Montather's Brother meets him

Posted by Raed Jarrar
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/


from Al-Baghdadia's website:
(rough translation)

Uday Al-Zeidi, the older brother of the Al-Baghdadia's correspondent who was detained a week ago, met with Montather today. Montather told his brother that after the incident, he was beaten and kicked by the Iraqi security forces until he fainted.

Uday told Al-Baghdadia channel during an exclusive interview this morning that the Iraqi justice system allowed him to meet his brother for more than an hour and a quarter. He confirmed that Montather told him that he was tortured with electric shock after being stripped naked, and that he was continuously humiliated and tortured throughout the period of detention, and that he had bruises all over his face and body, and that members of the Iraqi security forces disfigured his face through beatings and cigarette burns.

Montather also told his brother Uday that confessions were extracted from him by force, and that he would like to bring a lawsuit against everyone who participated in his torture. Montather told Uday that he did what he did for all the Iraqi orphans, widows, children and for all the Iraqi people who where wronged. Montather said that if he could go back in time he would still do what he did to Bush again.

Montather confirmed that he does not belong to any political parties, and that no insult was intended toward the Iraqi PM Al-Maliki. Al-Zaidi's brother speculated that the reason behind denying his family access to Montather during the past days was because the authorities were trying to hide what has happened to Montather because of torture.

Finally, Uday Al-Ziedi demanded a fair neutral medical evaluation of Montather's health in detention. (end translation)I contacted the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to ask them for a make a site visit to evaluate Montather Al-Zeidi's health.

Here is the email i've sent:

Dear Mr Hisham Hassan and Ms. Dorothea Krimitsas

I am writing you to inquire about the possibility of you conducting a site visit and meet with Mr. Montather Al-Zeidi, the Iraqi Journalist who tossed his shoes at president Bush last week. Mr. Al-Zeidi has been detained for over a week now, and has been denied access to his lawyers or family members.

Today, Mr. Uday Al-Zeidi (Montather's brother) visited him at jail then reported to a number of Iraqi and Arab media that Mr. Montather Al-Ziedi was "tortured with electric shock after being stripped naked", and that he had "bruises all over his face and body", and members of the Iraqi security forces have "disfigured his face through beatings and cigarette burns".

Montather also told his brother Uday that "confessions were extracted from him by force".Mr. Al-Zeidi's family are requesting a "neutral medical evaluation" of his health, and it'll be great if the ICRC can step in and request a site visit.

best
Raed Jarrar


You can contact Mr Hisham Hassan at iraq.iqs@icrc.org and Ms. Dorothea Krimitsas at dkrimitsas.gva@icrc.org

US-IRAQI AGREEMENT explained by Raed Jarrar

Raed Jarrar on the US - IRAQI Agreement

Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar
'In the Middle'

To watch the video please click on:

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

Iraqi government requests 5 changes in the US Iraqi Agreement

by Raed Jarrar

A number of Iraqi media , like the government owned al-Sabaah newspaper, and a number of my personal contacts in Baghdad say these are the five new changes requested by the Iraqi government:

1- the title will be changed to "agreement on complete US withdrawal from Iraq"

2- ensure that Iraq does have legal jurisdictions over US troops by changing paragraph 9 of article 12 to give the joint committee the responsibility to decide whether U.S. armed forces members were on duty or off-duty when a "major and intentional crime" takes place. In addition, some sources indicated that there might also be a request to change paragraph 8 by removing the part about US armed forces enjoying the rights granted to them by US laws while they are in an Iraqi court.

3- ensure that 2011 is the final date for withdrawal all US troops by removing paragraph 5 of article 25 and other similar articles what might be used to delay the withdrawal date.

4- allow the Iraqi government to inspect US military mail

5- a ban on attacking any neighboring countries from Iraq

These were the five reasons given by a number of major parties in the Iraqi parliament during the latest three sessions of the Iraqi Political Council on National Security (PCNS). This seems like a final attempt by the Iraq executive branch to get some much needed votes in parliament by reaching out to some voices closer to the center. I personally doubt that the executive branch will manage to get 2/3 majority of the parliament ( 184 votes out of the 275).

