking
Member Adam Smith declared sequestration to be "the most pressing issue
facing our nation." I think every Committee should have held hearings
this month asking what was being effected. Foreign Relations/Affairs in
the Senate and House should have held a hearing to find out how it would
effect the State Dept, etc. The Senate and House Veterans Affairs
Committees (chaired by Senator Patty Murray and US House Rep Jeff
Miller) did do that, not this month, but repeatedly throughout the year.
In addition, Senator Murray has asked questions about this issue in
other hearings. (Murray also served on the Super Congress which may be
why she takes the issue more seriously than some Committee Chairs in the
House and Senate appear to do.)
If
sequestration is implemented, what does it mean? We're noting what the
officials told the Committee. Not what they said it might mean, not what
they said they thought it might mean but they'd have to get back on
that, what was actually said.
DoD's
Robert Hale: We budget separately for OCO [Overseas Contingency
Operations] and the Base Budget. And you approve each budget. When we
actually begin executing, the budget's merge so there's one operation
and maintenance army account for actives -- has both OCO and Base
spending in there, we would have some authority to move money -- within
that account -- and we would use it to try to protect the war time
operating budgets. But I don't want to make that sound easy because what
that means is we'd have to make disproportionately large cuts in the
Base side and that will have some of the effects on readiness and
training that are of such concern to us. So we would have some ability
and we would move to use it to protect the actual wartime operating
budget.
The
Marine Corps Gen Joseph Dunford: Congressman [Joe Wilson], you're
correct, 58% of our total obligated authority goes to personnel. Our
cost per Marine is not higher, but the proportion that we spend in our
budget on personnel is higher. As a result of personnel being exempt in
'13, what I alluded to in my opening remarks, is that we would then have
to find a preponderance of funds out of operation and maintenance,
infrastructure and our modernization accounts. So we'll continue to do
things like run Paris Island, we'll absolutely continue to support those
Marines and sailors that are in harms way in Afghanistan, we'll support
those that are forward-deployed, but where we will see the biggest
impact from a training perspective and where those resources will come
from are those units that are at-home station. And I think you know that
right now, two-thirds of our units that are at-home stationed are
already in a degraded state of readiness. They're in a C3, C4 status
already and these cuts will further exaserbate deficiencies in
home-station readiness. We'll also be unable to support the strategy.
One of the things that we are beginning to do now and had intended to do
in FY13 is reconstitute our 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force -- which was
the core of our contribution to the US Pacific Command -- and the
resources that are necessary to support that are unlikely to be
available. And then what we'll see across the board in our modernization
accounts is delays and so forth that will cause us to delay programs
and in some cases do more with less.
Air
Force Gen Larry O. Spencer: If sequestration is triggered, the first
thing we would do is look at those accounts or those areas that we would
want to try to protect and OCO or Overseas Contingency Operations would
be one of those. So once you do that, that drives more of a cut into
the other accounts. And so, assuming we would protect wartime
operations, that would drive higher than a 9..4% cut into our other
accounts like our procurement accounts. So what we would have to do --
We have not had specific conversations with the contractor for the
[Boeing] KC-46. But depending upon the amount of the cut, we would --
The issue would be we would have to -- because we have a firm fixed
price contract -- we would have to open up that contract and so -- and
so we would then have to talk to the contractor about revising our
payment schedule. And I would guess the contractor would talk to us
about, 'Okay, well we can't give you as many airplanes on the schedule
that you asked for or we may have to stretch out the airplane. Or, by
the way, we may have to charge you more because now the contract's back
open.' So clearly as we go down, as Mr. Bartlett mentioned, as we go
down the thousands of contracts and thousands of lines, that's the type
of process we have to go through with every kind of contract.
Space
and other limitations mean we cover the hearing on bare bones. You can
take those answers and think about whatever other government department
-- except the Veterans Affairs Department -- and explore what
sequestration might mean if it takes place. In terms of the hearing,
we've quoted the Chair and he's a Republican. I'm not interested in Adam
Smith. Sorry. Even if we had space there's little that I'd include from
him -- for reasons that are obvious if you sit through hearings.
