STOP DEATH PENALTY IN IRAQ

The BBC reports that an Iraqi court has sentenced Chemical Ali to a second sentence of death.

Reports the BBC:

"An Iraqi court has sentenced to death Ali Hassan al-Majid, also known as Chemical Ali, for his role in crushing a Shia uprising in 1991.

"It is the second death sentence passed on Majid, a cousin of Saddam Hussein."

Just as in the United States, when a state sentences someone to death, the state is shown as barbaric, cruel, medieval.

I don't care what Ali did, the extent of his crimes, or how many people he himself killed. He should be punished by a jail sentence, but a state, in this case, Iraq, should not take a person's life. The state is all too powerful. A state goes over the line of humanity, what is acceptable in an enlightened society, when it condemns and inflicts the death penalty.

Stop the death penalty where ever it is imposed. Stop the death penalty in Iraq.

END DEATH PENALTY NOW

Maureen Fan writes today on the web site of The Washington Post that a court in China has sentenced an Olympic official to death for taking millions in bribes. The court then gave a reprieve from the death sentence.

Reports Fan:

"Liu Zhihua, 59, oversaw construction, real estate, sports and traffic projects for the Beijing Olympic Games until he was fired in June 2006 over charges of corruption and bad morals. His high-profile antics and "decadent lifestyle" attracted the shocked attention of the country's top leaders, according to Chinese media reports."

The official is lucky in receiving a reprieve. How many others in China are sentenced to death, and then suffer the execution of the sentence?

When will "civilized" countries do away with the death sentence? I mean not only China but the United States, Iraq and Iran?

Proponents claim the death penalty prevents and deters other criminals from committing serious crimes. But there is no credible evidence that this is true. Other proponents say that the death penalty is a just penalty, in other words, proportional retribution for crimes that offend society. But why should the state take a person's life, no matter how serious a crime was committed? Saddam Hussein should not have been hanged; that was cruel and violent and unworthy of the state of Iraq. And certainly no one can argue that the death penalty "rehabilitates" because the condemned loses his life and his chance to reform.

The death penalty is cruel and unusual and inflicts horrible physical and emotional punishment on the condemned. A state, given all its power, overreaches its powers when it condemns and then executes the person convicted. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the death penalty deters others.

The United States is just as guilty of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment via the death penalty as the rest of the unenlightened countries that put their citizens to death.

AHMADINEJAD GETS STATE WELCOME IN IRAQ

Today, Iranian president Ahmadinejad visited Baghdad and met with Iraqi leaders. He is going to stay the night in Baghdad and then leave to return to Teheran tomorrow.

Compare Ahmadinejad's visit with Bush's clandestine stops. Bush never once stayed overnight in Iraq. If Bush is the great liberator, then Bush seems overly concerned with his own personal safety when he slinks in and out of Iraq. If Iran and Ahmadinejad are the enemies, how come Iraqi leaders give Ahmadinejad a state welcome as he freely and openly appears in Baghdad?

And what would Iraq and Iraqis do if Bush and Cheney launched a pre-emptive strike against Iran? Iraq's welcoming treatment of Ahmadinejad shows that Iraq wants to live in peace with its neighbor, Iran. If Bush and Cheney sent missiles against Iran, the whole Islamic world, especially Iraq, would declare war against America.

EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF BUSH/KARZAI NEWS CONFERENCE

Juan Cole in Informed Comment has an insightful analysis of the news conference yesterday (see my post today on the same subject) of Bush and Karzai. Cole examines Bush's statements on Iran and indicates what muddled policy lies behind the Bush "policy" toward Iran.

Writes Cole:

"First of all, true to form, he [Bush] begins with an outright misstatement (more accurately, a lie). The statement, “after all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon,” is an obvious untruth that like so many other untruths will probably not be challenged by the mainstream media, but through which George Bush hopes to etch in the American mind (or his own mind?!) the proven or “proclaimed” aspirations of the Iranian leadership for acquiring the bomb."

Yes, the media in attendance at the news conference let George Bush lie with immunity in saying that the government of Iran has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon. Of course, Bush cites no chapter or verse. Iran for Bush is the bogeyman, the very incarnation of evil.