US-IRAQI AGREEMENT: LEAKED

Below are two interesting posts by Raed Jarrar:

Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Al-Mashhadani is against US-Iraqi agreement

In a rare and important interview, conducted by Al-Arabiya, with Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani, the head of the Iraqi parliament, he explained how the Iraqi parliament is against signing an agreement with the US.Dr. Al-Mashhadani discussed both the political and procedural aspects of signing the treaty.Technically, the Iraqi parliament is not ready to ratify any international treaties because the "law to ratify international treaties and agreements" has not been approved by the parliament yet. This law is required by the constitution (article 61 paragraph 4), and it requires a 2/3 majority of parliament to approve it.

This alone will take months to debate and pass. After that, and according to how the "law to ratify international treaties and agreements" looks like, the Iraqi parliament can start discussing the agreement with the US, and it will most likely need another 2/3 majority approval to pass it. Politically, the majority of Iraq's MPs are against singing any agreements with the US as long as the US is occupying Iraq. It's impossible for the Maliki government to get the approval of a simple majority of MPs, let alone 2/3 majority.

I think the US government should consider a different type of agreements with Iraq: an agreement for a complete withdrawal that leaves no troops, no mercenaries, and no permanent bases (and no 5,000 employees embassy either)here is a pretty rough translation of some of Dr. Al-Mashhadani's answers:

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani: the Iraqi constitution determines that the House of Representatives must first enact a law to ratify the Law of Treaties and Agreements, and must vote or pass this law through parliament by two-thirds majority. So before discussing the treaty we must enact this law by two thirds, and then submitted to the Presidency ratified it, and then it will go into effect. As before this law nothing can be done because the parliament not ready yet, according to the constitution, to ratify this agreement. It can only do so after the enactment of this law.

This law will take long time to pass due to the two-thirds requirement, so it will not be enacted before the end of this year.

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani: We are constitutionally barred from ratifying any agreements without the enactment of this law and the law has not been enacted so far. After enactment of this law we may introduce the agreement and then it must be ratified by whatever majority decided by the law: it might be absolute majority or it might be two-third majority for important international agreements and an absolute majority of economic accords. The intention now that important international agreements will require two-thirds majority, and economic agreements by absolute majority, and perhaps other charters and accords are by simple majority. So, whatever is included in the law and approved by the parliament.

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mashhadani: the negotiating team is not authorizes to take any decision until they go back to Mr. Prime Minister, if he approved it he will send it to the Political Council for National Security, if approved by the Political Council for National Security with two thirds majority, then they can send it to the parliament. The parliament must wait until it enacts the law to ratify international treaties and agreements, then we can submit the US-Iraqi agreement to the parliament after the approval of this law.
Posted By Raed Jarrar at 12:08 PM


Monday, September 01, 2008
US-Iraqi agreement: leaked

I read about a leaked copy of the US-Iraqi agreement a few days ago when a radio station in Iraq mentioned some of its details, then it was mentioned in some Arab newspapers like Al-Qabas and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. A couple of days ago, one Iraqi website (linked to an Iraqi armed resistance group) published the leaked draft on their web page for less than a couple of days before their website went offline. (Thankfully, I downloaded the 21 pages agreement and saved them before their server went down)I spent this weekend translating it, and just finished now.

you can read the 27 articles August 6th draft by clicking here or here or here.

The title of this draft is "Agreement regarding the activities and presence of U.S. forces, and its withdrawal from Iraq", but this is the same agreement that is referred to as a "status of forces agreement" or "SOFA" or framework or whatever. It's the result of months of negotiations after Bush and Al-Maliki signed the "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America" by the end of last year.This leaked draft is a treasure of information.

It's the first time any document related to this topic is made public. It shows how weak the Iraqi negotiations team is (it is really pathetic to read their "suggestions" on how to fix the disaster of an agreement).

