Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Winning Hearts and Minds in Iraq

From the generally pro-Iraq-war UK Telegraph:

Mazen al-Tumeizi, a Palestinian working for Al-Arabiya, one of the main Arab satellite television channels, was among 12 people – all believed to be civilians – killed in the incident on Haifa Street.

On Haifa Street, a main road in central Baghdad that has long been under the effective control of Saddam loyalists, there were several hours of gunfire during a United States mission to capture 21 men the Iraqi government described as terrorists.

A Bradley fighting vehicle was damaged by an apparent car bomb. A total of five American soldiers were wounded in the explosion and during the operation to evacuate the crew.

Later, a crowd of Iraqis gathered round the burning vehicle and some began dancing in celebration.

Tumeizi was describing the incident on camera when two helicopter gunships were seen flying down the street and opening fire. Tumeizi was hit by a bullet and doubled over, shouting: I'm dying, I'm dying.” About 50 people were wounded, the health ministry said, among them a Reuters cameraman and an Iraqi reporter for the Guardian.

Through the day, United States officers offered contradictory accounts of the incident and ordered an investigation.

“As the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley they received small arms fire from the insurgents in the vicinity of the vehicle,” said Major Philip Smith of the 1st Cavalry Division. “Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley.”

However, witnesses said there were no Iraqi fighters in the area at the time.

Does the so-called Iraqi government have a view on this?

It doesn't really matter if this was policy or an error. Errors happen over time, and they have political consequences. We are gradually loosing territory on the ground in Iraq to various types of 'insurgents'. And I don't see how getting into bed with Baathists is helping us either.

We've seen this movie before, folks. It not only hurts while it's running, but it ends badly.

Continue reading

Posted in Iraq | 3 Comments

Do Florida Democrats Have a Death Wish? No, It Only Looks Like It

After the fiasco of the 2000 election, in which the Republicans claimed that all they were demanding was punctilious compliance with formal rules, you might think that the apparent failure of the GOP to file its ballot papers on time (combined with a Republican official turning a blind eye to the error!) in Florida presented a golden opportunity to the Democrats.

Oddly, that's not what leading state Democrats seem to think: Decision2004: Did Bush camp err on ballot papers?:

Florida Democratic Party chairman Scott Maddox said he knew the president's certificate of nomination did not reach the state until Sept. 2, but he said he decided not to make an issue of it.

“To keep an incumbent president off the ballot in a swing state the size of Florida because of a technicality, I just don't think would be right,” Maddox said.

Why not seize the opportunity to beat up the GOP a little and stoke memories of the 2000 elections?

One reason might be that the state Democrats are, by and large, cowed.

Another reason might be that the GOP controls both houses of the state legislature and the Governorship. So they would simply call a special session and change the rule. Which I think would be fully legal. Then they'd stoke their base.

Once you look at it that way, it's a tougher call. But I'd take the chance anyway if it were up to me. A mistake of this type fits the 'Bush incompetence' meme (and the hypocrisy meme) that the Democrats should be pushing at every chance they get. Just imagine that the shoe were on the other foot and ask yourself if Karl Rove would sue?

The Democratic move would be most plausible if there were other people with standing to raise the issue. But answering that question requires a much greater understanding of Florida election law than I command. All I can do is shoot off a couple emails to people who might know….

Posted in Florida, Politics: US: 2004 Election | 7 Comments

Seymour M. Hersh Says Senior Officials Ignored Warnings About Atrocities

The NYT reports that Seymour M. Hersh's new book says the highest level military and civilian officials in the administration — including Rice and Rumsfeld — ignored warnings about abuses at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.

Prison Scandal: New Book Says Bush Officials Were Told of Detainee Abuse: Senior military and national security officials in the Bush administration were repeatedly warned by subordinates in 2002 and 2003 that prisoners in military custody were being abused, according to a new book by a prominent journalist.

Seymour M. Hersh, a writer for The New Yorker who earlier this year was among the first to disclose details of the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, makes the charges in his book “Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib” (HarperCollins), which is being released Monday. …

Mr. Hersh asserts that a Central Intelligence Agency analyst who visited the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in the late summer of 2002 filed a report of abuses there that drew the attention of Gen. John A. Gordon, a deputy to Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser.

But when General Gordon called the matter to her attention and she discussed it with other senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, no significant change resulted. Mr. Hersh's account is based on anonymous sources, some of them secondhand, and could not be independently verified.

