Drone Assaults on Civil Liberties

Drone Assaults on Civil Liberties

By Shahdabul Faraz

February 14, 2012 When people typically complain about the lack of bipartisanship in American politics, their outrage is grossly misplaced. While it is certainly true that our political discourse is home to contentious debates, this, in itself, is not the major problem. Rather, it is a distraction from the most potent toxin in American politics, which is our widespread bipartisan disregard for the preservation of civil liberties. When it comes to this issue, the distinction between Democrats and Republicans blurs to the point of non-existence. While right-wing politicians have a well-established history of ignoring civil liberties, Democrats have recently become much worse. The well-deserved condemnation that the Bush administration received from Democrats regarding civil-liberties violations has proven to be simply flowery political rhetoric based on their recent actions. The left’s outrage at Bush’s policies coupled with their acceptance of Obama’s reveals undeniable hypocrisy. For the confused Democrat, let us revisit the outrage present during the Bush years. During his era, Guantanamo was the primary symbol of right-wing radicalism. Most left-wing Democrats saw it as not only counterproductive, but also as a step away from democracy and towards dictatorial governance. Democrats righteously, and correctly, pointed out that it was absurd that the Bush/Cheney duo could imprison individuals who were accused of being a terrorist without a trial. Back then, Democrats laughed at Bush defenders who argued that dangerous terrorists had given up all of their rights, even the right to a trial. Even if you were to subscribe to this cowardly notion that we have to fight terror with terror, it must still be pointed out that the guilt of an individual cannot, and should not, be determined by the whims of the President. The Constitution has made it so that the burden of proving guilt rests with the courts and America’s legal system. Despite Obama’s defense of civil liberties while a Presidential candidate, he has not only retained many of Bush’s policies, but has also invented new ones. He has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or indefinite detentions that the Patriot Act grants. His administration has given themselves the power to kill citizens, American or otherwise, without a fair hearing. In fact, this was the case with drone strikes that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Beyond that, the Obama administration has approved the use of drone strikes in military operations, which kill innocent men, women and children by the hundreds, if not thousands. A drone strike is the use of remotely piloted planes to drop bombs on enemy forces or territories. According to British and Pakistani journalists quoted in the New York Times, these air raids have even repeatedly targeted rescuers who come to help at the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals. The CIA privately insists that civilian casualties are rare, but even conservative estimates suggest otherwise. Noor Behram, a campaigner documenting these strikes, says, "The youth in the area surrounding a strike gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside those who have seen a drone attack. The Americans think it is working, but the damage they’re doing is far greater." As unfortunate as it is to say, much of Obama’s legacy has boiled down to this: he has transformed failed and power-hungry right-wing policies into bipartisan consensus. Under Bush, Democrats and most on the left used to be against these abuses on both moral and practical grounds. Under their beloved leader Obama, they are conveniently more receptive to the same civil liberty abuses and less willing to speak out. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats support keeping Guantanamo Bay open. The same poll reports that 77 percent of liberal Democrats approve of the use of drones, dropping only somewhat when asked about targeting American citizens. It is virtually impossible to imagine that liberals and Democrats would embrace such efforts to undermine our liberties under a Republican president. The problem stems from the fact that both the right wing and left wing have become two different factions of the same pseudo-dictatorial cult. The members of these two factions have no fixed political beliefs, but are rather bound by their unconditional loyalty to their leader. In effect, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been drained of their political values. They serve not as an indicator of loyalty to ideas, but rather to individuals. During the Bush era, conservatism was analogous to loyalty to the man himself, despite any careful analysis as to whether the administration’s views were truly conservative in nature. Similarly, Obama has capitalized on this blind loyalty and hypocrisy in order to pass legislation that would be appalling to much of the idealistic political left. One could even argue that the point of having a Democratic president is invalidated by these statistics. When a Republican president slashes our civil liberties, those of us on the left vehemently oppose it. When a Democrat uses and expands such policies, a much smaller percentage of liberals and Democrats voice their dissenting opinion. Of course, virtually no non-libertarian Republicans, despite their rhetoric, challenge Obama on this issue because this is one area where they both agree. A complete bipartisanship support in Washington usually signals a systematic destruction of our civil liberties or some other policy that expands their power-grabbing tendencies and confines our sphere of freedom. Obama and the Democrats have done the Republicans a great favor. In the past, these policies were seen as fringe products of right-wing politics. Nowadays, since both Democrats and Republicans have adopted them, the framing of the issue has drastically changed. The radical has become the mainstream, and those of us who have remained consistent throughout this devolving transition are now ironically labeled as radical. It is about time that people abandon blind party affiliations and adopt critical thinking. Vehemently opposing policy X under Bush, while tolerating or supporting the same policy X under Obama flies in the face of rational thinking. By utilizing and expanding on Bush’s policies, Obama has given them a sense of universal legitimacy that would otherwise not exist, and this is something that no right-wing president could ever have dreamed of achieving. Assistant Editorials Editor Shahdabul Faraz is a College sophomore from Toronto, Canada.

