Friday, October 9, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, news of the US continuing the Iraq War on into 2012, the war against women continues and Sahar Issa documents it, where is the 'progress,' the US fails to meet the admission numbers for Iraqi refugees predicted in August by the State Dept, the US Army releases suicide data, and more.

 

Let's deal with realities and the first that the Iraq War has no end-date at present.  Despite spin and lies and assertions, there is no end-date.  In fact, if the SOFA truly eneded the Iraq War -- as the popular narrative and press fools claim -- then Bush couldn't have skipped the Congress.  There would be no debating that it was a treaty if ended a war.  That's what treaties historically have done.  But let's deal in what is known.

 

Matthew D. LaPlante (Salt Lake Tribune), reporting on new deployments to Iraq for Utah units and, almost as a whispered aside, drops this explosive word-bomb: "And some Utah units have been told to anticipate deployments to Iraq as far off as 2012."  As far off as 2012?

 

B-b-b-but my TV told me the Iraq War ends most certainly as 2011 draws to a close!  My TV said so!!!  Imagine that.  A press that lied a nation into war might also lull a nation into a false belief that the Iraq War was ending.  For the record, the press tried that during Vietnam as well.  You can't learn about it in Norman Solomon's books because he always misses that point and fails to grasp the conflict between stateside editors and reporters stationed in Vietnam.  It would be shocking that Norman might not know that . . . unless you grasped he's lied that the Iraq War ends in 2011 along with so many other gas bags.  The pledged delegate for Barack Obama gave it up for his crush and was left with nothing but a wet spot and sullied reputation.  Norman you kind of picture right about now peeing on a stick and waiting to see what color it turns.

 

The Dept of Defense released a statement on October 8th. AC W (Gather) examines the release, "The first thing to note is that all four elements mentioned in the press release are COMBAT forces. The three brigade combat teams (the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team from the 3rd Infantry Division, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team from the 25th Infantry Division, and the 4th Brigade Combat Team from the 1st Cavalry Division) are just what their names say they are: brigade COMBAT teams. They are made up of COMBAT troops with weapons designed for COMBAT. The armored cavalry regiment, the 3rd ACR, is a combat unit with tanks and infantry troops. How will all COMBAT troops be out of Iraq by mid-next year if we are sending COMBAT troops to Iraq in mid-next year?"

 

Today, filing a rare report from Iraq,  Marc Santora (New York Times) opens with, "There is no more visible sing that America is putting the Iraq war behind it . . ." 

 

Is America putting Iraq behind it? That's not only factually incorrect, it's also highly insulting. Did we not hear yesterday from Russell Powell, an Iraq War veteran, explaining to the Senate about how exposure to Sodium Dichromate in Iraq has seriously destroyed his health? Is Russell Powell "putting the Iraq war behind" him?

No, the New York Times wants to put the war behind it.

Why? Because they sold the illegal war. Little liars -- and it went far beyond Judith Miller who, for the record, was woefully misguided but did not lie because she honestly thought there were WMDs in Iraq and that's why she commandeered that squadron while in Iraq to 'discover' the non-existent WMDs -- sold that illegal war. And it wasn't just the Times but it was the Times which never got accountable for their actions. There was the mini-culpa, the meaningless tiny item that might as well have been a blind item for all the weight it carried. And the promise of a later investigation into their errors. Where's that later coverage? Oh, right, they never did it.

The New York Times would love to put the Iraq War behind it. First of all, it damanged their reputation in ways Jayson Blair can only dream of. Second of all, they can't sell a new war -- and, make no mistake, the New York Times always sells wars -- effectively while the Iraq War is still on people's minds. Look at the pushback the current administration is experiencing on their desire for war with Iran. What keeps getting brought up? Iraq. The lies that led to that war. So, yeah, the paper wants to put the Iraq War behind it. And the media at large does.

But shame on all of them for pimping that when you have people suffering (including Iraqis but as John F-ing Burns explained so long ago, the paper's only concerned with Americans) and so many dead. Shame on them. It's not just that they lied to sell an illegal war, it's that they never owned the consequences of their decision to do so, let alone taken accountability.

Marc Santora and the New York Times want to put the Iraq War behind them. How sweet for them. In the real world? William Cole (Honolulu Advertiser) notes that an estimated 4,300 members of the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Schofield Barracks has received orders to deploy to Iraq "in the summer of 2010." Gregg K. Kakesako (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) adds, "They are part of the three brigades and one armored cavalry regiment with 15,000 soldiers that the Pentagon said will be sent to Iraq next year." But don't worry, Marc Santora and the New York Times have put Iraq 'behind' them.

