Dispatches: New Evidence Demolishes UK Claims on Saudi’s Yemen War

JANUARY 27, 2016

Human Rights Watch

David Mepham

For months now, United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has denied that violations of the laws of war are being committed by the UK’s ally, Saudi Arabia, through the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. And he’s repeated these claims despite documentation from international human rights organizations - shared with the UK Foreign Office – detailing multiple cases of such violations. For example, Human Rights Watch has identified 36 unlawful airstrikes carried out by the coalition, and has gathered the names of least 500 civilians killed in those strikes.

EXPAND

People stand around a crater caused by a Saudi-led air strike on the outskirts of Yemen's capital Sanaa, December 29, 2015. 

© 2015 Reuters

But our research is now powerfully reinforced by a United Nations Panel of Experts reporton Yemen, the most comprehensive assessment so far of the conduct of the warring parties. The report flatly contradicts British ministers’ claims, and finds that the coalition has “conducted airstrikes targeting civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law,” including refugee camps, weddings, buses, residential areas, medical facilities, schools, mosques, markets, factories, an airport and a port.

Faced with this new, substantial and damning body of evidence, the UK government can no longer deny Saudi Arabia’s serious abuses in Yemen.  A major shift in approach is needed.

Firstly, the UK should immediately halt the transfer of any weapons and military equipment to Saudi Arabia and other coalition states that have been used to commit the documented violations. Despite widespread violations by the Saudi-led coalition, more than £1 billion worth of bombs, missiles and rockets were licensed by the UK authorities for export to Saudi Arabia over just three months last summer.

Secondly, the UK should end its disingenuous stance on investigations. Hammond has repeatedly said he backs proper investigations of alleged laws-of-war violations. But there’s simply no evidence that either the UK or the coalition have conducted any. Moreover, when the UK actually had the chance to support a credible investigation into violations in Yemen proposed at the UN Human Rights Council last year, it failed to support it.

To advance the prospects of real accountability, an international and fully independent investigation into violations committed by all sides to the Yemen conflict is urgently needed.  The UK should pledge to support one immediately.

Jordan: Missed Opportunities for Reform

Increasing Arrests of Journalists, Writers
JANUARY 27, 2016

Human Rights Watch

(Amman) – Jordanian authorities in 2015 missed an opportunity to remove vague and overly broad charges in the country’s penal code and counterterrorism law that are used to curtail free expression, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2016.

Jordan prosecuted activists, dissidents, and journalists for speech offenses, relying largely on 2014 amendments to its counterterrorism law that broadened the definition of terrorism and included acts such as “disturbing [Jordan’s] relations with a foreign state.” In February, a court sentenced Zaki Bani Irsheid, a senior Muslim Brotherhood official, to 18 months in prison for a Facebook post criticizing the United Arab Emirates.

“Jordan’s concerns over its security situation shouldn’t translate into branding journalists and dissidents as security threats merely for doing their jobs or expressing themselves peacefully,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director. “Jordan should revise its terrorism law and penal code to remove vague language used to limit peaceful speech.”

In the 659-page World Report 2016, its 26th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries. In his introductory essay, Executive DirectorKenneth Roth writes that the spread of terrorist attacks beyond the Middle East and the huge flows of refugees spawned by repression and conflict led many governments to curtail rights in misguided efforts to protect their security. At the same time, authoritarian governments throughout the world, fearful of peaceful dissent that is often magnified by social media, embarked on the most intense crackdown on independent groups in recent times.

Jordan curtailed media freedom in 2015 by detaining and bringing charges against at least nine journalists and writers, in some cases under the counterterrorism law. They included Jamal Ayoub, a freelance columnist, who was detained from April 22 to August 17 for a column that criticized Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen; Seif al-Obeidat, a journalist; and Hashem al-Khalidi, the publisher of the Soraya News website, were jailed from January 28 to March 8, after the site posted an article on negotiations between Jordan and the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, for the release of a captured pilot, Mu`ath al-Kasasbeh, whom ISIS subsequently killed.

In May, a Justice Ministry committee issued a proposed penal code overhaul that would amend at least 180 articles of the 1960 law. The draft amendments provided alternatives to imprisonment, such as community service, for the first offense, but did not amend or remove articles long used by authorities to limit free expression.

In December 2014, Jordan revived capital punishment by hanging 11 Jordanian men, ending an eight-year de facto moratorium. In February, only hours after ISIS released a video showing the captured pilot’s murder, Jordan executed two Iraqis, both long-term death row inmates affiliated with Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), the precursor group to ISIS.