Pentagon wants $3 billion for the War in Iraq that we thought was over

Pentagon wants $3 billion for the War in Iraq that we thought was over

RussiaToday

February 14, 2012 The American public has been told that the Iraq War is a thing of the past. Even still, the US Department of Defense is asking the federal government for almost $3 billion for "activities" in a country that they shouldn’t be in. The last US troops were supposedly withdrawn from Iraq just before 2012 began, but after years of a war that abruptly ended this past December, the Pentagon still wants billions to continue doing…something in Iraq. According to the latest budget request, the DoD think around $2.9 billion should cover the cost of "Post-Operation NEW DAWN (OND)/Iraq Activities." In a report published Monday by Wired.com, they acknowledge that the funding that the Pentagon wants now is almost as bizarre as the war itself. For nearly $3 billion, the DoD says that will be able to afford "Finalizing transition" from Iraq. Only two months earlier, however, President Obama celebrated the end of the Iraqi mission. At the time, some critics called the ending of the war as more of a catapult for Obama re-election campaign than anything else. Now with the revelation that the US Defense Department still wants billions for a war America is told it isn’t fighting, the alleged ending of Operation New Dawn seems just as questionable as its mysterious beginning. After "ending" the war last year, the US government handed Iraqi operations over to the State Department. Three billion dollars — the amount that the DoD wants for a war they aren’t waging — makes up around one-ninth of the State Department’s entire annual budget. In 2012, the Pentagon had asked for $11 billion to fight the War in Iraq — which was, at the time, an actual war. But as the death toll stands at over 4,000 US casualties after nearly eight years overseas, it is clear by the latest cash request that the US, as many had expected but had not hoped, is not ready to just walk away just yet. On the bright side, it might be easier to foot the cost of this make-believe war than you would think. Suspiciously, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction announced in January that upwards of $2 billion that the US was holding onto for Iraq had mysteriously disappeared.

Former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem: Israel is turning Jerusalem into a Jewish City

Former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem: Israel is turning Jerusalem into a Jewish City

George Rishmawi

February 14, 2012 Former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Michael Sabbah said the current municipality of Jerusalem is trying to turn the city into a Jewish one. He told the Italian news Agency AKI, that turning the holy city of Jerusalem into a mono-ethnic city will only cause war instead of stability and peace. The city should maintain its holistic nature that welcomes all people, and should have a special political status by becoming the capital of both, Palestine and Israel. The Patriarch expressed disappointment in the Israeli and American rejection of Palestine joining the UNESCO and the attempts to join the UN.

Palestinian Teen from Qattana: Israeli Soldiers Break His Legs, Force Him to Walk

Palestinian Teen from Qattana: Israeli Soldiers Break His Legs, Force Him to Walk

Palestine News Network

February 15, 2012 Defense for Children International has documented the arrest by Israeli soldiers of 16 year-old Mahmoud Omar Faqeh from Qattana village northwest of Jerusalem. Defense for Children International revealed that the Israelis were in direct violation of many international standards for the treatment of children during arrests. As the teen explained to Defense for Children International, Mahmoud was going with his friends to a place near the Apartheid Wall in Beit Sourek village when they were attacked by Israeli soldiers. "One of the Israeli soldiers fired a rubber bullet at my leg, and then another Israeli soldier caught me and two of my friends. As soon as they arrested me, they forced me to get down and face the ground. They handcuffed me with a plastic tie. They started to severely beat me on my body and my legs with their feet and the black sticks that they were holding," said Mahmoud. "I was screaming from the pain they caused me. Though I was shouting 'my legs are broken,' they continued to beat me for almost 15 minutes." "After that, the soldiers took me off the ground and arrested me. Because I couldn't walk on my legs, the soldiers started to beat me again and asked me to stand up, but I couldn't from the pain. They lifted me and forced me to walk, so I walked a little bit and I fell. Then two soldiers held me by my shoulders and dragged me until we reached the Apartheid Wall. They put me on Ma'bad Street near the wall, and they started to beat me again until a military vehicle came and took me to the nearest military checkpoints. I think it was Beit Eksa checkpoint, but, because the soldiers blindfolded my eyes with the woolen hat I was wearing, I couldn't see anything." The teenager was detained at the checkpoint for almost half an hour and was forced to sit blindfolded in the rain on the cement, with his hands cuffed behind his back suffering from leg pain. Mahmoud said, "The soldiers transferred me from Beit Aksa checkpoint to a place – I caught its name during the investigation – it was Atarot Military Prison. They made me sit on the cement and I couldn't raise my head, because whenever I did a soldier yelled at me, and that was very painful." At mid-night, the soldiers interrogated the teen and he was asked about his reasons for walking near the Apartheid Wall. The interrogator said that the teen was throwing stones at the soldiers and distracted them from doing their jobs, but Mahmoud denied it. When Mahmoud told the interrogator that his legs were hurt, he was told that the soldiers would take him to a doctor who would wrap some gauze around legs and then he would be taken to prison. After one hour, the interrogation ended and Mahmoud was transferred to Ofer Military Prison near Ramallah. There, the doctor refused to touch him or give him treatment, so the soldiers took him to Hadassa Hospital in Jerusalem, after they covered his eyes with an unused plastic garbage bag. "When I reached Ofer, the soldiers dragged me to the prison's clinic, and I was suffering from the pain, I asked them to stop, but one of the soldiers said in Arabic, "Shut up or we will put you with the dogs." The teen reached Hadassa Hospital the morning following his arrest. Since his arrest, Mahmoud hadn't eaten or used the bathroom. Mahmoud said, "In the hospital, two soldiers from the Border Guard accompanied me; they were dragging me. I was asked to take some tests, and then a doctor came to check on my legs and asked for an x-ray. It showed that I have two fractures in my right leg, and the doctors wrapped it in the cast and put me on one of the beds in the hospital. Whenever I tried to sleep, one of the soldiers beat me and the other one said that am going to die here, or I am going to the prison, in addition to other curses from both of them." The next day in the hospital, the doctors put a cast on his left leg, because they discovered that it, too, was broken. At that point, Mahmoud ate his first meal and used the bathroom, with the help of a nurse. The following afternoon, Mahmoud was transferred to Ofer prison accompanied by three soldiers, including one female soldier, who beat Mahmoud before summoning him to the prison's administration. They also forced him to walk for 30 meters, though the soldiers were aware of the doctors' recommendations that Mahmoud not walk for at least 12 hours until the cast dries. Mahmoud said, "One of the soldiers beat me on my chest with his vest, and it was strong, while the female soldier pulled my hair and forced me to walk on my legs." Mahmoud stayed at Ashbal section in Ofer Prison for 16 days where he was tortured by the Israeli soldiers. During the 16 days, he appeared five times before the court, moving in a wheelchair. At the fifth session, he was released on a 1000 NIS bond until the date of his next court summons.