Many Iraqi and American families don't have luxury of putting that (ongoing) illegal war behind them; however, the Times has never been known for having a sense of perspective. Among the many who won't be 'putting it behind them' so quickly will be Iraqi refugees.  This week Human Rights Action and the Human Rights Institute at Georgetown Law Center issued [PDF format warning] a new report entitled "Refugee Crisis in America: Iraqis And Their Resettlement Experience." Behind them?  "Across the United States, many resettled Iraqi refugees are wondering how, after fleeing persecution at home to seek refuge in a country that barely tolerated them, they have found themselves in 'the land of opportunity' with little hope of achieving a secure and decent life." Iraq is the MidEast refugee crisis with an estimated total of 4.7 million external and internal refugees (figure from the March 31st snapshot covering the Senate subcommittee hearing Senator Bob Casey Jr. chaired where the issue of the numbers was addressed at length).  The report notes:

 

 

Fiscal Year 2009 is over.  It ended with the month of September.  So the study tells us that by August 31st, only 16,965 Iraqi refugees were granted resettlement into the US?  Let's drop back to the August 19th snapshot and Eric Schwartz (Asst Sect of Population, Refugees and Migration) State Dept press conference. He asserted in that press conference, regarding Iraqi refugees being accepted by the US, "The numbers -- let me -- I think I may answer your next question.  The numbers for fiscal year 2008, I think are on the order of about 13,000. I'm looking to my team here.  And the numbers for fiscal year 2009 will get us -- will probably be up to about 20,000."  Click here for transcript and video of the press conference. About 20,000?  August 19th, he claimed that.  In the last month of Fiscal Year 2009 (which would be September), did the US manage to resettle over 3,000 Iraqi refugees?  Great . . . if they did.  But it's highly unlikely. Following the November 2008 election, Sheri Fink (ProPublica) reported on the issue and noted, "A State Department official contacted by ProPublica said, 'We really do recognize a special responsibility.' The official said that resettling 17,000 Iraqi refugees in fiscal 2009 was a minimum target. 'We hope to bring in many more.' The U.S. will also be accepting Iraqis who worked for the US through special immigrant visas, a program [7] that resulted from legislation introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy (discussed [8] recently by Ambassador James Foley, the State Department's senior coordinator on Iraqi refugee issues)."  They 'hope'd to bring in any more.  2009, when Americans learned the definition of "false hopes."  So they most likely met the minimum target.  What a proud, proud moment . . . for an under achiever.

 

The Georgetown study notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees created "11 resettlement elegibility criteria for Iraqi refugees" and that the US government signed off on them:

 

 

Despite the US government agreeing to these criteria, the study notes that "the USRAP [US Refugee Admissions Program] expects the most vulnerable refugees will find employment and become self-sufficient almost immediately. Thus, the United States offers resettlement to those refugees with particular vulnerabilities that can inhibit their ability to achieve self-sufficiency while expecting them to quickly become self-sufficient."

 

Today Avi Selk (Dallas Morning News) reports on the approximately 865 Iraqi refugees who are now in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas.  Selk notes a study on Iraqis who have experienced torture and how they "and their family members" are very likely to have "suffered post-traumatic stress disorder".  They're not seeking treatment for PTSD in part because they don't know what resources are out there for them.  That's really a shameful comment on the government process for Iraqi refugees.

 

Chris Hill, US Ambassador to Iraq, thinks he's Ann Wilson's lover talking to the refugees: "'Come on home, girl,' he said with a smile, 'You don't have to love me yet, Let's get high awhile'" ("Magic Man" written by Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson and recorded by the Wilson sisters' band Heart). But Chris Hill is apparently the one who needs to try to understand, try to understand, try, try, try to understand. On the subject of repatriation, the report notes that "international humanitarian groups agree that Iraq is still not safe enough to allow return.  And though some are returning, there is 'still no big flow back into Iraq.' The International Commission of the Red Cross informally estimates the flow at close to one percent of the total refugee propulation and believes that 'most come in to look and see if it's safe, if their property is still there, [and so], then quickly [go] back [to countries of asylum].' There are no credible reports of Iraqi refugees returning home in significant numbers."

Twenty families -- a small number -- were in the news this week for returning to Iraq.  But they're not the refugees the report is talking about (or that were sold as part of the Myth of the Great Return).  Chelsea J. Carter (AP) reported this week that the approximately 250 people were exiles . . . during Saddam Hussein's reign.  They returned from Iran.

