Al-Maliki: Iraq may abandon security talks with U.S.
- Details
- Written by CNN with Michael Ware CNN with Michael Ware
- Published: 13 June 2008 13 June 2008
- Hits: 4281 4281
- Iraqis concerned that bilateral security pact will compromise the sovereignty of Iraq
- United States hopes to secure a status of forces agreement by the end of July
- A U.N. mandate governs the American military presence through the end of the year
- Muqtada al-Sadr said he is establishing a fighting force to battle U.S.-led troops
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi officials may pull out of security talks with the United States and develop their own legislation that would dictate the shape of the American military presence in Iraq.
The Iraqi government is contemplating this new tack out of frustration over the lack of success in negotiations with the United States over a long-term security agreement.
Haidar Abadi, an aide to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, made the remarks to CNN on Thursday about the talks, which have sparked concern among Iraqis that a bilateral security pact will compromise the sovereignty of Iraq.
The United States hopes to secure a status of forces agreement by the end of July. At present, a U.N. mandate governs the American military presence through the end of the year.
Al-Maliki, speaking in Jordan on Friday, said "the first drafts that were proposed reached a deadlock," and both sides are putting new ideas on the table.
Meanwhile, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said in a statement Friday that he is establishing a new fighting force to battle the U.S.-led troops in Iraq.
Sources familiar with the issue have told CNN they believe this is an embrace by al-Sadr of what the Americans call "Special Groups" -- the Iranian-backed rogue Shiite militants who have been fighting American and Iraqi troops.
A letter from al-Sadr, read at mosques in Iraq affiliated with his movement, said the "the resistance will be exclusively conducted by only one group. This new group will be defined soon by me."
The mainstream Mehdi Army has been in a cease-fire mode since last summer, an act that dramatically reduced violence in Iraq.
CNN's Michael Ware contributed to this report.
The Iran Trap
- Details
- Written by Chris Hedges Chris Hedges
- Published: 12 June 2008 12 June 2008
- Hits: 3783 3783
Obama, in a miscalculation that will have grave consequences, has given his blessing to the widening circle of violence and abuse of the Palestinians by Israel and, most dangerously, to those in the Bush White House and Jerusalem now plotting a war against Iran. He illustrates how the lust for power is morally corrosive. And while he may win the White House, by the time he takes power he will be trapped in George Bush’s alternative reality.
We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to stay the hand of Israel, which is building more settlements—including a new plan to put 800 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem—and imposing draconian measures to physically break the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. We need, most of all, to prevent a war with Iran.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, in a letter to President Bush on May 8, threatened to open impeachment proceedings if Bush attacked Iran. The letter is a signal that planning for strikes on Iran is under way and pronounced.
Major Guantanamo setback for Bush
- Details
- Written by BBC News BBC News
- Published: 12 June 2008 12 June 2008
- Hits: 3932 3932
In a major legal setback for the Bush administration, the court overturned by five to four a ruling upholding a 2006 law which removed such rights.
It is not clear if the ruling will lead to prompt hearings for the detainees.
Some 270 men are held at the US naval base, on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
US President George W Bush said he would abide by the court's ruling even if he did not agree with it.
Human rights groups have welcomed the move, Amnesty International saying it was an "essential step forward towards the restoration of the rule of law".
We'll study this opinion to determine whether or not additional legislation may be appropriate
US President George W Bush
Thursday's ruling potentially resurrects several cases which had been put on hold in recent months.
Federal judges, law clerks and court administrators studying the 70-page opinion to work out how to proceed.
And a military lawyer for Osama Bin Laden's former driver, Guantanamo detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, is requesting that charges against his client be dismissed.
"The entire basis for the existence of Guantanamo Bay is gone," said Navy Lt Cmdr Brian Mizer.
The military judge in the case had postponed Mr Hamdan's trial, which was scheduled to start earlier this month, pending the Supreme Court's judgement.
'Extraordinary times'
Wednesday's ruling related to two test cases brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian arrested in Bosnia in 2001, and Fawzi al-Odah, a Kuwaiti seized in Pakistan in 2002, which were consolidated and brought on behalf of 37 foreign nationals at Guantanamo.
Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law
Justice Anthony Kennedy
US Supreme Court
Brushing aside the government's arguments that the detainees were enemy combatants being held at a time of war outside the US, the court said they had "the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus".
This is the right of detainees under the US constitution to be heard by an independent judge.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said: "The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."
This is the Bush administration's third setback at the highest US court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners who are being held indefinitely and without charge at the base in Cuba.
The court has ruled twice previously that Guantanamo inmates could go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention.
In 2004, the judges found that existing law gave federal courts the right to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held at Guantanamo because of the unique control the US government had over the land leased from Cuba.
Two years later, it ruled that the president did not have the authority to order the "enemy combatants" there to face military commissions.
The government responded both times by obtaining congressional legislation restricting judicial review of the detentions.
The Military Commissions Act (MCA) passed in 2006 removed the right of habeas corpus and set up tribunals to try detainees who were not US citizens.
Last week, five detainees, including key suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, appeared before a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dismissed the trial as an "inquisition".
'Restoring credibility'
President Bush made it clear that the government would "abide by the court's decision", although he did so without enthusiasm.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
President Bush's response to the ruling
"It was a deeply divided court and I strongly agree with those who dissented," he told reporters in Rome.
"We'll study this opinion to determine whether or not additional legislation may be appropriate."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted against the ruling, warned that "it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving in a civilian court ... that evidence supports the confinement of each and every prisoner".
But the human-rights group Amnesty International urged the US government to "finally bring its detention policies and practices in the 'war on terror' in line with international standards".
For the American Bar Association, the ruling helped restore the credibility of the US as a "model for the rule of law across the globe".
Do you agree or disagree with the ruling? Send us your reaction using the form below.
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7451139.stm
Published: 2008/06/12 21:39:36 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
'Jewish settler attack' on film
- Details
- Written by Tim Franks, BBC News, Jerusalem Tim Franks, BBC News, Jerusalem
- Published: 12 June 2008 12 June 2008
- Hits: 4097 4097
Footage from a video camera handed out by an Israeli human rights group appears to show Jewish settlers beating up Palestinians in the West Bank.
An elderly shepherd, his wife and a nephew said they were attacked by four masked men for allowing their animals to graze near the settlement of Susia.
The rights group, B'Tselem, said the cameras were provided to enable Palestinians to get proof of attacks.
A spokesman for the Israeli police said that an investigation was under way.
So far, no-one has been arrested.
Baseball bats
For the past year, B'Tselem has handed out video cameras to Palestinians as part of its "Shooting Back" project.
The BBC has been given exclusive access to the footage of this particular attack, which happened earlier this week. The date and time on the camera footage shows that it is Sunday afternoon.
Over the brow of the hill walk four masked men holding baseball bats. To the right of the screen, in the foreground, stands a 58-year-old Palestinian woman.
Thamam al-Nawaja has been herding her goats close to the Jewish settlement of Susia, near Hebron in the southern West Bank.
Within a few seconds, she, along with her 70-year-old husband and one of her nephews, will be beaten up.
As the first blows land, the woman filming - the daughter-in-law of the elderly couple - drops the camera and runs for help.
Jon Stewart covers candidate's pandering to AIPAC.
- Details
- Written by Jon Stewart, The Daily Show Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
- Published: 11 June 2008 11 June 2008
- Hits: 4436 4436