Taliban's spokesman interview with CNN

Taliban's spokesman, Zahibullah Mujahid, 's interview with CNN

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

The spokesman of Islamic Emirate, Zabihullah Mujahid in interview with CNN February 15, 2012 Alemarah website presents to its viewers the interview of Zabihullah Mujahid done with CNN news network on the 14/02/2012 where a range of questions regarding the current ongoing situation and political issues are answered. Q. Is it possible for the Taliban to renounce international terrorism in one of its written statements as per the American demand? A. All praise is due to Allah and may his peace and blessings be upon his chosen servant. To proceed, I must first and foremost say that we do not work according to the guidelines of America or any other country but all of our decisions are based on Islamic principles while giving consideration to our national interests however based on mutual respect, we do believe in reaching an understanding with all the countries of the world. Now, regarding the issue of terrorism: If America and its allies consider the current Jihad and struggle in Afghanistan against the eradication of the occupation and its continuation until all foreign troops leave and an Islamic government is established as terrorism, then we cannot shun this as it would be an un-Islamic act because we consider this Jihad and struggle as our Islamic obligation, the shunning of which is not possible in any circumstance. However, as we continue with this obligation (Jihad and struggle) we are religiously held responsible in preventing civilian casualties. Q. Do you have delegates based in Qatar at the moment who are engaged in talks with America? If you don’t, do you have plans to send delegations in the near future? A. A representative of Islamic Emirate has held meetings with American delegates in Qatar regarding confidence building measures. As for when we will send or not send delegations to Qatar, then it all depends on when we reach the negotiation stage. Up until now, this has not officially occurred and naturally, as we reach the negotiation stage, a delegation or a team of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will be chosen and sent to Qatar. Q. Have you yet been asked to meet with the Karzai administration in Saudi Arabia? If not, will you accept to meet with them in Saudi Arabia if requested? A. Before I answer your question I firstly must say that in order to reach an understanding with America, Qatar was chosen as an intermediary nation by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. This was our own choice and not on due part to the behest or pressure of another nation, a selection which America also accepted. In regards to Saudi Arabia, no one has put forward such a request to us and even if such a thing was requested, our answer will be that the government of Karzai is not independent and meeting with it will not benefit in any way in solving the problem. Q. Do you believe that the active lower level Taliban will accept you accord if you were to reach a positive outcome with America in Qatar? A. In our system, no consideration is given to the issue of high rank or low rank but rather the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan works as a cohesive administration. All of its offices, its officials and members work for a mutual goal under the leadership of the Commander of the Faithful. The current talks or future negotiations all take place with the permission and guidance of the Amir and all agreements which all done with the consent of the Amir in the light of Islamic principles and national interests are happily accepted by all and they who work earnestly to implement them. Q. Do you think talking with the Karzai administration will be beneficial or do you want to directly talk with the Americans? A. I must say that Karzai, Kabul administration, Afghans and the Americans or Washington is not concerned here as some people say, as a form of protest, that the Taliban only want to talk with the Americans instead of their own Afghans. In reality, the concern is of one exercising power and one with no power. It is well known to the Afghan people as well as the world that the real power holder fighting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan is America. It has used Karzai and his administration as an instrument to maintain its grip and continue its occupation. Q. If those Taliban that are being held in Guantanamo are not released, will your negotiations with the Americans still continue? A. Negotiations have not yet began with the Americans so talking about it continuing does not mean much. Now the question is, when will negotiations begin? I must say that before any negotiations can take place, confidence building measures must first succeed so an atmosphere can be created for negotiations and this confidence building measure rests entirely with the Americans and they must take steps for it which are; exchange of Guantanamo prisoners, the opening of a political office and the termination of the black list of the United Nations as well as the bounty lists of America and her allies.