There are many outrageous articles in the agreement that violates Iraq's sovereignty and independence, and gives the U.S. occupation authorities unprecedented rights and privileges, but what has draw my attention the most (so far) are three major points:

1- the agreement does not discuss anything about a complete US withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, it talks about withdrawing "combat troops" without defining what is the difference between combat troops and other troops. It is very clear that the US is planning to stay indefinitely in permanent bases in Iraq (or as the agreement calls them: "installations and areas agreed upon") where the U.S. will continue training and supporting Iraqis armed forces for the foreseeable future.

2- the agreement goes into effect when the two executive branches exchange "memos", instead of waiting for Iraqi parliament's ratification. This is really dangerous, and it is shocking because both the Iraqi and U.S. executive branches have been assuring the Iraqi parliament that no agreement will go into effect without being ratified by Iraq's MPs.

3- this agreement is the blueprint for keeping other occupation armies (aka Multi-national forces) in Iraq on the long run. This explains the silence regarding what will happed to other occupiers (like the U.K. forces) after the expiration of the UN mandate at the end of this year.

It is really disturbing to read how the U.S. government is still going down the same path of intervention and domination in Iraq.

This agreement will not be accepted by the Iraqi people and their elected representatives in the Iraqi parliament, and if the U.S. and Iraqi executive branches try to consider it valid anyway it will lead to more violence in Iraq.

Posted By Raed Jarrar at 10:33 PM
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

Getting Iraq to pay more is not the answer

By Raed Jarrar and Erik Leaver
Posted on: http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

This is an op-ed that I co-wrote with Erik Leaver for the Progressive Media Project. It was published in a few local newspapers around the US today.

Congress should stop blaming the Iraqi government for our economic woes. As our economy sputters to a halt and Congress is set to spend an additional $160 billion on the war, U.S. lawmakers are openly criticizing the Iraqi government for not paying the bills.

New legislation for funding the Iraq War includes language demanding Iraqis pay for half of future reconstruction and provide subsidies for fuel purchased by the U.S. military.

Such calls by lawmakers ignore the fact that the financial hardship our nation is suffering has much more to do with our own housing mess and with the high costs of the war than with the Iraqis not paying their way. And as a matter of fact, a recent audit by the inspector general for Iraq found that Iraq has spent more than the United States on reconstruction.

Even though the United States has international legal obligations for reconstruction as an occupying power, it has spent less than $30 billion on reconstruction projects over the last five years.

To date, there is little to show for the money spent by the United States for reconstruction.

Iraq's infrastructure is a disaster.

Electricity, access to water, sanitation, roads and health care are still, in most cases, at levels lower than before the occupation began.

Three out of every four Iraqis have no access to basic services, and 20 percent to 60 percent are unemployed.

Reconstruction projects have helped U.S. contractors far more than the Iraqi people.Yes, the Iraqi government certainly deserves criticism. It is highly corrupt, unpopular and unrepresentative.

And, yes, ultimately it is up to the Iraqis to rebuild their own country. But no incentives for reconstruction or reconciliation exist without a timeline for U.S. withdrawal. As long as fighting is still taking place and the country remains occupied by a foreign power that is supporting a handful of political leaders against the rest of the population, any hopes for reconstruction and reconciliation are idle.

Instead of trying to shift the blame to the Iraqis, the U.S. government needs to provide a timetable for U.S. withdrawal and to secure long-term funding for the reconstruction that can get under way once we leave.

Reconstruction is not an impossible task. Iraq has gone through two major reconstruction campaigns during the last two decades: one after the Iraq-Iran war and the other after the 1991 Gulf War. Both times, Iraqis managed to mobilize their human resources and fix the country. They can do it again.

As tempting as it may be to try to make the Iraqis pay the massive bills the war is costing the United States, the best way to reduce the burden of the war and occupation on the U.S. economy is not to find someone else to foot the bill. It's to stop the war.

Raed Jarrar is a consultant for the American Friends Service Committee. Erik Leaver is the policy outreach director for the Foreign Policy In Focus project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. They wrote this for Progressive Media Project,