(Including but not limited to, he's very fond of using his questioning
time to offer editorials that use up the entire time and never allow a
witness any time to speak.) Of the Democrats, the best performer was US
House Rep Susan Davis (not a surprise there, she's one of the most
informed members of the Committee -- and one of the most informed
members of the Congress) with US House Rep Rob Andrews following closely
behind. Among others things, he noted he was voting no on Friday
about the House going into recess so everyone would have six weeks
before the elections off from DC to return to their home districts where
all current members of Congress are either running for office or have
decided (or had redistricting decide for them) that they would not run
for re-election -- all 435 seats of the House will be voted on in
November. Andrews spoke of not understanding how you leave DC with this
problem lingering in the air and felt instead it needed to be addressed.
His comments were much better than my summary but there's not room for
the. My apologies. (He also offered a proposal that was a serious
proposal and deserves debate. I don't support it but others might.)
Staying with the US Congress, on Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to be US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered that hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday
snapshots. Kerry's questioning is in the Wednesday snapshot. Like
others on the Committee, he was frustrated with the use of Iraqi air
space to carry goods into Syria. (The Senate, like the White House,
believes this is taking place. Nouri al-Maliki's government denies that
it is.)
Chair
John Kerry: Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about
the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian
President Bashar] Assad? What are we doing, what have you been doing --
if anything, to try to limit that use?
Charge
d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this
repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government. My colleagues in
Baghdad have engaged on this. We're continuing to engage on it. And
every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate,
recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with
the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we
find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of
course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people. It's something that
needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it
does stop.
Chair
John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late. If so many
people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be
having an impact -- uh, that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems
to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our
assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate
response? I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're
trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives
on the line, money into the country and they're working against our
insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.
Charge
d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Senator, Senator, I share your concerns
100%. I'll continue to engage. And, with your permission, I will make
very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you
find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation
on issues at stake.
Chair
John Kerry: Well I think that it would be very hard. I mean, around
here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem
to be trying to have it both ways. So I wish you would relay that
obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want
to do so.
Kerry
proposed this. The Committee agreed with this. In a press briefing on
Thursday that can be best be summed up with the line from Private Benjamin (starring Goldie Hawn,
script by Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer) about "Next time, don't be so
quick to raise the white flag," spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisted
the State Dept didn't support tying funding in to Iraq's behavior.
Excerpt.
QUESTION:
But you've been protesting all along about this issue. Yesterday,
Senator Kerry warned Iraq. Are you going to further pressure Iraq and
warn about the aid to Maliki government?
MS.
NULAND: Well, Senator Kerry has obviously made his own statements. We
do not support linking U.S. assistance to Iraq to the issue of the
Iranian over-flights precisely because our assistance is in part
directed towards robust security assistance, including helping the
Iraqis build their capability to defend their airspace. So there's a
chicken/egg thing here.
It's
a shame she couldn't back up Kerry and it's a shame she couldn't have
just said she'd get back to them on it. Instead, she had to waive the
white flag. Always. Reuters reported
today, "Iraq denied permission to a North Korean plane bound for Syria
to pass through Iraqi airspace last Saturday because it suspected it
could be carrying weapons, a senior official said on Friday." On Friday,
they announce the denial six days prior of a North Korean plane? Why?
Because
they feel and fear the pressure from the proposal John Kerry and others
on the Committee floated. So now they're making some sort of effort to
say, "Well, we're at least doing this." And making it because they want
the US money. So, Alsumaria reports,
Nouri told US Vice President Joe Biden on the phone today -- I would
say whined -- that he was being doubted about his Syrian position by US
officials and that this wasn't fair. Point being, John Kerry and the
Committee knew what they were doing. Again, it's a shame that Nuland was
so quick to raise the white flag at the State Dept yesterday. Already,
Kerry and his Committee floating the idea has had impact. It's not yet
where they want it, but it could get there. If Nuland and company would
stop undercutting the Senate. There's more here but we'll pick it up
next week, hopefully on Monday. Nuland doesn't have the sense to be
embarrassed but if anyone has bragging rights today, it's John Kerry and
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, in less than 48 hours,
have accomplished more than all the talk and talk and talk with Nouri
that the State Dept's done for months now.
With a court-ordered dealine looming, the US State Dept has finally made a decision on the MEK. Joby Warrick (Washington Post) reports,
"The State Department is preparing to remove the Iranian opposition
group Mujaheddin-e Khalq from the U.S. government's terrorist list,
siding with advocates who say the controversial organization should be
rewarded for renouncing violence and providing intelligence on Iran's
nuclear program, senior Obama administration officials said Friday."