Jordan hosted over 633,000 Syrian refugees in 2015. Beginning in March, Jordanian authorities severely restricted informal eastern border crossings, stranding hundreds ofSyrians in remote desert areas just inside Jordan’s border for days and weeks with limited access to food, water, and medical assistance. Aid workers and Syrian refugees confirmed that deportations of Syrians and Palestinians back to Syria occurred during the year.

Jordan blocks Palestinians from Syria from entering the country, and detains and deports back to Syria Palestinians who enter at unofficial border crossings using forged Syrian identity documents, or those who enter illegally via smuggling networks.

US-NATO Invade Libya to Fight Terrorists of Own Creation

“New Eastern Outlook”.

Up to 6,000 troops are being sent to invade and occupy Libya, seizing oilfields allegedly threatened by terrorists NATO armed and put into power in 2011. The London Telegraph, almost as a footnote, reports of a sizable Western military force being sent in on the ground to occupy Libya in an operation it claims is aimed at fighting the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS). In its article, “Islamic State battles to seize control of key Libyan oil depot,” it reports:

Under the plan, up to 1,000 British troops would form part of a 6,000-strong joint force with Italy – Libya’s former colonial power – in training and advising Libyan forces. British special forces could also be engaged on the front line.

One would suspect a 6,000-strong foreign military force being sent into Libya would be major headline news, with debates raging before the operation even was approved. However, it appears with no debate, no public approval, and little media coverage, US, British, and European troops, including Libya’s former colonial rulers – the Italians – are pushing forward with direct military intervention in Libya, once again.

The Mirror’s “SAS spearhead coalition offensive to halt Islamic State oil snatches in Libya,” claims the West’s 6,000 soldiers face up to 5,000 ISIS terrorists – raising questions about the veracity of both the true intentions of the West’s military intervention and the nature of the enemy they are allegedly intervening to fight.

Military doctrine generally prescribes overwhelming numerical superiority for invading forces versus defenders. For example, during the the 2004 battle for the Iraqi city of Fallujah, the US arrayed over 10,000 troops versus 3,000-4,000 defenders. This means large, sweeping operations to directly confront and destroy ISIS in Libya are not intended, and like Western interventions elsewhere, it is being designed to instead perpetuate the threat of ISIS and therefore, perpetuate Western justification for extraterritorial military intervention in Libya and beyond.

With an initial foothold in Libya intentionally designed to last, it will inevitably be expanded, supporting US AFRICOM operations throughout the rest of North Africa.

The US-British Are “Fighting” the Terrorists They Put in Power 

As has been explained by geopolitical analysts since 2011, terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and their various rebrandings are far from being the West’s true adversaries. Besides being funded, armed, and backed by the West’s closest and oldest Middle Eastern allies – particularly the Saudis and Qataris – these terrorist organizations serve a two-fold purpose. First, they serve as a mercenary army with which the West fights targeted nations by proxy. Second, they serve as a pretext for direct Western military intervention when proxy war fails or is not an option.

This was first illustrated with the very inception of Al Qaeda in the 1980’s where it was used as a proxy force by the US and Saudis to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. In 2001, the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was used as a pretext for a US invasion and occupation that endures to this very day.

As of 2011, literally these very same terrorists were organized, armed, funded, and provided with NATO aircover to overthrow the government of Libya. From there, they were rearmed and shipped to NATO-member Turkey where they then invaded northern Syria, and more specifically Idlib and the pivotal city of Aleppo.

The Business Insider would report in its article, “REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels,” that:

The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi’s 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.
On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi” who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

The Business Insider’s mention of Abdelhakim Belhaj working directly with Ambassador Stevens is particularly important. Belhaj was quite literally the leader of US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – Al Qaeda in Libya. Despite his obvious ties to Al Qaeda, he was openly backed by the US during the 2011 Libyan War, and afterward, was posing for pictures with US senators including Arizona senator John McCain in the aftermath of NATO’s regime change operations. LIFG’s leader, Abdelhakim Belhadj, is now reportedly also a senior leader of ISIS in Libya.

Fox News in a March 2015 report titled, “Herridge: ISIS Has Turned Libya Into New Support Base, Safe Haven,” would claim:

Herridge reported that one of the alleged leaders of ISIS in North Africa is Libyan Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was seen by the U.S. as a willing partner in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. 

“Now, it’s alleged he is firmly aligned with ISIS and supports the training camps in eastern Libya,” Herridge said.

It is clear that the West is not fighting ISIS, but instead, has clearly both created it and is intentionally perpetuating it to help justify its military and geopolitical maneuvering across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, and advance its aspirations toward regional and global political, military, and economic hegemony.