Iraq snapshot - February 15, 2012

Iraq snapshot - February 15, 2012

The Common Ills

February 15, 2012 Wednesday, February 15, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon talks Camp Ashraf, another prep meet-up for a national conference takes place, Iraq continues to struggle to pass a 2012 budget, the US House Veterans Affairs Committee hears from the VA about their budget requests and more.   President Barack Obama, don't threaten veterans.  That was the message of House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller this morning.  What was he talking about?  He was noting that other departments know whether or not sequestration would effect them but VA doesn't.  In 1985, the Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act.  If the budget triggers sequestration, then automatic cuts would take place.  Chair Miller explained that they had repeatedly attempted to get a clear answer from the White House on this issue but that they still had no answer.  "If the president won't lead on this issue," Chair Miller declared, "then we will." It was a lively hearing.  So much so that all overshadowed Miller's opening remarks. The hearing was about the 2013 budget and two panels appeared before the Committee.  The first panel was Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki (with the VA's Robert Petzel, Allison Hickey, Steve Muro, Roger Baker and Todd Grams).  Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake, VFW's Ramond Kelley, Disabled American Veterans' Joseph Violante, AMVETS Diane Zumatto and the American Legion's Timothy Tetz.  We'll note the second panel in tomorrow's snapshot and focus on the first panel today.  The White House has put out their trial budget.  The House Veterans Affairs Committee was focusing on the budget in terms of veterans issues.   Chair Jeff Miller: In the -- in the current budget submission, it has a billion dollars for Veterans Job Corps. We all are keenly aware of the high number of unemployed veterans in our country today. And not a single member of this Committee nor this Congress should be in any way satisifed with that number. And we have tried to do things in this Commitee to help bring those numbers down.  My concern is there's no detail in the budget submission. Where did the number one billion dollars come from?  You know, it was chosen to be provided in your entitlement accounts to be dispensed over a five year period.  And so I think we all benefit from a conversation, Mr. Secretary, as to who's going to be focused on, what area of the veteran population, how's it going to work and what will happen to these jobs once the funds run out?     Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Mr. Chairman, the proposal for the Veterans Job Corps, the $1 billion piece of that, is a program that we're seeking Congressional authorization on and we are putting together the details of that which we would provide to you and you would have a chance to review. I would say that the intent here is to put up to 20,000 veterans back to work over the next five years on projects that will protect and restore our public lands. Projects would be in national parks, forests, rivers and trails, wild life refuge, national monuments, other public lands. Veterans could work on park maintenance projects, patrolling public lands, rehabilitating natural and recreational areas and in administrative, technical, law enforcement-related activities. The Veterans Job Corps program is a project that's going to be coordinated with other departments and we are a -- sort of a oversight of the distribution of funds but there are others who will be participating.  I'm told that uh -- and I'm confident that uh VA resources won't be diverted to fund this $1 billion that it will come from elsewhere.  And I don't know exactly where at the moment.  But, Mr. Chairman, I'll share that with you as soon as I have clarity.   And we'll note, from his written statement about the Veterans Job Corps, "The program will serve all Veterans, but will have a particular focus on post-9/11 Veterans."  So the 20,000 jobs are not guaranteed to veterans of today's wars.  I'm not saying they should be but I am saying 20,000 wasn't, to me, an impressive number, and became less so when it was going to address not only the largest unemployed veterans population (young veterans of today's wars) but all veterans.  US House Rep Corrine Brown would bring up the issue of contracts and outsourcing and asking why every contract the VA outsourced didn't have a clause in it about hiring veterans?  Not really an answer. "You're not answering the question," Ranking Member Bob Filner pointed out to the VA's Allison Hickey as she went on about how one contract has seen a company hire 15% veterans and how they have conversations with contractors.  Filner pointed out that Brown's question was why didn't they mandate this in the contract, why have conversations when you should be writing it into the contract?  Hickey attempted to reply but Shinseki took over.   Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Mr. Filner, we'll take a look at this.   Ranking Member Bob Filner: Oh, come on, you can give me some kind of answer.  Are you saying we can't do it legally?   Secretary Eric Shinseki:  I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.   Ranking Member Bob Filner: She must know the answer [gesturing to Hickey].  I mean, come on. This is not rocket science here.  You issue contracts 100 times a day.  Why can't we have contracts that do this?   Secretary Eric Shinseki:  You can. And I don't know the circumstances of this contract. And I would --   Ranking Member Bob Filner: But she apparently does. Why didn't we do it here?   Allison Hickey: So, Congressman, I will go back to our physician folks to ask --   Ranking Member Bob Filner: Oh, come on.  You guys know the answer to this.  Why are you so afraid to just tell us?   Secretary Eric Shinseki: I'm not sure it wasn't in the contract, Mr. Filner. That's why --    Ranking Member Bob Filner:  Well she's sure --   Allison Hickey: Congressman --   Ranking Member Bob Filner: You started off your testimony, "I know the contract." So did it specify or not?   Allison Hickey: I will find out and get back to you for the record --   Ranking Member Bob Filner: I don't understand this.  You know this better than you're saying here.     US House Rep Corrine Brown then noted that one of the biggest complaints she gets is that VA does billions of dollars of work and they're not doing it with veterans, they're not hiring them and this at a time when so many veterans are unemployed. Brown noted employment elsewhere in the hearing as well.  US House Rep and Dr. Roe raised the issue of the large number of suicides and shared that one thing he's hearing from veterans is that they're doing well in one-on-one sessions and then they're moved on to groups and that's not working.  "These needs aren't being met in large group settings," he explained. The short answer is that the VA is currently evaluating with plans to increase in the numbers hired where needed.   US House Rep Corrine Brown: Sir, I have a follow up on that, you said can we hire -- are we not -- are we trying to hire all those people or are we working with other agencies as far as subcontracting out? Because we're not going to be able to hire enough people.  He talked about the group setting, some people can benefit from the group setting, everbody don't need that one-on-one but some people do. So based on the resources, how can we better utilize the dollars to meet the needs?   Dr. Robert Petzel: Thank you, Congressman Brown.  We do contract in the community.  We do provide on a fee basis mental health care. And as the Secretary was just pointing out to me a new modality that's becoming increasingly important is tele-mental health where we provide both evaluation and therapy in a tele-health setting -- where the patient may be remotely, a hundred miles away. They're on a television screen with an appropriate supervisor and the psychiatrist or psychologist is back at a larger medical center.  It has been very successful in treating PTSD and other mental health disorders.  