 

The external refugees of the current conflict settle in countries such as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.  The majority of the refugees in Jordan interviewed for Jordan's study want to move to the United States but "[w]hile the situation in Jordan is quite bad for many Iraqi refugees, the news of struggling friends and family in the United States is causing more and more Iraqi refugees to wonder whether choosing resettlement is really worth the risk."

 

Along with a lack of coordination among the government agencies helping refugees who arrive in the US, other issues include lack of vehicles and poor or no public transportation in the areas they are resettled in, difficulties with the maze of the DMV in order to get a driver's license and cash assistance being far too small.  The study notes, "As it exists now, the totalk package of assistance to refugees amounts to between just seventeen to forty precent of the federal pvoerty line. Although a family of six may receive up to $2,500 in R&P assistance to cover living costs for the first ninety days, a single adult receives only $425, or less than $5 a day."

 

Those are only some of the problems facing Iraqi refugees resettling to the US.  We'll go over more next week but we'll note the study's recommendations:

 

• Refugee resettlement should be decoupled from U.S. anti-poverty programs and
tailored to the unique needs and experiences of refugees. Refugee assistance should be increased from eight to eighteen months, and programs designed to promote the long-term self-sufficiency and integration of refugees should be better funded. A stronger emphasis should be placed on the core barriers to self-sufficiency and integration, including lack of English language skills, lack of transportation, and lack of opportunities for education and recertification.      

 
• Funding for employment and social services should be tailored to estimates of
incoming refugee arrivals and secondary migration, as well as the unique needs of these particular groups. Funding should not be based on the number of past refugee arrivals.                  

 

On today's NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, the last two minutes raised the issue of Iraq.  Had it been a longer segment, Paul Richter's assertions might have been explored by the panel. Along with the Los Angeles Times' Richter, panelists includes Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) and Hisham Melhem (Al-Arabiya TV and An-Nahar) with Susan Page guest hosting.

 

 

 

 

 

So Iraq's holding elections in January. Hmm.  Thing is, the elections were supposed to take place in December.  Thing is, to hold elections at any time, certain things need to be done.  Is everything in order for January elections in Iraq?  Uh, no.  Not at all.  Mike noted Michael Jansen (Irish Times) report this week which explained, "DISAGREEMENT OVER Iraq's election law and a spike in violence threaten dissent and death ahead of the January parliamentary poll."  September 30th, the top US commander in Iraq offered testimony to the US House Armed Services Committee.  During the hearing, he was asked to explain the voting in Iraq.

 

 

We'll stop on that point.  "Pending the passing of the election law."  If discussing 'progress' in Iraq on public radio, might be a good idea to know something about the election law.  The same week Paul didn't appear to, his paper runs Saad Khalaf's "Hope survived one Iraq bombing, but not the second:"

 

 

Doesn't sound safe even with all the spin.  The elections may or may not be held in January.  That uncertainity remains the only consistent in Iraq. Vivienne Walt (Time magazine) notes this uncertainity and this lack of defined progress:

 

 

So we've had a serious complaint about NYT, a complaint about a LAT reporter (who's not really knowledgable on Iraq, hate to break it to you) and now we move to McClatchy where a friend this morning passed on an article and lamented it was presented as a blog post.  And now you can find Nancy A. Youssef leaving a comment on the 'blog post' which does, at least, give Sahar Issa a byline.  But someone should have looked at Sahar Issa's writing and said, "This isn't a blog post, this is an article."  And it should have been run as such.

What's Sahar reporting on?  Women in Iraq.  Which is the subject of so few articles.  She went to "The Crossed Swoards" symposium in Baghdad's Green Zone and heard a lot of patronizing comments about women and what they could and couldn't do.  No surprise, Iraqi military women like Rasha Ahmed tell Sahar, "The problem is not the women themselves.  Many are capable and willing.  It's the men.  They don't take us seriously as professionals.  They don't even train us as they do other men -- 'What a waste, where will you practice fighting? In your homes? Ha ha ha.' That's their attitude."  Rasha Ahmed also tells Sahar, "We are pioneers.  We will pave the way for other women who wish to take this path.  We may be a novel spectacle in our society today, but if we prevail, the next generation will not laugh when they see a woman in uniform."  It's really appalling that Iraqi women have been dealt such a huge setback, such an overturning of their rights, due to the US government's desire to get 'stability' in Iraq by installing thugs.  It's a shame that even when the US administration changed, women were still not important.  The symbolic value, for example, of a qualified and capable woman in the post of US Ambassador to Iraq would have gone a long way towards helping Iraqi women.  It's disgusting.  And Rasha Ahmed's comments about the road she has to blaze?  Inspiring.  In the face of all the setbacks, it's women like Rasha who have to do the work and know they have to do the work and, most of all, grasp that it's not going to mean a great deal in their own lifetime but it's going to help the next generation.  As Holly Near sings (and she wrote the song -- she wrote the song women live) in "Somebody's Jail" (from Show Up):

 

 

Holly Near has a new album she's done with emma's revolution, We Came to Sing! which Kat praised here. If you will download from iTunes or purchase or oder the CD, it's an amazing album worth having.  (See Kat's review.  This community only recommends those two options due to issues members had attempting to obtain the album.)