The very same technicals – armed trucks used in combat – bearing the Libyan “rebel” insignia, have literally just been painted over by images of ISIS’ flag, like props on a Hollywood set being used in a bad sequel. With the US-British and European intervention in a destroyed Libya overrun by terrorists – a Libya we were promised by NATO was bringing brought peace, stability, “freedom,” and “democracy” with its 2011 intervention, we see fully the danger of entrusting other nations to a similar fate wrought by Western intervention – most notably Syria.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”. 
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2016/01/27/us-nato-invade-libya-to-fight-terrorists-of-own-creation/

Will Washington Repeat the Mistakes That Led to the Iraq War?

Will Washington Repeat the Mistakes That Led to the Iraq War?

By Robert Naiman, Truthout

Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters in Hampton, New Hampshire, on April 14, 2007. At least 23 Democratic senators, including Clinton, accepted the Bush administration's public case for the Iraq war without checking it against US intelligence reports to which they had access. (Photo:Marc Nozell)

Only you can help sustain grassroots, groundbreaking journalism. Join the thousands of readers who support Truthout - click here to make a donation today!

Hillary Clinton is pushing back against criticism of her vote as a Senator in 2002 to authorize the Iraq War, The Hill reports:

"I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it," the Democratic presidential front-runner said at CNN's Democratic town hall in Des Moines, Iowa.

But many Democrats don't think that the vote to authorize the Iraq War - which has killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, wounded many more physically and psychologically and which apparently didn't really end in December 2011 - can be dismissed as just "one vote." Many Democrats also don't think that the "mistake" of voting for the war can be wholly laid at the feet of the George W. Bush administration. Twenty-one of the 50 Democratic Senators voted no, including Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, Paul Wellstone and Ron Wyden. So it was certainly possible for Democratic Senators to vote no - almost half of them did so.

In September 2002, it was a knowable fact for members of Congress that the Bush administration's public case for war did not match the US intelligence reports that were available to Congress.

Politico recently called attention to a declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff [JCS] report that shows that in September 2002, senior Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Air Force General Richard Myers and Air Force Maj. Gen. Glen Shaffer, knew that the Bush administration's public case for war did not match US intelligence knowledge.

Politico noted that the 2002 JCS report was available for inspection by members of Congress, if they were interested. But there was not much Congressional interest in such things among war supporters. As The Washington Post reported in April 2004, as Congress debated the war in the fall of 2002, no more than six Senators read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq WMD. Senator Clinton was not one of the six.

If the United States has not been attacked - and the US had not been attacked by Iraq in 2002 - the burden of proof is on people who want to take the country to war. But at least 23 Democratic Senators, including Clinton, accepted the Bush administration's public case for war without checking it against US intelligence reports to which they had access.

Sen. Dick Durbin, who voted against the war, said on the Senate floor in April 2007 that as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, he had known in 2002 that US intelligence knowledge did not match the Bush administration's public case for war. "The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Durbin said. So, if they didn't want to read the reports themselves, Senate Democrats had another option. They could have met with Dick Durbin, and asked him: "Is the Bush administration's public case for war consistent with what you know as a member of the intelligence committee?" And they could have voted accordingly. That's why we have Democrats on the intelligence committee, to enable that conversation.

On the question of the US use of military force, the past didn't go anywhere - it's not even past. There's a simmering debate now about demands for greater use of US military force in Iraq and Syria, which flares up whenever a terrorist attack starts looping on the cable TV news networks or whenever Republicans have a presidential debate. When Washington political actors demand a major commitment of US troops to Iraq and Syria, it's essential to know: Who are these people? What did they advocate for in the past? In particular: What role did they and their associates play in creating the Iraq fiasco?

Politico noted that several Iraq War architects are now advising Republican presidential candidates. Then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, whose military assistant was copied on the JCS report, is one of Jeb Bush's foreign policy experts. John Bolton is advising Ted Cruz. Elliott Abrams and William Kristol are supporting Marco Rubio.

If any of these Republicans wins the Republican nomination for president, it seems likely that one of their talking points will be the purported need for greater US military involvement in Iraq and Syria, because that's what they're saying right now. And if any of them win in November, it seems likely that escalating the use of US military force in Iraq and Syria is something they might want to do.

Since it is very likely that we will have to fight this fight in the future, it is reasonable for Democrats who don't want to see greater US military involvement in Iraq and Syria to consider who they want to be the captain for our side in this fight. Who can call these people out on what they knew about the bogus case for war in 2002 and when they knew it? It's not about the past. It's about the future.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Civilians in Iraq Face Violence From All Sides, UN Says

Civilians in Iraq Face Violence From All Sides, UN Says

By Aisha Maniar, Truthout 

A Yazidi woman from the Sinjar district of Iraq holds her child after arriving by boat from the Turkish coast on the island of Lesbos, Greece, November 26, 2015. (Sergey Ponomarev / The New York Times)

Fight back against the spread of misinformation perpetuated by the mainstream media. Help Truthout grow stronger by making a tax-deductible donation today!