Although a number of senior officials were briefed on the analyst's findings of abuse, the high-level White House meeting did not “dwell on” that question, but rather focused on whether some of the prisoners should not have been held at all, the book says. A White House official confirmed Saturday that this meeting was held and reiterated that the focus, when the matter was referred to Mr. Rumsfeld, was on whether people were being improperly held.

Mr. Hersh also says that a military officer involved in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq learned of the abuses at Abu Ghraib in November and reported it to two of his superiors, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the regional commander, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith.

“I said there are systematic abuses going on in the prisons,” the unidentified officer is quoted as telling Mr. Hersh. “Abizaid didn't say a thing. He looked at me – beyond me, as if to say, 'Move on. I don't want to touch this.' “

But Capt. Hal Pittman, a Central Command spokesman, said in a statement Saturday, “General Abizaid does not recall any officer discussing with him any specific cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prior to January 2004, nor do any of the officers of the Centcom staff who travel with him.”

Note the non-denial denial: in response to a charge about ignoring a warning about general and systemic abuse, the response is that the General 'does not recall any officer discussing with him any specific cases of abuse.'

Note also that Pentagon is worried about Hersh's book. Earlier today the Washington Note reported that the Pentagon let off a pre-emptive press strike against what it expected Hersh would be saying. The core of that campaign is the zillion whitewash reports issued in the past weeks, all designed to shield senior officials from any examination of their responsibilities.

They should be worried. I don't know if ignoring reports of abuse is technically a war crime under these circumstances — so much depends on exactly what they were told, and how — but it has to be close enough to be worrying. There does come a point where closing your eyes to the evidence is a form of complicity, although I can't say from the NYT article alone that this conduct reaches that high bar.

But whatever you call it, if Seymour Hersh is right again (and his accuracy record is imperfect) ignoring these warnings looks pretty raw.

Posted in Guantanamo, Iraq Atrocities | 1 Comment

CBS Documents – Worst Case Hypothesis

There I was thinking that the worst case was the documents were forged. No, silly me. The worst case is that the documents are real and the 'forgery' story is the GOP slime machine in action.

Posted in Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals | 5 Comments

Oooh What A Lawsuit This Will Be

Hard as it is to believe, it appears that the insanitary and possibly toxic area used to hold demonstrators during the Republican convention was not a city facility, but a property provided by the RNC.

Although there are potentially some complex legal questions lurking around the terms by which RNC might have made the space available to the cops, in several imaginable scenarios — but not all! — the RNC might be liable for any damages caused by toxic exposure. Alternately, or even jointly and severally, the city might be extra liable if it used a facility that it knew or should have known was unsuitable.

I suspect that some plaintiffs' lawyers are going to have a (justified) field day with all this.

Posted in Civil Liberties | 4 Comments

9/11 and Its Aftermaths

For the families, friends and neighbors of the victims, 9/11 has one special evil aftermath that can never be erased and redeemed, one that the rest of us fortunately can share only at a remove. The 9/11 plane hijacks and crashings were acts of terror, the modern piracy. They were an offense against humanity and the law of nations, and it was right to seek out the guilty in Afghanistan and elsewhere where we had reason to believe they lurked—a category to which Iraq had never at any relevant time belonged prior to the US-led invasion; whether our invasion has turned Iraq into a international terrorist haven is less clear.

For all of us, 9/11 has a second subtler and yet also evil aftermath—one that was and is avoidable: the making of scapegoats, the punishment and torture of the innocent, the national turn towards fear, suspicion, paranoia, encouraged by politicians with a firmer grasp of self-interest than of the national interest. Where are the leaders who understand that the corrupting effect of fear is more to be feared than those relatively puny forces who try to make us fear them?

9/11 fostered a policy climate, or became an excuse to create a policy climate, that lost any interest in compliance with international law when inconvenient. It remains an excuse invoked to justify domestic policing characterized by increased elements of 'security theater', and unleashed police brutality. This involves disdain for niceties of human rights and even human decency both abroad (Abu Ghraib) and at home (Padilla, Hamdi and many other illegal detentions). Some of the hardest hit at home are immigrants, not all of them in full compliance with visa requirements and thus in some cases not total innocents or totally blameless, but none deserving to become unpersons, or to be shackled for months in solitary confinement without access to counsel.

By scaring the gutless — including notably our leaders — into the abandonment of some of our core ideals, the 9/11 terrorists scored an infinitely more damaging and potentially lasting victory than just one day of mass murder.

Think I am overdoing it? Read the news. Or if you can't read the news, watch the pictures.

Posted in 9/11 & Aftermath | 8 Comments