 

From the war against women to the daily violence . . .

 

Bombings?

 

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Baghdad grenade attack left three people wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded three people, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded three people and a Falluja car bombing claimed 3 lives -- an Imam and two of  his bodyguards. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) adds it was Sunni cleric Jamal Humadi who was "known for denouncing insurgents in Iraq".  Reuters notes a Tikrit car bombing last night which left six people injured.

 

Corpses?

 

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Kirkuk.

 

Yesterday the US Dept of Defense issued the following: 

 

 

Meanwhile Page Gardner, Women's Voices, Women Vote, notes the traditional decline from the number of voters in a general election to those in the mid-terms. They're focusing on the Rising American Electorate (RAE): "The RAE is comprised of Unmarried women (the largest portion), African Americans, Latinos, other people of color and Youths (18-29 yr olds). [. . .] WVWV is committed to keeping the RAE engaged in the democratic process and is at the forefront of analyzing who will turn out to vote in the 2010 midterm elections. To see our work on drop-off voters and the composition of the 2010 electorate, as well as state by state analyses, you can click here and here or visit www.wvwv.org."

 

Finally, Caro (MakeThemAccountable) observes:

I no longer have any respect whatsoever for the Nobel committee. Obama is continuing TWO wars, with no end in sight.
How that can be considered giving hope for peace is simply beyond me. Obama no more deserves this prize than George Bush.
The man never has to do a damn thing for people to shower him with praise and gifts.

 

 

Thursday, October 8, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the Senate explores military chemcial exposures that put people at risk, Senator Jay Rockefeller notes of the miltiary and VA's 'response,' "And I don't get it, why they don't learn?", an update on War Criminal Steven D. Green, and more.

 

Today the US Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, chaired by Senator Daniel Akaka, held a hearing entitled "VA and DoD Response to Certain Military Exposures." We're going to jump into the first panel -- well into it -- and then work a bit backwards.  Imagine yourself infected or exposed to a substance that puts your life in danger.  Imagine that your government put you at risk and/or hid the risk.  After the exposure is known of, how's the government contacting you, getting the word out?

 

 

They were not informed.  They were not informed at all.  The first panel was composed of those four plus Colorado State University's John R. Nuckols, University of South Carolina's Charles Feigley, Dr. Robert F. Miller and Herman Gibb who has a PhD. We're focusing on the four witnesses already quoted above.

 

Michael Partain's parents were stationed at Camp Lejeune.  His mother became pregnant there, he was born on base.  Camp Lejeune residents "were exposed to high levels of tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TC), dichloroethylene (DCE), benzene and vinyl chloride in the tap water provided to my family by the Marine Corps."  In his testimony, Partain discussed the song-and-dance and outright lies between 1981 through November December 198 and, "The misrepresentation did not end with the public and the media, it extended to the EPA. On November 1, 1985, there was a meeting at Camp Lejeune between base officials and EPA representatives.  During this meeting, base officials including Robert Alexander, told the EPA that the contamination had not reached the distribution plants.  Three years later, another base official, Assistant Chief of Staff Facilities, Col Thomas J. Dalzell was quoted in the media that prior to 1983: 'At that time, we were not aware of any of these particular compounds that might have been in the ground water and we have no information that anyone's health was in any danger at that time'."  Again, among the many health problems that Michael Partain faced as a result of his exposure to these chemicals was breast cancer.

 

Stacy Pennington is the sister of Staff Sgt Steven Gregory Ochs and was speaking on behalf of him and their family and on behalf Staff Sgt Matt Bumpus and his family.  Her brother was in the military for 14 years and Matt for 8 and 3/4 years.  Both men were deployed to Iraq. 