A new UN report reveals that 2015 was yet another bloody year in Iraq. The "Report on the Protection of Civilians in the Armed Conflict in Iraq," jointly published on January 19 by the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, states that between May 1 and October 31, 2015, the period covered by the report, at least 3,855 civilians were killed, and a further 6,168 were injured. According to Iraq Body Count (IBC), a total of 16,115 civilian deaths in conflict were recorded in Iraq in 2015. Both are conservative figures, and the latter figure may later rise, as did the 2014 figure. "Current levels of violent death are among the highest since we began recording civilian casualties in 2003," IBC said.

The assault on the Iraqi people comes from all sides: ISIS, the Iraqi government, coalition airstrikes and armed gangs.

In addition, since the beginning of 2014, more than 3 million Iraqis have become internally displaced, including over 1 million school-aged children. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre reports, "In 2014 alone, Iraq suffered the highest new internal displacement worldwide, with at least 2.2 million displaced." Due to a lack of resources and aid, only 8 percent live in displacement camps. Most live in abject poverty, with inadequate access to housing, health care and clean water. Casualties resulting from such living conditions are not included in the figures above. The situation of displaced Iraqis is further exacerbated by the sectarian and ethnic strife in the country, making it impossible for many people to find safety and shelter, and often splitting families up when male members, including children, are not offered refuge along with females due to suspicions that they may be militants. Sometimes it is Iraqi government forces who deny access to the displaced.

The assault on the Iraqi people comes from all sides: ISIS, the Iraqi government and its security forces and related militias, coalition airstrikes and armed gangs cashing in on the prevailing state of anarchy. The UN report concedes that "The violence suffered by civilians in Iraq remains staggering," but with more than half of the report dedicated to atrocities carried out by ISIS, the Iraqi government gets off lightly.

A number of the human rights abuses ascribed to ISIS could equally be attributed to government security forces or related militias. For example, both ISIS and the government's popular mobilization units - mainly Shiite militias drafted into the fight against ISIS - have been open about their recruitment and use of child soldiers. In the latter case, not mentioned in the report, the use of child combatants could have serious implications for the United States, as these militias fall under the umbrella of an army that is trained and supported by the US. UNICEF expressed its concerns in June 2015, and called for "urgent measures" to be taken by the Iraqi government to protect children, including criminalizing the recruitment of children, and "the association of children with the Popular Mobilization Forces."

The report states that "systematic and widespread violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law" committed by ISIS could amount to "war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide." Others, including Human Rights Watch, have suggested that Iraqi government-backed militias in the fight against ISIS may have also committed war crimes.Kurds too have been accused of potential war crimes. Indeed, all parties to the conflict have committed crimes against humanity against the Iraqi people, and there must be no impunity for any of them. A report focused on human rights and the protection of civilians should not be politically biased toward any party.

One of the issues the report does examine is the poor state of the Iraqi judiciary. While ISIS is known for its macabre executions - a major cause of unlawful deaths in Iraq - the Iraqi government has in recent years greatly increased the number of executions it carries out; Iraq has one of the highest death penalty rates in the world. With a legal system riddled with torture, rape and coerced confessions, and arbitrary detention sometimes for financial gain, death sentences passed against individuals alleged to be members of ISIS may be politically motivated.

One area in which the UN sides clearly with the Iraqi government and coalition forces is the use of airstrikes. Airstrikes are conducted by coalition forces, the Iraqi army, joint coalition-Iraqi sorties and coalition drones. According to IBC, between June 2014 and the end of 2015, 2,312 civilians have died in coalition and Iraqi airstrikes. No mention is made of coalition drone strikes, of which Airwars has reported over 6,500 in Iraq since 2014.

The UN report accepts the argument that ISIS's implantation in civilian areas makes it impossible to avoid civilian deaths, but does not question whether such a policy is effective or worthwhile, especially if it is intended to protect civilians. The UN bodies were unable to verify most of the reported airstrikes. While it is understandable that ISIS would not cooperate with them, why was the UN unable to obtain verification of various incidents from the Iraqi government?

Attacks on civilians by Iraqi security forces and associated militias - popular mobilization units, which since April 2015 are formally part of state forces - are mentioned, but are significantly downplayed. Militias are reported to have carried out attacks on Iraqi civilians and willful destruction to their property, particularly ethnic and religious minorities. A Wall Street Journal article from early 2015 calls such militias a threat to Iraq and accuses them of "engaging in behavior not all that different from ISIS, also known as Islamic State and ISIL."

