Nir Rosen reports rumors that Saddam’s execution was a wedding present for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s daughter or son.
A United Nations source has confirmed what at first seemed like an impossible rumor, that Saddam’s execution may have been a wedding present from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki to his daughter. Other sources maintain it was his son who was married on the day of Saddam’s execution. It is also possible that this wedding would have been innocuous or coincidental as Shias cannot get married for the next two months because of their holiness, hence many marry on Eid. Readers with information that confirms or contradicts this story are requested to send it tips@iraqslogger.com
January 15th, 2007
Raw Story reports that major investment bank has issued a warning of a possible Israeli-American attack on Iran. It says that the most likely time for such an attack is February-march of this year:
The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled “Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.”
ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robinson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING’s daily update Prophet that further underscored the bank’s perception of the risks of an attack.
ING’s Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was “high impact, if low probability,” but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as “not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country….So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point.”
Sketching out the time line for an attack, Robertson says that “we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House.”
The January 9th report was updated on January 15th:
In his Jan. 15 update, Robertson points to a political reason that could make the assault more likely - personnel changes in the Bush administration may have sidelined opponents of attacking Iran.
Preisdent Bush recently removed General John Abizaid as commander of US forces in the Middle East and John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, both of whom have said attacking Iran is not a priority or the right move at this time. The deployment of Patriot missile batteries, highlighted in President Bush’s recent White House speech on America’s Iraq policy, also pointed to a need to defend against Iranian missiles.
Last year I was a skeptic regarding a US attack on Iran, assuming that the administration wasn’t that crazy. I no longer have confidence in my analysis. The combination of a grandiose but ignorant President seeking a place in history with neocons committed to US total dominance at all costs poses an extremely dangerous combination.
January 15th, 2007
In a recent letter to the New York Times, writer Rachelle Marshall eloquently expresses the reality that Guantanamo exists and is organized to destroy the human beings incarcerated there:
To the Editor:
Re “Military Taking a Tougher Line With Detainees” (front page, Dec. 16):
A desire to inflict suffering is the only plausible motive behind the new security tightening at Guantánamo Bay. The detainees are now confined to tiny cells most of the day and denied contact with each other. There is no danger that they will escape — no prisoner has ever done so. The detainees no longer have useful information to impart, assuming they ever did.
The Guantánamo task force commander, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., is convinced that “they’re all terrorists; they’re all enemy combatants,” but their guilt has never been determined in court, and more than 200 detainees once labeled dangerous “enemy combatants” have been released to their home countries and are now free.
One official reason for the new policy is to prevent inmates from committing suicide, but it is prolonged isolation and punishment, without hope of release, that make suicide an option. Capital punishment is often condemned as barbaric. Destroying human beings from within while keeping their bodies alive is infinitely crueler.
Rachelle Marshall
Stanford, Calif., Dec. 16, 2006
Of course, the leadership of the American Psychological Association understands this too. That’s why they take refuge in abstract principles, such as opposition to “torture,” while fighting tooth, claw, and nail to avoid any discussion of the real world in which psychologist-interrogators operate. The mere mention of the real world in which these psychologist-interrogators ply their craft drives the APA leadership into apoplexy, as in this retort from the 2006 APA President Koocher in his February 2006 President’s Column, titled “Speaking Against Torture”, but which should rather be titled “Protecting the Torturers”:
A number of opportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars have continued to report on alleged abuses by mental health professionals.
While condemning us “opportunistic commentators”, President Koocher touts, rather, the Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS), in which a hand-picked membership, including six (out of nine) members from the military and intelligence establishment, were carefully guided by the APA leadership to the predetermined conclusion that psychologist participation in interrogations at Guantanamo and the numerous other U.S. detention facilities around the world was ethically permissible, indeed, President Koocher gives the sense, even admirable.
While condemning “torture” in the abstract, the APA has systematically refused to deal with the reality of what occurs at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base (see also Papers reveal Bagram abuse), or any of the numerous other places around the world where tens of thousands are detained and abused, with no rights, legal protections, or sense of when, or if, they will ever be released.
Thus, through this subterfuge, psychology has become one of those professions accepting the deliberate infliction of human suffering and the systematic destruction of human beings. If the APA policy allowing participation in interrogations is not reversed soon, the phrase “American psychologist” will start being uttered in sentences that also include phrases like “Soviet psychiatrists” or “Nazi doctors”
As occurred in response to Soviet psychiatry, which contributed to the maintenance of “state security” by locking up dissidents in mental hospitals, perhaps it is time for psychological and other professional associations around the world to cease collaborating with the torture-accepting American Psychological Association.
January 15th, 2007