Author: Tex MacRae

Chris Albritton, writing in his blog, Back to Iraq, believes there’s reason to consider that the Madrid train bombing might be a joint operation:

There’s no reason that al Qaeda wouldn’t work with — or help fund — groups that further its own ends in the short run. (Which is why it never worked with Saddam. Not only did it not share any long-term goals with Iraq, and in fact wanted to destroy Saddam’s government, but it didn’t share any short-term goals either. Saddam didn’t want to destroy the United States. He wanted an end to sanctions so he could go back to trying to dominate the Middle East — something bin Laden wants to do himself.)

So. What conclusions may be drawn? As Juan Cole notes, if the ETA did it, it would be seen as local significance and probably bolster the standing of Jose Aznar’s conservative party prior to the Sunday ballot. If it’s jihadists, this will be seen as on par with Sept. 11, 2001, Bali and Lockerbie — and the War on Terror will have suffered a setback. The U.S., paradoxically, probably would like to have the bombers come from al Qaeda because that would bolster Bush’s charge that the War on Terror is ongoing — so don’t change commanders in the middle of a war.

However, either/or is too limiting. I think this was probably some kind of joint venture between the ETA and jihadists, but, still, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see this as a wholly Islamist enterprise. We just don’t know the full story yet.

As Chris points out, it is too early to know but this is an interesting insight that the mainstream media, to my knowledge, has not written about.

Update: I was wrong. BBC is speculating about collaboration.

Roderick Long gives Abu Hafs Brigades, who claim responsibility for the Madrid train bombing which killed at least 200 people, an “F” in Logic.

Death of Rachel Corrie in Rafah
March 16

US Campaign National Day of Action for Rachel Corrie

Iraq Invasion
March 20

Antiwar March:

Peace activists will mark the one-year anniversary of the war in Iraq this weekend with a march on Washington beginning at the site of the military mortuary that accepts U.S. casualties.

Military veterans and members of families who have lost loved ones in the war will join in the memorial procession and rallies outside Dover Air Force Base and the White House.

The Dover base is home to the nation’s largest military mortuary, where bodies of U.S. soldiers are processed and prepared for return to their families.

Drudge-ish, but apparently real, the story of a Maryland woman named Susan Lindauer – accused of spying for the Iraqi Intelligence – hit the wires a few hours ago. The first stories identified her as a former aid to several Democrats, but a bit more digging turned up some other intriguing links.

Daily Kos is on the story.

If you’ve followed the story of the American woman arrested on charges related to spying and Iraq, you probably know that the accused, Susan Lindauer, has at various times worked for four Capitol Hill Democrats–Congressman Peter DeFazio (OR), then-Congressman and now Senator Ron Wyden (OR), former Senator Carol Mosley-Braun (IL), and most recently, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (CA). The “Weakly” Standard–to which we’ll return–was quick to post this information as what they called Lindauer’s “work record,” although they conveniently failed to mention that Lindauer’s time on these jobs accounts for only 3 of the last 11 years. But there’s a lot more than the rest of her work record (which includes newspaper writing in the 1980’s) that’s been missing from the stories of Lindauer’s arrest, including her direct connection to the Bush White House.
****
According to the indictment, “Lindauer delivered a letter `to the home of a United States government official’ on Jan. 8, 2003, in which she described her access to members of dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime `in an unsuccessful attempt to influence United States policy.’ ” That official, who wasn’t identified in earlier reports, is Lindauer’s second cousin–White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

Curiouser and curiouser. Much more at the link.

cross-posted at UnFairWitness

Salah Hassan, a cameraman for Al Jazeera tells a disturbing story of his arrest by American soldiers in Iraq.

From Baquba, Hassan says he was taken to the military base at Baghdad International Airport, held in a bathroom for two days, then flown hooded and bound to Tikrit. After two more days in another bathroom, he was loaded onto a five-truck convoy of de-tainees and shipped south to Abu Ghraib, a Saddam-built prison that now serves as the American military’s main detention center and holds about 13,000 captives.

Once inside the sprawling prison, Hassan says, he was greeted by US soldiers who sang “Happy Birthday” to him through his tight plastic hood, stripped him naked and addressed him only as “Al Jazeera,” “boy” or “bitch.” He was forced to stand hooded, bound and naked for eleven hours in the bitter autumn night air; when he fell, soldiers kicked his legs to get him up again. In the morning, Hassan says, he was made to wear a dirty red jumpsuit that was covered with someone else’s fresh vomit and interrogated by two Americans in civilian clothes. They made the usual accusations that Hassan and Al Jazeera were in cahoots with “terrorists.”

Hassan’s treatment at the hands of US troops is not unique:

Arabs working for other media outlets have also been harassed by US troops. Mazen Dana of Reuters was shot and killed by an American soldier outside Abu Ghraib prison in August. Then, in January, elements of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Falluja jailed and allegedly beat a three-man Arab-language crew, also from Reuters. The news agency immediately lodged a formal complaint with the US military, charging that its journalists had been abused while in detention. A Reuters freelancer told me that one of the journalists was later hospitalized.

Parenti notes that this hostility toward and attempts to silence Al Jazeera extends even to the US trying to compete with Al Jazeera by launching a sattelite station of it’s own:

At the same time that the US military is harassing Al Jazeera reporters, other parts of the US government, including the State Department, are attempting to answer Al Jazeera in its own language and format. On February 14 the United States launched a nominally independent, US-funded Arabic-language satellite channel called Al Hurra, which means “the free one.” The purpose of this effort is to address the lack of popular support for the US occupation in Iraq, as well as the deepening crisis of American legitimacy throughout the Arab world; polls from the region indicate that more and more people hate the United States every day.

Unlike other US-funded forays into Arabic-language media, Al Hurra, with an annual budget of $62 million, could be quite sophisticated and possibly effective in reshaping the beliefs of the politically important and demographically dominant Arab youth scene. The new channel has a stable of proven Arab journalists–one senior producer is a Palestinian who was poached from Al Jazeera, while the channel’s top managers are Lebanese Christians with proven journalistic track records. On the other hand, the channel is based in Virginia, includes Colin Powell on its board of directors and its first broadcast was a pre-recorded interview with George W. Bush–none of which bode well for winning Arab hearts and minds.

For a look at the Arab response to Al Hurra, see “Arabs United in Hating Al-Hurra.” Al Jazeera is also considered an enemy by the IGC which banned the station from covering any Puppet Council activities.

This anti-freedom attitude toward the Arab press on the part of both the American Occupiers and their puppet council does not bode well for the future freedom of the press in Iraq. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no mention of a free press in the new Neocon-midwifed Basic Law. For all the blather emanating from the Bush administration lauding “freedom” and “liberty” in Iraq, there are very few real signs that it exists at all in Iraq, and more disturbingly, it appears that no one really plans for it to exist. You’d think the Americans overseeing the Iraqis writing the law would’ve let them crib a few ideas from their own constitution, which at least managed to slow the tyrants down a little.

What happens when you send Republican neocons to oversee writing a “New Constitution” for Free Iraq?

You get stuff like this:

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

No kidding, that’s in Article 14.

How about a right to bear arms? Republicans believe in that, right? Apparently not:

It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law.

Wow, how Jeffersonian! That ought to go over big with the Badr Brigades and the Kurdish Peshmerga, not to even mention the fact practically every Iraqi household is armed.