A 2015 report by ABC also found images and videos of Iraqi security forces and popular mobilization units carrying out executions and destroying property, in what it described as potential war crimes. At the time, an Iraqi government spokesperson said it was "possible the photos were fabricated by ISIS to discredit the military." An investigation was promised but one year on ABC reports that "Iraqi officials have only said that the investigation is ongoing."

Days before the UN report was published, in a detailed report about an incident mentioned in the report, Human Rights Watch reiterated a recommendation it made initially in 2015, "that the Iraqi government take immediate steps to establish effective command and control over the Popular Mobilization Forces and other pro-government militias and disband those that resist government control." It also called for accountability.

One of the important aspects of the UN report is the discovery of mass graves in areas once held by ISIS: In many cases, victims have yet to be identified and it is partly this discovery that led IBC to increase the death rate by 3,000 for 2014. The report's emphasis on ISIS's crimes nonetheless reveals a politicized and ideological bias, one that justifies coalition airstrikes and turns a blind eye to the rampant corruption and impunity in Iraq that fuels outfits like ISIS.

The Iraqi government must be held accountable, too. It has promised investigations and set up bodies to monitor human rights, the displaced and other issues, but what progress has been made remains to be seen. Holding the Iraqi government to account would be a clear step on the road to re-establishing stability and accountability for all Iraqi citizens. As Iraqi novelist and activist Haifa Zangana told me back in 2015, "We're asking for everything to be investigated. If you are looking for reconciliation, for solutions and to end terrorism genuinely, to build democracy, you have to look at all crimes. You have to start with justice."

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Iraq: Civilians Pay Price of Conflict

Impunity, Skewed Justice for Gross Violations
JANUARY 27, 2016
Human Rights Watch 

(Beirut) – Iraqi security forces and pro-government militias committed possible war crimes during 2015 in their fight against the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, by unlawfully demolishing buildings in recaptured areas and forcibly disappearing residents, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2016.

Iran, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and other countries provided military support to the Iraqi government despite a continued absence of credible accountability for those responsible for these crimes.

ISIS carried out numerous atrocities, including summary executions and indiscriminate bombings.

“ISIS and Iraq’s government-affiliated militias are both committing atrocities against civilians with evident support from their commanders,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director. “Making matters worse – much worse – is the fact that Iraq’s justice system isn’t providing any semblance of accountability.”

In the 659-page World Report 2016, its 26th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries. In his introductory essay, Executive Director Kenneth Roth writes that the spread of terrorist attacks beyond the Middle East and the huge flows of refugees spawned by repression and conflict led many governments to curtail rights in misguided efforts to protect their security. At the same time, authoritarian governments throughout the world, fearful of peaceful dissent that is often magnified by social media, embarked on the most intense crackdown on independent groups in recent times.

ISIS claimed responsibility for two devastating bombings that killed more than 115 people in Khan Bani Saad, north of Baghdad, on July 17, and 67 people at Jamila Market in Baghdad’s Sadr City, on August 13. ISIS often executed people by extremely cruel and painful methods such as burning, drowning, electrocution, and stoning. ISIS reportedly recruited children for suicide missions and to carry out executions.

Mostly Shia militias fighting ISIS with the support of the Iraqi government, such as the Badr Brigades, League of the Righteous, and Hizbollah Brigades, carried out widespread violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular by demolishing homes and shops in recaptured Sunni areas.

After recapturing Tikrit in March 2015, militia forces torched and blew up hundreds of buildings and destroyed large sections of neighboring al-Dur, al-Bu ‘Ajil and southern al-Alam. Militias also forcibly disappeared some 200 men and boys. Shia militias also recruited, trained, and used children as young as 12 years in battle.

Peshmerga forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) also carried out – or failed to prevent – destruction of Arab homes and looting of shops in areas recaptured from ISIS.

Iraqi courts provided weak accountability, in effect granting impunity to people responsible for assassinations, disappearances, and grave breaches of the laws of war. In July, Iraq’s Central Criminal Court tried 28 people for participating in the June 2014 ISIS massacre of up to 1,700 Shia military cadets. After a trial that lasted only a few hours, the court sentenced 24 to death, though defendants said their confessions were extracted under torture and that they could not choose defense lawyers.

In one case, courts did hold Shia militiamen accountable, sentencing an undisclosed number of defendants to death for an August 2014 massacre of 30 Sunni worshipers. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances.

Iran provided advisers and arms for combat to Iraq. The US remained the largest provider of military equipment to Iraq and also supported Baghdad with training, intelligence, and advisers. Iraqi militias implicated in human rights abuses used US and Iranian weapons in their operations. The US FY16 National Defense Authorization Act tightens obligations on the Defense Department to report on its security aid to the Iraqi government.