And I think that this is going to become a more common practice as we move forward.   FYI, Petzel called every female House Rep, throughout the hearing, "Congressman." Maybe here we'll call him "Mrs. Dr. Petzel" in the future?   Last week, Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, participated in a Virtual Town Hall, an online Town Hall which allowed her and veterans all over the country to interact. The Virtual Town Hall was sponsored by Disabled American Veterans and a full transcript of the exchange can be found here.  Various veterans participating in the Virtual Town Hall noted the delays and backlog with regards to claims -- not surprising, over 500,000 claims are currently backlogged according to the VA's Allison Hickey testimony in today's hearing.  Senator Murray observed, "I receive so many complaints from veterans and their families about long waits for claims. I visited the Seattle Regional Office a few months ago and was astounded at the mountain of paper work and had the opportunity to really see what we are facing.  I am working hard to try and help the VA get a handle on this.  We do have to recognize that the claims are increasingly complex and there are more of them with the number of service members coming home today.  We want them to be done efficiently but correctly.  This will remain a top priority for me."  And in today's hearing, Ranking Member Bob Filner touched on the issues of backlog and Agent Orange.     Ranking Member Bob Filner: And I just want to ask a couple -- focus on a couple areas that I've been involved with over the years. One is the claims backlog.  In your budget presentation ou title it "Eliminate The Claims Backlog." But I don't see any real estimate or projection or anything of when you think you're going to do that but I still think that -- in the short run, at least -- to get this turned around your notion of -- I think you used the word "brute force" a few years ago, if I recall that.   Secretary Eric Shinseki: It was probably a poor choice of words.   Ranking Member Bob Filner: No, it's okay. It was good. Gives me something to shoot at, you know? I don't think it's going to work.  I just think all this stuff you have is good stuff but it's too big and, as you point out, there's all kind of factors making it bigger.  I still think you have to take some, I'll say, radical step in the short run -- whether it's to grant all the Agent Orange claims that have been submitted or have been there for X number of years or, as I've suggested at other times, all claims that have the medical information in it and have been submitted with the help of a Veterans Service Officer you accept subject to audit. That is, unless you take some real radical step to eliminate a million of them or 500,000 of them, you're never going to get there. It's going to always be there.  You don't want that as your legacy -- I don't think.  So -- Nor do we.  I think you're going to have to take some really strong steps in terms of accepting stuff that's been in the pipeline a long time, again, that has adequate -- by whatever definition -- documentation and help from professional support. Plus this incredible situation of Agent Orange where, as you know, not only have those claims increaded but we're talking about -- as you well know -- your comrades for thirty or more years that have been wrestling with this.  Let's give the Vietnam vets some peace. Let's give them a real welcome home. Let's grant those Agent Orange claims.  Let's get those -- whatever it is, 100,000 or 200,000  of our backlog -- just get them off the books.  I don't know if you want to comment on that but I still think you're never going to get there with -- All this is good stuff.  We've talked about it on many occasions.  But it's not going to fundamentally -- or at least in the short run change it around so you can get to a base  level of zero or whatever you want to be and move forward from there.   Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Mr. Filner, I'll call on Secretary Hickey for the final details but we've pretty much worked through the Agent Orange -- the increase in Agent Orange claims. I think we're well down on the numbers. I'll rely on her statistic here.   Many other issues were touched on.  We'll note the exchanges on women veterans.   Ranking Member Bob Filner: The House passed a bill that I had put forward a year or two ago called a Women's Veterans Bill of Rights.  It got through the House, it got stuck in the Senate.  [He's referring to HR 809 which he introduced in the 111th Congress and which the Senate didn't pass.  He reintroduced HR 809 in the new Congress in February of 2010.]  I would just ask that you look at that.  You can do stuff administratively. You could post something in each of our centers and clinics. We have a long way to go on this but women veterans need to feel that this institution is evolving to meet their needs.  And a statement at the front door of their rights, I think, would be very helpful. So I would just ask you to look at that.  We didn't do it legislatively but I think you could do some stuff administratively.    Shinseki replied that women veterans' issues in the proposed budget increased by 17%. Dropping back to his written statement, he gives 8% as the number women make up in VA's total population, women are "nearly 15 percent of today's active duty military forces and 18 percent of National Guard and Reserves."  337,000 women access care through VA and, "The 2013 budget includes $403 million for the gender-specific healthcare needs of women Veterans, an increase of 17.5 percent over the 2012 level."  Later in the hearing, US House Rep Linda Sanchez would raise the issue of women veterans and we'll jump to her exchange.   US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Secretary Shinseki, I recently had the opportunity to visit the Patient Alligned Care Center at the Long Beach VA facility and I want to applaud the efforts there to provide an integrated system of care. But one of the things that's been brought to my attention is the levels of staffing for the new models that will be put in place. I heard from doctors, nurses and other pracitioners to discuss how thinly they feel they are being stretched in this new system. And it's a system that they want to see succeed. They're employed there because they believe in the mission, they want to provide the service.  But I'm wondering if you could maybe go into a little bit of detail  as to how the $433 million that is proposed for patient-centered care -- how that will go towards staffing to make sure that we have the staff availble to meet the needs of those veterans.   Secretary Eric Shinseki:  I'm going to call on Dr. Petzel for the details.   US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Sure.   Dr. Robert Petzel: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Congressman Sanchez, when we implemented the PAC [Patient Aligned Care] program, several years ago, the first thing that we did was a survey of what we call PAC readiness.  One of which was to determine how many support people there were in place for each one of the providers in a PAC clinic.  The desirable ratio agreed to in the entire health care community is 3 people per provider. We found that there were places that were reaching that goal and then others that weren't.  One of the major things that has been involved in the PAC model financing has been to provide the medical centers with -- and the clinics with -- the number of people that they need to support the provider.  I will look specifically at Long Beach and I can, in fact, get back to you. But our goal -- and we're very close to it as I understand -- is to have 3 support people per provider in each one of our clinics.     US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Okay because I hear stories about staffing being stretched and no new hires or people leave and are not replaced. And so the concern is to have the appropriate amount of people available to provide the services that are needed.  And I would appreciate you following up with me about that.  