Cole, however, is optimistic that the Bush dream-like dark constructions of Iran as the monster will fall to the realities on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writes Cole:

"Realities on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, are slowly revealing the incoherence (or impracticality) of Bush’s policies. Karzai talks about Iran’s helpful role in Afghanistan and acts accordingly while al-Maliki’s government in Iraq pleas for the continuation of US-Iran security talks before al-Maliki himself (along with his foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari) takes off for Iran in a few days for the government of Iraq’s own security talks with Iran."

IRAQ: STOP EXECUTING PRISONERS

I call on the Al Maliki government in Iraq to end capital punishment. For a state to take a life is barbaric and cruel. I don't care what the offense, how heinous or how premeditated. No state should execute a human being. This applies especially to Iraq that has thrown off a dictator who engaged in thousands of executions. Now, it seems, the new regime is just as inhumane as the old.

Stephen Farrell reports today in The New York Times:


"BAGHDAD, July 6 — A suspected member of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia who confessed to involvement in an August 2003 bomb attack that killed one of Iraq’s most prominent Shiite leaders and at least 84 other people has been hanged, a Justice Ministry official said Friday.


"The sudden announcement came three days after the suspect, Oras Muhammad Abdul-Aziz, was executed for the bombing, which killed Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, a well-known politician and cleric. The attack was one of the earliest high-profile bombings after the American invasion in March 2003."


A state has too much power. To take a life should not be in the power of a state. There are too many ways that a state can err, and of course, once taken, the person is gone forever. Even Saddam's neck should not have been put into that noose. Let the state incarcerate the convict. But let not blood be on the state's hands, even though it is on the hands of the outlaw.

RUDY DEBATES MITT AS TO WHO IS MOST CLUELESS ABOUT ISLAMIC WORLD

I don't know who is the greater threat to world peace, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. The New York Times publishes a verbatim transcript of last night's G.O.P. debate, and here is Giuliani talking about Iran:

"Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix. "

First of all, someone tell Giuliani that Iran currently has no nuclear warheads. Therefore, the Iranians cannot deliver "a nuclear warhead." Secondly, Iran has no missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads. Thirdly, Iran supports Hezbollah not because it wishes to foment "terrorism" but because Hezbollah is a Shiite organization as is Iran for the most part. Iran looks on its support in the same way as Irish Catholics in the U.S. support their co-religionists with money and aid in Northern Ireland. Fourthly, the "attempt" by "Islamic terrorists" on JFK airport is at this point in time only alleged, meaning it may or may not be true. Fifthly, the attempt on Fort Dix has not been proved in a court of law. Sixth, Giuliani seems to conflate all Islamic terrorism as if it all emanated out of Iran. The 9/11 conspirators all were Sunnis, sworn enemies of the Shia in Iran. Therefore it makes no sense for Giuliani to imply that non-Arabic Shiite Iran is behind Sunni insurgents and/or terrorists.

The same lack of awareness of historical, ethnic and religious difference pervades Mitt Romney's view of the Islamic world. Here is Wolf Blitzer asking Mitt how he feels about attacking Iran:

"Governor Romney, I want to get you on the record. Do you agree with the mayor, the governor, others here, that the use of tactical nuclear weapons, potentially, would be possible if that were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?

"MR. ROMNEY: You don’t take options off the table. But what you do is stand back and say, “What’s going on here?” Do you see what’s happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iraq? All over the world we’re seeing the same thing happening, and that is, people are testing the United States of America."

Mitt seems to be saying here that we can view the Islamic movement as one unified whole, raising it anti-American head in Sudan (Sunni African/Arabic), Afghanistan (mostly Sunni tribesmen), Iraq (Sunni but mostly Shia Arabic) and Iran (Shiite Persian). Mitt is clueless. Perhaps he has been too busy earning fees from mergers and acquisitions at Bain & Co.

If any of these guys, Romney or Giuliani, is elected president, we will have four more years of Bush-lite "know nothing" muddled and catastrophic foreign policy towards Islamic countries.

UNNAMED SOURCES IN WASHINGTON POST CLAIM IRAN IS SUPPLYING WEAPONS

I wrote just below on how more Americans are seeing Iran as the "enemy," and quoted from Juan Cole's post on how the government with the collusion of major media are foisting the canard on a gullible American public.