In its annual report on export controls for 2014, the European Union noted three denials of licenses to Iraq based on human rights and international humanitarian law concerns, also without providing further information.

“Governments have an obligation to ensure their military support does not end up violating human rights,” Stork said. “Government should be transparent in how they ensure that their support does not become part of rampant human rights violations in Iraq.”

Region / Country

 

• Middle East/North Africa
 
• Iraq

The Iraqi government's War Crimes

The Iraqi government's War Crimes

The Common Ills

Today, Human Rights Watch is warning "Iraq: Civilians Pay Price of Conflict." 

Will anyone listen?

We can always hope.

But as we saw last week, when the United Nations issued a report making similar points, the western press ran with condemnations of the terrorist group the Islamic State while avoiding the crimes of the Iraqi government.

Tuesday, the 19th, when the report was released, it was one piece after another about the Islamic State.  By the end of last week, only Aisha Maniar (TRUTHOUT) had bothered to cover the reports of the Iraqi government targeting civilians.

Will it be any different this week?

Who knows.

But Human Rights Watch notes:

 Iraqi security forces and pro-government militias committed possible war crimes during 2015 in their fight against the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, by unlawfully demolishing buildings in recaptured areas and forcibly disappearing residents, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2016.
Iran, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and other countries provided military support to the Iraqi government despite a continued absence of credible accountability for those responsible for these crimes.
ISIS carried out numerous atrocities, including summary executions and indiscriminate bombings.

“ISIS and Iraq’s government-affiliated militias are both committing atrocities against civilians with evident support from their commanders,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director. “Making matters worse – much worse – is the fact that Iraq’s justice system isn’t providing any semblance of accountability.”

As we stated last week, the Islamic State is a terrorist organization.

Terrorist organizations commit crimes.  They do awful things.

That's what a terrorist organization does and is.

But a government is supposed to protect its citizens.

When a government fails to do that or, worse, when it targets and persecutes its citizens, that's what's known as news.

Unless you're unethical.

Unless your press badge is contingent upon you echoing the US State Dept.

Telling the truth is apparently too hard for too many western news and 'news' outlets.

Possibly because these documented abuses are supposed to mean that US laws kick in and that Iraq's US funding dries up.

Apparently, the same US press that had a vested interest in selling the illegal war in the first place continues to have a huge stake in keeping the Iraq War going.

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley --  updated:

Ruth's Report

Hillary D. Clinton -- the "D" stands for "disappointing"

5 hours ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

Hillary's problems

5 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz

Tiny steps

5 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!

X-Files: thoughts and two complaints

5 hours ago

Oh Boy It Never Ends

Shazam?

5 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

Sometimes it is more than just race

5 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ

Hey, everybody, have fun again

5 hours ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

the naked gun

5 hours ago

Trina's Kitchen

3 reasons we need to vote for Hillary Clinton

5 hours ago

Ann's Mega Dub

She's twisted

5 hours ago

The Official Jody Watley Website

DANCER on SoulBounce. Jody Watley Comes To Slay

14 hours ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS OFFERING A CHARM OFFENSIVE!

14 hours ago

Cedric's Big Mix

No more Ms. Nice Cranky

14 hours ago 

 

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Iraq 

Iraq snapshot Tuesday, January 26, 2016.

Iraq snapshot Tuesday, January 26, 2016.

The Common Illa

Tuesday, January 26, 2016. Chaos and violence continue,  the spin continues, US troops keep returning to Iraq, Hillary Clinton says her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake because of Bully Boy Bush, and much more.

Oh, how the whores lie.

I don't just mean the Bully Boy Bush whores.

But I do remember a woman practically wetting herself while he was speaking on television and basically declaring him god.  I thought those Bush zombies were the worst the United States would ever see.

But they had nothing on the Cult of St. Barack.

And today I just don't have the stomach for either of these camps and their never ending lies and endless squabbles as they insist the other one is responsible for what's wrong in Iraq.

There's more than enough blame to go around.

NEWSHOUNDS was always a partisan front pretending to be about ethics and issues. The last eight years have not been easy on them.

Because War Criminal _____ has returned to the public eye in a desperate bid for sordid coin,NEWSHOUNDS is suddenly interested in Iraq.

Or 'interested' in Iraq.

They don't give a damn about Iraq.

Partisan whores on either side never gave a damn about Iraq.

NEWSHOUNDS slams the ridiculous Sean Hannity (he's as ridiculous as NEWSHOUNDS itself) for blaming Iraq's problems on Barack Obama:

Whatever that job was supposed to be after more than eight years of war. 

More than 8 years?