To the Secretary, I know that you and I have previously discussed some of my concerns -- specifically with respect to the VA employing female specialists to assist specifically female veterans with VA services.  And I know that the administration's budget contains $403 million to address the needs of women veterans.  I'm wondering if you can tease that out a little bit and provide more specifics on how that money will be used to address the growing needs of the female veteran population?   Secretary Eric Shinseki: Uh, thank you, Congresswoman. I'm going to call on Dr. Petzel for the details but this is confirmed that you and I have had discussions about this.   US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Yes.   Dr. Robert Petzel: I thank you, Mr. Secretary.  Uh, the -- our goal is to ensure that every female veteran has a choice of providers and that, if they wish to, they will be able to be seen by a female provider.  About 75% of women choose to have a female provider.  And we are able to meet that need in virtually every setting except perhaps some remote community-based outpatient clinics where we just don't have those sort of uh facilities.  I can, for the record, give you the details about how much staffing -- what kind of staffing is to be associated with the $403 million increase we're seeing in women's health programs. I don't have that number at the tip of my fingers but it is important to us as I'm sure it is to you that women have a choice, that if they wish to see a female provider, they are afforded that opportunity.   US House Rep Linda Sanchez:  Yeah, one of the things on my tour of the Long Beach facility is that they do have a sort of separate women's clinic area where women can choose that to be their point of entry to the system.   Dr. Robert Petzel: About sixty of our largest medical centers have specific women's centers, women's health centers where all of the services are provided in that same environment. The rest of them are sort of associated with women specific primary care clinics when they're not as large. And then, in community based outpatient clinics we have trained the primary care providers in the necessities of women's health.     Homelessness was touched on by US House Reps Corrine Brown and Dr. Phil Roe.  We're ignoring that for two reasons.  1) Roe brought up that once a case worker has X number of clients, the VA isn't issuing vouchers so even though there is space a veterans left sleeping on the street or somewhere else (he or she receives no voucher).  Shinseki noted that homeless veterans were decreasing.  Are they?  Or is this program -- which tracks beds used in shelters -- not factoring in that veterans aren't receiving vouchers if their caseworker is maxed out?  That's not addressed and until it is, I'm not interested in going into the figures.  2) What we do know is that one group of homeless veterans is increasing and it's not the stereotype of the homeless veteran.  Earlier this week, Peggy McCarthy (The Day) reports on homeless veterans. Andy and Miriam Miranda live with their young son in a New Haven shelter. Andy's a veteran, they both have degrees and were teachers and their home was foreclosed during these economic hard times. McCarthy reports an emerging trend for homeless veterans is that it's no longer a single veteran but families. Connecticut saw 15 veterans family appealing for help via the homeless programs in 2008 but last year saw 135 families which mirrors what's happening on a national level (2010 saw "an 86 percent increase over 2009").  This increasing group -- homeless veterans with their femilies -- was not addressed in the hearing.  The VA budget calls for "$1.352 billion for programs that will prevent and treat Veteran homelessness" (Shinseki's written statement) and I'm fine with noting that figure but, repeating, if VA is saying that the number of homeless veterans is decreasing and US House Rep Roe is telling us -- without any dispute from Shinseki or anyone from the VA on the panel -- that homeless people are being turned away when beds are available, that they're not being given vouchers, then I think the VA needs to clarify how they're collecting their numbers.  I'll also note that Shinseki's defined as "VA's goal" for 2013 "to serve 32,000 homeless veterans."  Also on the issue of homeless veterans, Senator Patty Murray's office released the following this afternoon:     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 Wednesday, February 15, 2012 Tester Press Office (202) 228-0371 Snowe Press Office (202) 224-8667 VETERANS: Chairman Murray and Senators Tester and Snowe Call on VA and HUD to Provide Answers about Homeless Women Veterans After GAO report emphasizes data collection partnership opportunities between VA and HUD, Murray, Tester, and Snowe ask Secretaries for answers ahead of the March 14 Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on veteran homelessness READ FULL GAO REPORT HERE (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray, Committee Member Jon Tester, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe sent a joint letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinkseki and Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan asking for explicit answers to questions in light of a GAO report highlighting missed opportunities for the two departments to improve services for homeless women veterans. The report also highlighted limitations in available housing options for women veterans with children and an inability to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of women veterans in mixed-gender housing facilities. "It is critical that we continue doing absolutely everything we can on behalf of the brave men and women who have already made tremendous sacrifices for our nation," the Senators wrote. "Until every single veteran is off the street, we must not relent in our efforts to provide the services and assistance they need to find adequate and long-term housing for them and their families. In doing so, we must make every effort to ensure we are addressing the needs of our entire veteran population, particularly our women veterans, to ensure their needs are being met and they are not falling through the cracks." The Senators have requested a response in advance of the March 14 Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing scheduled on veteran homelessness. The full text of the Senators' letter follows: The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki Secretary of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Honorable Shaun L.S. Donovan Secretary United States Department of Housing & Urband Development 451 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 Dear Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Donovan, We appreciate your ongoing efforts to reduce homelessness among our nation's veterans, and applaud your request for an increase of $333 million for programs to end veteran homelessness in the fiscal year 2013 budget. Recent reports of a 12 percent reduction in the homeless veteran population over the last year are certainly a testament to your hard work and leadership. Despite these gains, we have concerns that the particular needs of homeless women veterans are frequently being overlooked. As we see more and more women veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is increasingly critical that we do more to help them transition home. As you know, a recent Government Accountability Office report, "Homeless Women Veterans: Actions Needed to Ensure Safe and Appropriate Housing," highlighted an opportunity to increase collaboration between your two agencies when it comes to gathering data about homeless women veterans. As you would undoubtedly agree, without that data, it is impossible for us to have a clear understanding of the demographics of this population or to develop a strategy that can effectively address their particular needs. The report also highlighted limitations in available housing options for women veterans with children. Although VA has a referral policy in place for temporary housing, it is not being implemented uniformly nationwide. As a result, homeless women veterans in some parts of the country are forced to return to the streets until they are admitted into the Grant and Per Diem or HUD-VASH programs. Additionally, infrastructure needs such as private and secure rooms and showering facilities are often lacking -- placing women veterans in uncomfortable and potentially unsafe situations. We can and should do better. In light of this report, we request responses to the following questions: * What steps are your agencies taking to better capture information on our homeless women veteran population? * How do you track both the demographics and particular needs of this population? * What strategies are being employed to effectively address their unique needs? * What improvements will be made to VA's implementation of its referral policy? * What type of gender-specific safety and security standards will be implemented for VA's Grant and Per Diem program? * What additional steps need to be taken to reduce the rate of homelessness among female veterans? Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that, although the overall number of unemployed veterans has decreased significantly over the past year, the unemployment rate amongst women veterans is now more than double the national average. As unemployment rates often directly correlate with rates of homelessness, how closely are your Agencies working with the Department of Labor to reduce the homeless women veteran population by addressing one of the underlying symptoms of their unemployment or underemployment? It is critical that we continue doing absolutely everything we can on behalf of the brave men and women who have already made tremendous sacrifices for our nation. Until every single veteran is off the street, we must not relent in our efforts to provide the services and assistance they need to find adequate and long-term housing for them and their families. In doing so, we must make every effort to ensure we are addressing the needs of our entire veteran population, particularly our women veterans, to ensure their needs are being met and they are not falling through the cracks. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and request a response to inform our views in advance of the March 14 hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs on veteran homelessness. We look forward to working closely with both of you to address this critical issue. Sincerely, Chairman Patty Murray Senator Jon Tester Senator Olympia J. Snowe ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray       Violence continued in Iraq today.  Reuters notes a police officer's Jurf al-Sakhar home was attacked with gunfire and grenades leaving his wife and their two daughters dead and him injured and a Baquba roadside bombing left two people injured.  Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Mosul bombing left 1 person dead and one police officer injured.   From the never-ending violence to confusion.  Confusion over AFP and Reuters' reporting and confusion over United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Let's set the stage by noting what we were noting this morning.  We're talking about the residents of Camp Ashraf, approximately 3,500 Iranian dissidents who were welcomed into Iraq decades ago, following the Iranian revolution. Nouri al-Maliki does not care for the residents and has, since Barack Obama was sworn in as US President, twice ordered their assault. They are protected persons under international law and Nouri gave his word that he would ensure their protection. Nouri's word is worthless. They are being relocated to Camp Liberty. The British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom's Muriel Turner offers this in a guest column for UPI: The 3,400 residents will be housed it what can only be described as veal crates, in an area not much more than half-a-kilometer-square. Martin Kobler, the U.N. special representative to Iraq, has admitted to Ashraf residents that they will still be denied medical facilities. There will be no way to care for the disabled and nowhere to tend to the injured. There isn't even any drinking water! Their instructions mandate that, residents can only take "individual belongings" with them -- basically as much as they can carry. Vehicles and other property that they have worked hard for over the 30 years in Ashraf will have to be abandoned. The Iraqi government has designated Camp Liberty to be a "temporary transfer location." That's because it does not meet the standards required of a refugee camp. Once inside Camp Liberty, the 13-foot-high walls will close in on them and they will no doubt be forgotten. They will have no way of contacting U.N. observers other than by telephone, which the Iraqis will disconnect as they please. They are to be fingerprinted upon arrival, as if they were prisoners of war. One report said Iraqi guards, perhaps even the same guards who killed their friends and relatives, will be based inside the camp. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy to Iraq is Martin Kobler. He penned a column on Camp Ashraf for the International Herald Tribune which includes: As a first step, it calls for the camp residents to voluntarily relocate to a transit site at the Baghdad airport. In contrast to Camp Ashraf, this site would be monitored around the clock by observers from the United Nations. There, the residents would be interviewed by the U.N. refugee agency, the UNHCR, to determine their eligibility for refugee status, paving the way for their resettlement outside of Iraq. Most have filed refugee claims. A small number have returned to Iran in recent years, but many others will want to go elsewhere. Under the same agreement, the government of Iraq has made two key commitments that it must uphold. First, it has accepted full responsibility for the safety and security of the residents, from the relocation process throughout their stay at the new facility. Secondly, it has promised that nobody would be forced to go to Iran or elsewhere against their wishes. The new site is a former U.S. Marine base that can hold more than 5,000 people. It has been equipped at considerable expense to receive the residents of Camp Ashraf. It has cooking and medical facilities, space for recreational activities and provisions for women and religious observance. UNHCR has carried out a careful technical assessment and determined that the new camp meets the humanitarian standards it applies for refugee situations around the world. Yes, the two are at odds over the conditions of Camp Liberty. First, Reuters, Kobler's column was not "an article in Wednesday's New York Times."  It was a column run by the International Herald Tribune.  The New York Times is now the sole owner of that paper and it elected to repost the column to the New York Times website today.  It did not run it in the paper.  This should have been clear with the note the Times' website attached to the column at the end: "A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 16, 2012, in The International Herald Tribune."  Repeating, the column did not run "in Wednesday's New York Times."  That is an error you should correct.  It's also a minor point except to note that the wires obviously don't read the daily New York Times -- either in print or digital form.  And that's not necessarily a bad thing, just something worth noting.   Confusion.  For some reason, Ban Ki-moon weighed in today.  No indicationthat this would be happening from Kobler's column.  More confusing are his remarks.  The UN News Centre notes:   Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called for the start of the relocation of residents of the settlement in Iraq formerly known as Camp Ashraf, urging the Government and the camp dwellers to continue to cooperate so that the process can be carried out in a peaceful manner. "The Secretary-General reiterates that the Government of Iraq bears the primary responsibility for the security and the welfare of the residents of Camp Ashraf," said a statement issued by his spokesperson. "At the same time, the residents of Camp Ashraf also bear a responsibility to abide by the laws of Iraq. Any provocation or violence must be avoided and would be unacceptable."   I'm confused why he made that last statement?  