Now we have Robin Wright in today's Washington Post giving more unsubstantiated claims that Iran is supplying arms to both Iraq and to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Never mind that Iran considers the Taliban savages and that the Taliban are Sunni, not Shia as is Iran.

But what I especially don't like about Robin Wright's story is that she quotes "unnamed government officials" as sources for her claim about Iranian interference without naming any of the names.

"Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials."

As Juan Cole points out, the U.S. has given no evidence of this. Weapons manufactured in Iran may be smuggled into Iraq by Shia insurgents or wind up in Afghanistan after being brought back from Iran by notorious Afghan smugglers. But to claim Iran itself is supplying weapons is baseless and without any evidence.

Here's Robin Wright quoting another unnamed "senior U.S. official" who is concerned "about what appears to be" an escalating flow of Iranian arms"

""We're concerned about what appears to be an escalating flow of Iranian arms shipments to extremists operating in Iraq and about Iran's stepped-up efforts to supply weapons to Taliban militants in Afghanistan," said a senior U.S. official who monitors Iranian activity in the region." "

No wonder that more and more Americans are accepting the demonization of Iran and the U.S. portrayal of Iran as the "enemy." Can a military strike against Iran be that far off?

We cannot let this happen.

NO EVIDENCE FOR BLAIR TO IMPLY IRAN IS SUPPORTING TERRORISM

Once again, we see the old Bush line from Tony Blair that Iran is creating problems in Iraq. Al Jazeera has a story today on Blair's comments while visiting Baghdad.

"Blair said: "The future of Iraq should be determined by Iraqis in accordance with their wishes and it is important that all the neighbouring countries understand and respect that.

""We know it is important to work with Iran but Iran has to understand it cannot support terrorism and want to work with us at the same time.""

So Iran is guilty of supporting terrorism? If so, it is guilt by innuendo. There has been no proof, absolutely no evidence, that Iran is supporting terrorism in Iraq. And Tony Blair has given no proof for implying that Iran is supporting terrorism.

Consider this - Iran is composed of a majority of Shia. Most of the terroristic acts and suicide bombings taking place in Iraq today are directed against U.S. forces and Iraqi Shia police, and originate from the Sunni areas. Shia and Sunnis do not like one another in Iraq.

So why would Iran be a sponsor of Sunni terrorism when it has Iraqi Shia as its fellow co-religionists? The obvious answer is that Iran does not support Sunni terrorism. Iran has as much interest as any other country including the United States in achieving a stable and peaceful Iraq. Otherwise, an out-of-control Iraqi Sunni mob spilling over into Iran might threaten and endanger Iran's Shia-dominated religious leadership.

BUSH CHENEY: RELEASE THE FIVE IRANIANS

In today's Washington Post Robin Wright reports that Bush and Cheney have decided against releasing the five Iranians captured by U.S. forces in Iraq in January.

"At a meeting of the president's foreign policy team Tuesday, the administration decided the five Iranians will remain in custody and go through a periodic six-month review used for the 250 other foreign detainees held in Iraq, U.S. officials said. The next review is not expected until July, officials say."

There is no evidence that these five Iranians have done anything wrong. They were arrested solely because they were Iranians in Iraq. They were in Iraq at the permission of the Iraqi government. Their continued detention shows again the contempt Bush, Cheney and their followers have for the rule of law and individual freedoms.

U.S. MILITARY ACCUSES IRAN OF SUPPLYING ARMS

Once again the U.S. military is accusing Iran of supplying rockets and sophisticated shaped charges to the insurgents in Iraq, even to the Sunni insurgents! The BBC reports:

"Sunni militants are being armed with Iranian-made munitions, US military spokesman Maj Gen William Caldwell told reporters in Baghdad."

But once again, the evidence presented by the U.S. army is light or non-existent. There is no hard or clear evidence showing Iran supplying weapons or charges, and the claim that Iran is arming Sunni insurgents is ridiculous on its face. Iran is a Shia nation. The Sunnis are currently killing Shia in Iraq, and the Shia are killing Sunnis. Why would Iran want to supply arms to deadly enemies of its Shia co-religionists?

General Caldwell needs to show hard evidence, not mere hearsay. Until that time, American reporters, commentators and newscasters on radio and TV need to be on their guard as to the flimsy non-evidence evidence. This stuff needs to be presented with a healthy dollop of scepticism. It should not be parroted or presented as the absolute truth.