They're ending the Iraq War in 2011.

How nice for them.

In the real world, of course, the Iraq War has not ended.

In the real world, of course, Barack's drawdown (there was no withdrawal) was followed by publicly sending US troops into Iraq.

A process that continues.

Adam Ashton ‏@TNTmilitary  1h1 hour ago

Four years after last homecoming, #JBLM rocket battalion headed back to #Iraq http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/military/article56743698.html …

4 retweets6 likes

  

  

  

The Iraq War has not ended.

The US positioned one portion of the Shi'ites in charge.  They remain in Iraq to prop up that government.

That's the reality.

More reality, things are getting worse.

Today, Kristina Wong (THE HILL) reports:

The U.S. is headed toward deeper military involvement in Iraq, Syria and Libya to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to President Obama's former national security adviser Tom Donilon.  

"My own judgment is ... we're going to become more deeply involved in both Iraq and Syria going forward here to address the challenge," Donilon said at a Politico event Monday evening. 

Donilon, who served as national security adviser between 2010 and 2013, said U.S. forces are "going to have to become deeply involved" in helping Iraqi security forces retake Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq.

Reality escapes NEWSHOUNDS which whines:

And, of course, nobody pointed out that when Obama left, “Essentially, he implemented the phase-out plan laid out by Bush.”
 

Is that what Barack did?

Because that's not what he led Americans to believe he would do in 2008 while campaigning.

Back then, he was saying the US would be out of Iraq in 16 months of his being sworn in.


(Samantha Power resigned from his campaign after she told the BBC that he did not mean these promises and he'd decide what he'd actually do after he was in the White House.)

When we go around speaking about Iraq, from time to time we'll encounter a Cult of St. Barack-er who will insist to me that Barack had to break his promise because of the Status Of Forces Agreement Bully Boy Bush pushed through in November of 2008.

There are two main problems with that lie.

The first is that Barack (and Joe Biden) had campaigned insisting that any such agreement would have to have the consent of the US Senate -- because it would be a treaty.

When Bully Boy Bush pushed that through -- well after the 2008 presidential election -- Barack could have stuck to his guns (yes, I'm laughing at that notion as well) and Dems in Congress -- who already were on record opposing any agreement that did not have Congressional approval -- would have helped torpedo it.

Barack didn't do that.

Barack embraced that Status Of Forces Agreement.

That means Bully Boy Bush may have birthed the SOFA but Barack happily adopted it.

The second problem is where I usually lose the ability to be nice.

Because we explained the SOFA here and we were right.

All the opinion-ators were wrong.

Various news outlets got it wrong.

Contract law.  Know it or just sit your tired and uninformed ass down.

No one needs your thoughts if you don't know contract law.

Not about what a contract means.

And the idiots who say Barack was bound by it?

I don't have time for their stupidity.

There were out clauses in the contract.

If I was in the mood to still spoon feed The Cult of St. Barack's ignorant and lazy ass, I'd quote from it.

But I just don't care anymore because you cannot teach the willfully stupid.

Barack broke his campaign promise (one of many) and did so to use the SOFA as he excuse if anything went wrong in Iraq.

Of the War Hawk whose wares we're not promoting, NEWSHOUNDS whines:

This is the guy who was part of the de-Baathification that caused so much destabilization in the first place. 

Wait?

Do those idiots and liars at NEWSHOUNDS think de-Ba'athification ended?

It didn't.

It was supposed to.

National reconciliation was put into writing, in the Bully Boy Bush "benchmarks" of 2007.  The November 2006 mid-terms had put Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress.

They had campaigned with promises of accountability and ending the war.

Now, afraid the Dems would pull funding for the Iraq War, the BBB White House came up with a series of benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to meet to continue to receive US tax dollars and support.

These benchmarks would demonstrate progress in Iraq.

But there was no progress.

And though Nouri al-Maliki signed off on the benchmarks in 2007, he never met them.

Not in 2007.

Not in 2008.

Not in 2009.

Not in 2010.  (Key year that, remember it, we will be coming back to it.)

Not in 2011.

Not in 2012.

Not in 2013.

And not in 2014 (his final year as prime minister).

It wasn't met in 2015 either.

This is why the Islamic State found support or apathy in parts of Iraq and was able to establish a base in the country.

The persecution of the Sunnis led some Sunnis to support anyone who would stand up to this and led others to look the other way.

And Barack's responsible for that.

He's had two terms to do something about that and refused.