Approximately 3,400 MEK members remain in Iraq. They were welcomed into
the country in the eighties. After the US-invasion in 2003, the US
military disarmed them and they entered into protected status which mean
something under the Bush administration but meant nothing under the
Barack administration. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes
that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." Under Barack, 'protected persons' means Nouri may attack
and kill you and the US government looks the other way.
That explains the attacks and the lack of accountability for them. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled " Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on
28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least
nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the
operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more
than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other
protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."
How
bad was it? So bad the members of England's House of Lords not only
noted Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq during both attacks, they
publicly speculated if he carried messages from the White House okaying
the attacks? That's how bad it was.
The
MEK in Iraq are known as Camp Ashraf residents because, for years, Camp
Ashraf has been their home. They have now been forced to relocate to
Camp Liberty and most have been relocated there. The US State Dept
defied the federal courts for two years. And then?
Which takes us into legal news, it's a shock to the administration but most others saw the ruling coming. Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports,
"A federal appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
to make a prompt decision on whether to remove an Iranian dissident
group from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist
organizations." This was a unanimous decision handed down by the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Why was it
unanimous? Because the administration has been in violation for some
time now. James Vicini (Reuters) reminds,
"The appeals court ruled nearly two years ago that Clinton had
violated the group's rights and instructed her to 'review and rebut'
unclassified parts of the record she initially relied on and say if she
regards the sources as sufficiently credible. It said Clinton had yet to
make a final decision." The administration was in contempt. The courts
and the executive branch were in conflict. (They still are.) What
generally happens there is the court of appeals makes a united front
because this is now a court issue (as opposed to the merits of the case
from when it was heard earlier). Unlike the executive branch, the
judicial branch has no security forces.
The court gave them until October. Mark Hosenball, Andrew Quinn and Vicki Allen (Reuters) note, " Officials
said this week that the final large group of dissidents had moved from
Camp Ashraf to the new location, ending a long standoff with Iraqi
authorities." Elise Labott (CNN) speaks
with a number of unnamed officials who undermine Hillary, attack her
decision, insist the group is a cult and otherwise make clear that they
do not enjoy their jobs currently. (Don't worry, one's leaving.) At the
State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about the MEK.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask what you could say about the MEK and the de-listing.
MS.
NULAND: I cannot say a lot at the moment, but what I can say is as part
of the review process that we have made clear has been ongoing here for
some time, the Department is now in the process of sending a classified
communication from the Secretary to the Congress today regarding the
designation of the MEK. I'm not in a position to confirm the contents of
this because it's classified, but we anticipate being able to make a
public announcement about it sometime before October 1st.
So with that, I'm going to have to excuse --
QUESTION: October 1st.
MS. NULAND: Yeah, exactly.
QUESTION: What's today?
QUESTION: It's September 21st.
QUESTION: The 21st?
MS. NULAND: Exactly.
QUESTION: Sometime in the next ten days?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
Because it's always news when a man of his girth moves, Al Mada reports
that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani plans to arrive in Baghdad on
Tuesday and get started on solving the political crisis -- if he's
feeling good, the report states. AKnews reports
State of Law MP Ali al-Shalah has declared that Jalal will be "able to
find the solution for the current political crisis." However, Raman Brusk (AKnews) reports,
"Kurds expect Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take 'practical
steps' to end the file of the disputed areas between the federal
government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), said" Mohsen
al-Saadoun, MP and Vice Chair of the Kurdish Blocs Coalition. Al Mada notes the Kurdistan Alliance states that there will be no political agreement without the consent of KRG President Massoud Barzani.
If
Jalal Talabani does make it to Baghdad to work on political issues,
he'll be working with one less vice president since Tareq al-Hasehmi
remains in Turkey after Nouri bringing charges against him for
terrorism. The 'judges' ruled September 9th that he was guilty. Nouri's State of Law political slate wasted no time running to Al Mada
to insist that no one gives a damn about Tareq, not even in Iraqiya,
and that no one was worried about Tareq, that he has no role in the
government, he is "finished" and he has no role in government. Really?