RED CROSS SEES WOUNDS ON IRANIAN DIPLOMAT WHO SAYS HE WAS TORTURED

The BBC reports that Jalal Sharafi, the Iranian diplomat kidnapped several weeks ago in Iraq, shows possible signs of being tortured. The BBC reports that:

"[t]he head of the International Red Cross in Tehran says he saw wounds on [Sharafi] who has alleged that US forces in Iraq tortured him."

"Iranian television has shown pictures of Mr Sharafi receiving treatment in hospital and quotes a doctor's report saying there are signs someone drilled holes in his feet as well as broke his nose, injured his ear and wounded his neck and back."

The U.S. says it had nothing to do with Sharafi's kidnapping. It denies that any U.S. personnel committed acts of torture against Sharafi.

"The United States had nothing to do with Mr Sharafi's detention and we welcome his return to Iran," said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, last week. He dismissed the claims as "just the latest theatrics of a government trying to deflect attention away from its own unacceptable actions". An unnamed US intelligence official also denied any claims of abuse, saying: "The CIA does not conduct or condone torture."

Sharafi's claim is different and harsher than the reports of "harsh" treatment meted out to the 15 British sailors/marines by the Iranians. Mr. Sharafi did not receive a brand new suit, nor did he apparently have the chance to write letters home. Compare Sharafi's treatment to what seems to be the worst treatment suffered by the British sailors at the hands of the Iranians, the "harsh" treatment inflicted upon Arthur Batchelor. The BBC reports:

" . . . Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest of the British sailors to be held captive, told the Daily Mirror about his "nightmare" at the hands of his captors and how he "cried like a baby" in his cell. He told the newspaper: "A guard kept flicking my neck with his index finger and thumb. I thought the worst, we've all seen the videos. I was frozen in terror and just stared into the darkness of my blindfold."

IRANIAN DIPLOMAT SAYS CIA TORTURED HIM IN IRAQ

What do you make about the accusation of an Iranian diplomat, kidnapped in Iraq by men in Iraqi Army uniforms, that he was tortured by the CIA and others while he was in custody? Here is the story on the BBC.co.uk.

"An Iranian diplomat freed last week after being abducted in Iraq in February has said he was tortured by his captors, including CIA agents. Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran's embassy in Baghdad, told Iranian media the agents had interrogated him on his country's role in Iraq."

"Mr Sharafi told the Irna state news agency he was subjected to torture "day and night". "I was kidnapped on a Baghdad street while shopping by officials who had Iraqi defence ministry ID cards and were riding in American forces vehicles," he said."

BUSH: IRRESPONSIBLE WITH SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

I see where George Bush today criticized the Democrats as irresponsible for putting conditions on the supplemental war funding bill:

"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."

We all know that Bush is the irresponsible one for risking the lives and limbs of soldiers and marines by sending them into this catastrophic military adventure that is Iraq. If Bush believes the war is justified, and that we Democrats are "irresponsible," then let him and Cheney don uniforms and walk the streets of Baghdad with the troops that he has so cavalierly sent, and I don't mean like Mc Cain who, accompanied by blackhawk choppers and 100 mean guys with guns, was mocked even by local Iraqis. Oh, and don't forget to enlist the Bush twins.

LANCET/JOHN HOPKINS SURVEY OF IRAQI CASUALTIES

When the press such as The Guardian reported the Lancet study on the number of civilian casualties in October 2006, the world was shocked by the number estimated, approximately 655,000. Yet at that time, both the U.S. and the U.K. tried to cast doubt on the validity and accuracy of the numbers, claiming that they were inflated and exaggerated. Owen Bennett-Jones writes for the BBC World Service:

"Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate. He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole. President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report." ""

Now Owen Bennett-Jones reports in the BBC World Service that the British Government at that time had cause to believe that the Lancet/John Hopkins study of the number of civilian casualties in Iraq was based on scientific methodology and rigorous statistical sampling. The BBC has secured a memorandum written by the chief scientific adviser of the U.K. Ministry of Defense in which the scientific adviser says the survey's modus operandi was "robust" and "best practice":

"The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

Another U.K. official admits at the time of the report's publication that, despite the official belittling by Blair and Bush, the study "could not be rubbished."