As we noted this week at Third in "Editorial: Barack's not even trying"

There is no US diplomacy in Iraq.
Last week, REUTERS reported, "The U.S. government has approved the probable sale to Iraq of smart bombs, AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles and other munitions for use on its fleet of 36 F-16 fighter jets in a deal valued at up to $1.95 billion, the U.S. Defense Department announced on Wednesday."
Barack didn't use Iraq's desire for the deal to force the Iraqi government to work on national reconciliation or on a national guard or on any political solutions.
He's not even trying.
He clearly doesn't even care.
No one, not even Barack, could be that inept.
No one.

Now we said we'd come back to 2010.

We're at that point now.

In 2010, Iraq held elections.

Though the media predicted Nouri al-Maliki would win by a large margin . . .

he lost.

And then he refused to step down.

Iraq's "political stalemate" is the 8 months the country comes to a standstill because he will not step down as prime minister.

Barack Obama, that great defender of freedom and democracy, does what?

Supports the winner and insists Nouri step down?

No.

He had US officials negotiate a contract (The Erbil Agreement) that went around the will of the Iraqi people and gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term.

That's reality.

And what Nouri did in his second term took Iraq even closer to the brink.

That's on Barack.  Bully Boy Bush wasn't in the White House.

There's plenty of blame to place on both men.

Unless you embrace false gods and your false idol (Bush or Barack) is the only thing you hold dear.

Here's some of the violence inflicted upon Iraq today per the US Defense Dept's announcement:

Strikes in Iraq

Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 15 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Huwayjah, a strike suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL mortar systems.

-- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL weapons storage facility and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL weapons cache.

-- Near Ramadi, nine strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, denied ISIL access to terrain and destroyed an ISIL staging area, two ISIL tactical vehicles, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL armored bulldozer and an ISIL fuel tanker.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is a strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

In related news, Dan Lamothe (WASHINGTON POST) reports, "As the U.S. military prepares to expand its operations against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria, it has altered how and when it discloses sensitive information about when it kills civilians with airstrikes."

The changes will further obscure reality.

Lamothe notes CENTCOM spokesperson Patrick Ryder:

Ryder added that the process to declassify and redact documents associated with the cases can take months, so it made sense to release the limited information available now separately, and ahead of the documents. But the decision also means the documents will likely only be released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, which have historically taken Central Command many months, and sometimes years, to respond to fully.

I guess you could say CENTCOM is pulling a full-on Hillary.

Hillary Clinton, the anti-transparency candidate.  Her e-mails, that she insisted she wanted the American people to see, are still not fully released.  And her speeches to Wall Street -- the same Wall Street she swears she'll reign in -- are off limits to the public.

Hillary Clinton declared on CNN last night, "I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

She said it was a mistake.

But she can't shut her damn mouth, can she?

She's the liar who can't take accountability.

"I wrecked your car."

"But if that other car hadn't been on the road . . ."

"I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

Her vote was a mistake.

And then she adds "because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

No, you damn liar.

Iraq had no WMDs.

Iraq was not a threat.

These are the lies Hillary embraced with her vote.

And after saying she dealt with her vote in her last ghost written book -- no, she didn't deal with it -- she now wants to prove that she's still a liar.

"I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

The Iraq War was wrong.

No matter how it had been executed, it would have remained wrong.

It was built on lies.

Stop blaming everyone else for your poor judgment, take accountability.

Jeff Stein (VOX) reports:

Bernie Sanders went after Hillary Clinton's record on Iraq at a CNN town hall event Monday night, attacking Clinton's vote to invade more aggressively than in previous debates.
"I have tried — as I hope you all know — not to run a negative campaign ... to keep this discussion on a high level where we debate the issues facing this country," Sanders said, standing up from his chair at the forum, held in Iowa a week before primary voting begins.

""The truth is that the most significant vote and issue regarding foreign policy that we have seen in this country in modern history is the vote on the War in Iraq," Sanders said. "I voted against the War in Iraq ... Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq."
"I said, 'No, I think that war is a dumb idea.'"

Hillary voted for it.  She supported it.

Stephen Zunes (FPIF) points out:

The 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is coming down to a race between Hillary Clinton, who supported the Bush Doctrine and its call for invading countries that are no threat to us regardless of the consequences, and Bernie Sanders, who supported the broad consensus of Middle East scholars and others familiar with the region who recognized that such an invasion would be disastrous.
There’s no question that the United States is long overdue to elect a woman head of state. But electing Hillary Clinton — or anyone else who supported the invasion of Iraq — would be sending a dangerous message that reckless global militarism needn’t prevent someone from becoming president, even as the nominee of the more liberal of the two major parties.

It also raises this ominous scenario: If Clinton were elected president despite having voted to give President Bush the authority, based on false pretenses, to launch a war of aggression — in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and common sense — what would stop her from demanding that Congress give her the same authority?

iraq
reuters
kristina wong
adam ashton
the washington post
dan lamothe