He still holds his position as Vice President. Deputy Prime Minister
Saleh al-Mutlaq was targeted when al-Hashemi was. As Nouri charged Tareq
with "terrorism," he demanded that al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post
(it was an attack on Iraqiya -- the political slate that bested Nouri's
State of Law in the 2010 elections). This followed Saleh al-Mutlaq
calling Nouri a dictator. And he didn't just make the remark in passing,
he made to the media. December 13, 2011, A rwa Damon and Moahmmed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as
U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup
of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh
al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was 'shocked' to hear U.S. President Barack
Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as 'the elected
leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq.' He said
Washington is leaving Iraq 'with a dictator' who has ignored a
power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces
and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks." The round ups, the
mass arrests continue. What's changed is Nouri and Saleh have kissed
and made up and Saleh now trots after Nouri like an obedient dog or a
cooing bird flying overhead. They travel together now and Saleh's always
finding a silver lining. Al Mada reports he gushed that Nouri's agreed not to allow the Justice and Accountability Commission to target college professors.
Isn't
that just wonderful? Unless . . . maybe you know that the Justice and
Accountabilty Commission not only was not ever supposed to have anything
to do with educators but also you know that the Justice and
Accountabilty Commission was supposed to have expired years ago. If you
know that, if you know that the Justice and Accountability Commission
died and that Parliament let it die (by refusing to approve another
committee), then why would you think it was good that the Commission was
doing anything to begin with?
Let's
drop back to the January 25, 2010 snapshot and, for those who've
forgotten, Saleh al-Mutlaq was furious back then. The Justice and
Accountability Commission had barred him from running for office -- even
though he was currently an MP -- would not allow him to run in the 2010
elections. He was angry, he was mad. He insisted he was no terrorist.
And he told the world a few other things when he appeared on Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera), we'll just note the most key passage.
Jassim
al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the
fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our
international audience would like to know, who stands behind this
campaign to disbar more then 500 people? Some of them such senior
figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in
Parliament. You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the
logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a
journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a
politician and even your perogative not to answer. Let me give you a
couple of options and see which one you lean on. Is it Ahmed Chalabi,
the former head of the de-Ba'athification? Is it Prime Minister
al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one
day he might even become the president of Iraq? Or is it another force?
Who is exactly orchestrating this?
Saleh
al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone. I think
there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that
and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do
this. And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi
now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many
people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised
everybody. The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was
saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know
nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he
knows nothing about it. You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows
nothing about it. Then who is doing that? We discover there is a small
organization which does not exist legally. The de-Ba'athification
committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been
frozen by the prime minister and by the president. And another
committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed
because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being
proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa
Party [Nouri's party].
The
Justice and Accountability Commission, Saleh told the world, was frozen
and Parliament didn't allow another one to form. That was 2010. So how
is this a good thing that the same commission is going to be around?
It's not. Saleh al-Mutlaq is an embarrassment.
Back to the US, Goldie Hawn Tweeted.
Sarika
Sehgal: The first female soldier to seek refuge in Canada has lost her
fight to stay and has been deported. Tonight Kimberly Rivera is back on
US soil and in US custody. She was detained as soon as she reached the
border. Rivera, who is married, has four children. Two of them were born
here in this country. She served three months in Iraq but became
disillusioned with the war. She came to Canada while on leave in 2007
and eventually sought refugee status. Her application was denied. That
decision was later struck down. Today immigration officials again
ordered her to leave. Jesse McLaren is a spokesperson with the War
Resisters Support Campaign. He joins me now in the studio to discuss
this. What is your reaction to what happened with Kimberly?
Jesse
McLaren: It's been three things. First of all, we've been amazed by the
outpouring of support for Kimberly Rivera over the past couple of
weeks. There's been more than 20,000 signatures on a petition, there's
been rallies from coast-to-coast. And this really reaffirms that
Canadians want to continue our proud tradition. Now the second thing
we've seen is that the government has been actively intervening against
that mass support to try and deport war resisters where they are going
to be jailed in the US. And so unfortunately today, Kimberly was sent
across and despite the reassurances by government lawyers, she was
immediately arrested.
Sarika Sehgal: So what happens to her now?
Jesse
McLaren: She is going to be subject to court-martial. Previous war
resisters who were deported by the Harper government were given
disproprotionately harsh sentences because they spoke out in Canada so
that amounts to persecution. So that is a fate that potentially awaits
her but we already know she's already being punished. She's been
deported from her new country. She's been separated from her family. And
she's now been arrested. And that is at the behest of the Harper
government.
Sarika Sehgal: Now you're saying separated from her family because two of her kids were born here in Canada, right?
Jesse McLaren: Her entire family has gone back to the US.