Are Camp Ashraf residents threating to riot or attack?  There's been no reports indicating that.  They aren't supposed to have any weapons, the US disarmed them.  It's a very interesting remark.  Did he say it? Let's go to the UN's post of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's remarks:   The Secretary-General continues to closely follow the situation in Camp Ashraf. Over the past few months, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), under the leadership of his Special Representative, Martin Kobler, and in close cooperation with UNHCR, the European Union, the United States and other interested Member States, has been tirelessly working as an impartial facilitator to promote a peaceful resolution of this issue, within the framework of UNAMI's humanitarian mandate. At the request of the Secretary-General, the Government of Iraq extended its deadline to close Camp Ashraf from 31 December 2011 to 30 April 2012. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on 25 December 2011 between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq has laid the foundation for a peaceful and durable solution, respecting both the sovereignty of Iraq and meeting Iraq's international humanitarian and human rights obligations. The Secretary-General acknowledges the efforts of the Government of Iraq to prepare the temporary transit location to host the residents and allow UNHCR to undertake refugee status determination. On 31 January 2012, UNHCR confirmed that the infrastructure and facilities at the temporary transit location are in accordance with the international humanitarian standards stipulated in the MoU. The Secretary-General believes that the time has come to start the relocation process without further delay. He urges the Iraqi authorities and the residents of Camp Ashraf to continue to cooperate and complete the process in a peaceful manner. The Secretary-General reiterates that the Government of Iraq bears the primary responsibility for the security and the welfare of the residents of Camp Ashraf. At the same time, the residents of Camp Ashraf also bear a responsibility to abide by the laws of Iraq. Any provocation or violence must be avoided and would be unacceptable. The Secretary-General reiterates his call to Member States to contribute to a durable solution by demonstrating their readiness to accept eligible residents of Camp Ashraf who wish to resettle in third countries. The Secretary-General stresses that the United Nations remains strongly committed to continue to do its utmost to facilitate a peaceful and durable solution.   Yes, the remarks the UN intended to be attributed to him carry it.  So where is that in the Retuers report?  Or the AFP report?  Not present in either. That's the part that confuses me regarding the two news outlets.  In terms of Ban Ki-Moon, the remarks admonishing Camp Ashraf residents not to resort to violence and the timing of the 'you must move now'  statements are confusing.   Turning to the political scene, Al Mada notes that the Parliament discussed the 2012 federal budget yesterday, they also did a reading (the first reading) of it. The article mainly addresses MP Jaafar al-Moussawi. He is a part of the National Alliance and a member of the Sadr bloc. He is also an opponent/rival of Nouri's for many years now. He has repeatedly, over the years, called for the Constitution to be followed and castigated Nouri when Nouri refused to do so. November 28th, a bomb went off outside Parliament. Dropping back to that day's snapshot: In the one that will probably have the most impact the Baghdad-based government, Parliament was attacked. Confusion remains as to what it was attacked with. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) puts it this way, "Also Monday, a mortar round landed inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, killing at least two people, police said. The round landed on the outdoor car park that belongs to the Iraqi Parliament compound and hit a car. " Citing the news channel Al-Arabiya, Adnkronos Security maintains it was a rocket. KUNA states mortars and that it "hit a parking lot near the parliament" leaving at least four injured. Aswat al-Iraq notes Parliament's Mohammed al-Khalidi states it was a car and a suicide bombing, "the car exploded outside the parliament building, where the driver was trying enter, but blocked by a military hummer, which obliged him to commit suicide." AFP emphasizes the confusion over details, "The explosion in the parking lot of the Iraqi parliament was caused by a mortar round, said Baghdad security spokesman Qassem al-Moussawi and several other sources. However, at least two sources at parliament said it was a car bomb." Parliament's spokesperson Aidan Helmi declares the attack was an attempted assassination of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and states the car involved was similar to the cars used in Nujaifi's security detail and that when asked to display a security badge, the car slammed into anothe car, the driver got out and detonated a bomb on his person. Jack Healy, Yasir Ghazi, Andrew E. Kramer and Zaid Thaker (New York Times) observe, "An attempted bombing steps outside Parliament would represent a serious security breach inside one of the capital's most heavily guarded sectors, raising questions about the competence -- or complicity -- of security forces. Parliament sits inside the Green Zone, the locked-down expanse along the Tigris River that houses many Iraqi governmetn buildings and the American Embassy." Immediately came the lies. In order to try to elevate Nouri to martyr status, he and his lackeys began declaring that it was an attack on him. He was no where near the Parliament nor scheduled to be. But his vanity is so great that everything must be about him. The attacks were blamed -- by the press -- on the usual catch-all: al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. More recently, Nouri's asked that the Supreme Court lift Jaafar al-Moussawi's immunity and accused him of being responsible for the bombing. al-Moussawi held his press conference yesterday at the Parliament building and denied any involvement in the bombing or guilt of the charges. He decried unnamed politicians who were attempting to use the media to smear his name. He stated that a DNA test on the body of a corpse thought to be the suicide bomber demonstrates that the man, two hours prior to the bombing, killed someone working for al-Moussawi (a bodyguard). al-Moussawi states he has other information and will be sharing it. Dar Addustour has him declaring that it was not him or people supporting him that did the bombing but people wanting to harm him for Saddam Hussein's execution. Alsumaria TV reports this morning that Spain's Ambassador to Iraq, Jose Turbine, is stating that the national conference is going to resolve the al-Hashemi issue. Today Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The preparatory committee for the National Conference held its third meeting today with the attendance of all parties, according to a Parliament statement issued today."  Since December, President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to address the political crisis. All this time later, all that's taken place is meetings to prepare for it. Al Mada reports that al-Nujaifi attempted to meet with State of Law for a discussion but they rebuffed him. al-Nujaifi is a member of the Iraqiya political slate headed by Ayad Allawi. They came in first in the March 2010 elections. Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law slate came in second. Iraqiya's Haider Mullah is calling for the issues of Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi to be addressed prior to the national conference. Nouri is demanding that al-Mutlaq (a Sunni and member of Iraqiya) be stripped of his title (and immunity -- so Nouri can sue him for "libel" for his comparison of Nouri to Saddam Hussein) and he issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi (a Sunni and member of Iraqiya) on charges of 'terrorism.' This is what finally prompted press attention in the political crisis that's gone on since December 2010.