Sarika Sehgal: Oh. They left. Okay. What -- how common is this? War resisters or people being deported back?
Jesse
McLaren: So there's dozens, even perhaps hundreds of war resisters in
Canada. They have the support of the majority of Canadians, of two
motions of Parliament, of international law, of Canadian tradition and
the Harper government has already departed two: Robin Long and Clifford
Cornell. Robin was also separated from his family -- from his
Canadian-born son. And they were given harsh jail sentences. Much
harsher than the majority of people who left the armed forces and those
sentences were harsh because they spoke out in Canada.
Sarika Sehgal: What is the government saying or responding? How are they responding?
Jesse
McLaren: The government claims to not be involved but in fact
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has a strong record. Firstly, he
labeled war resisters bogus refugee claimants and the Canadian Council
of Refugees clearly was dismissive of that and claimed that that
provided evidence of the strong appearance political interference.
Second of all, he's actually institutionalized his own personal
ideological beliefs with what's called Operational Bulletin 202. And
this is basically an instructive where he's told immigration officials
to flag all US Iraq War resisters as "criminally inadmissiable" even
though they refused to be criminally involved in the war in Iraq. And
Amnesty International and the former chair of the Refugee Board have
spoken out against Operational Bulletin 202, saying that it mistates the
law and seeks to intrude on the independence of immigration. And
finally, just this week, his lawyers claimed that the risk of Kimberly
being arrested was merely speculative where in fact we have proof today
that she was arrested just as we'd feared.
Sarika Sehgal: Okay, thanks so much for joining us.
Jesse McLaren: Thanks.
Amnesty
International is dismayed that today the Federal Court of Canada denied
the motion to stop the removal of Kimberly Rivera, pending the outcome
of her Humanitarian and Compassionate application to remain in Canada.
Kimberly has been ordered leave Canada for the United States on Thursday
20 September. It is expected that Ms. Rivera will be detained upon
arrival in the USA, transferred to military control, court-martialed and
imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. military on grounds of
conscience. Amnesty International considers Kimberly Rivera to be a
conscientious objector, and as such would consider her to be a prisoner
of conscience should she be detained for military evasion, upon arrival
in the United States. Amnesty International considers a conscientious
objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound
conviction, refuses either to perform any form of service in the armed
forces or applies for non-combatant status. This can include refusal
to participate in a war because one disagrees with its aims or the
manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking
part in all wars. The law of the United States only recognizes the right
to conscientious objection where a person forms an opposition to war in
any form.
Full Text
Amnesty
International is dismayed that today the Federal Court of Canada denied
the motion to stop the removal of Kimberly Rivera, pending the outcome
of her Humanitarian and Compassionate application to remain in Canada.
Kimberly has been ordered leave Canada for the United States on Thursday
20 September. It is expected that Ms. Rivera will be detained upon
arrival in the USA, transferred to military control, court-martialed and
imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. military on grounds of
conscience.
Amnesty International considers Kimberly Rivera to
be a conscientious objector, and as such would consider her to be a
prisoner of conscience should she be detained for military evasion, upon
arrival in the United States.
Amnesty International considers
a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of
conscience or profound conviction, refuses either to perform any form of
service in the armed forces or applies for non-combatant status. This
can include refusal to participate in a war because one disagrees with
its aims or the manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not
oppose taking part in all wars. The law of the United States only
recognizes the right to conscientious objection where a person forms an
opposition to war in any form.
Wherever such a person is
detained or imprisoned solely for their beliefs as a conscientious
objector, Amnesty International considers that person to be a prisoner
of conscience, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.
Amnesty
International believes that the right to refuse to perform military
service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the notion of freedom
of thought, conscience and religion as recognized in Article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Kimberly
Rivera formed an understanding of her position as a conscientious
objector over a period of time while she was deployed in Iraq. At one
point her convictions caused her to stop carrying her rifle while on
duty in Iraq.
Amnesty International has followed the cases of
multiple U.S. soldiers who have objected to military service on grounds
of conscience since the U.S. led conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq
began. Amnesty International has observed multiple U.S. soldiers who
maintain principled objections to military service imprisoned solely on
the basis of their beliefs. Some soldiers have been imprisoned despite
pending applications for conscientious objector status, some have been
imprisoned after their applications for conscientious objector status
have been wrongly refused, other soldiers have been deployed to combat
zones despite pending applications for conscientious objector status.
| 
Goldie Hawn 