 

 

Later, with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Pennington would pick back up on this topic and note,

I need to tell you that my brother immediately upon return from his third tour in Iraq the end of April 2007, suffered from flu-like symptoms almost immediately.  He went to Womack [Army Medical Center] Hospital at Fort Bragg, North Carolina three times. The doctors did exactly what you just said.  They said, 'You have some type of virus."  She explained he was sent home with Ibuprofin and, not until September and after "he had to get special permission to be seen by a private hospital, where the private hospital actually discovered that my brother actually had AML."

 

 

Laurie Paganelli spoke "on behalf of my family and as a representative for hundreds of Sailors, Marines and civilians who were unknowingly exposed to and have been adversely affected by the contaminated air, soil and water at US Navy Air Facility Atsugi, Japan." Her husband is a member of the US Navy and he and his family were stationed at Atsugi from 1997 to 2000.  Their son Jordan was only five years old in 1997. Eleven years later, January 11, 2008 ("our lives changed forever") when their son "was diagnosed with a rare, vicious and highly aggressive form of cancer -- so aggressive, in fact, that by the time he displayed any symptoms, his cancer had already progressed to a Stage Four condition.  The name of his cancer is Alveolar Rhabdo-Myo-Sarcoma, "ARMS" for short."  He was sixteen-years-old and his parents were learning he had cancer and that his type of cancer does not have a high survival rate.  He immediately went into treatment which included "twelve total weeks of radiation" and ended up on crutches "quite a contrast to the young boy who played at Atsugi Base and the high school cross country star he had been just months prior to diagnosis."  The Shinkampo Incineration Complex on the base was releasing toxic fumes and chemicals.  Starting in 1997, when Laurie Paganelli's family was stationed at the base, the Navy started to let a few people know of some of the risks. The limited risks the Navy was willing to acknowledge were further minimized by encouraging people to believe they were safe as long as they were inside when chemical plumes from the incinerator were visible in the air.  She explained, "The Navy had knowledge that Atsugi residents were being exposed to Dioxin in the SIC's emissions by the early 1990s; and they knew what detrimental effects such exposure would do to the human body.  As you remember, Dioxin is what made Agent Orange so toxic.  So it's no surprise that, by 1998, the Navy recognized their liability and instituted a one-page waiver that did not convey information of the known long-term risk associated with SIC.  We were all required to sign this waiver." 

 

Russel Powell joined the army in 1994 and was discharged in 2001 and he then enlisted in the West Virginia Army National Guard.  March 2003, he was deployed to Iraq. In Iraq, "1092nd Charlie Company was assigned as security for the KBR contractors. My duties consisted of battalion medic and supplied defensive positions and cover fire if needed to protect KBR contractors at Qarmat Ali Water treatment plant in Basra, Iraq." They were immediately confronted with the orange dust everywhere which coated everything and spilled out of open sacks, caught up in the dust storms which Powell estimated hit "ten times daily."  They were not offered protective clothing or masks, nor were they warned that the orange powder was dangerous. 

 

 

Senator Jay Rockefeller was thanked by name by Russell Powell and he's worked on this issue for decades.  He was sharing in the hearing about twenty-five years ago when they were dealing with it with regards to WWII.  He spoke of doctors with the VA who have ignored the problems or suggested "take an aspirin and go home or you've got a virus, go home, sleep, get a good sleep. It makes me mad.  And what scares me is that I don't know if the culture has changed."  He spoke of the frustration with the same situations repeating over and over:  "And I don't get it, why they don't learn? And maybe I'm wrong but until someone shows me I'm wrong, I'm just mad."  We'll note this section of Rockefeller's questioning.

 

Dr. Herman Gibbs: Again I think that the knowledge of industrial hygiene is uh we could do -- you could recommend pre-deployment physicals and post-deployment physicals and those kinds of things but if you don't understand what substances that you're dealing with those kind of physicals are not going to get the kind of information that you need. So you know I think this was um a lack of -- a lack of understanding of the industrial hygiene, of the environmental health.  And then the follow-up to that was uh . . . You know -- It was just . . . sort of like "Don't worry about it, it's okay."  And I think uh that, you know, that to me is just uh uh I don't want to say -- unconscionable> But I think it was uh -- This was -- This was a very dangerous substance, this was a very potent carcinogen, a very irritating substance.  You don't have to look very far to find out about the effects of Sodium Dichromate.  It's not some arcane chemical that we don't know about. 

 

And, as Dr. Robert Miller pointed out, the military knew about it and issued a memo sent out for the soldiers exposed from the 101st Airborne [Fort Campbell] that said Sulfur Dioxide  is not a problem it has no known serious side effects, it's not a carcinogen. They had measurements that the levels were toxic well above the military's baseline of thirteen parts per million" and a 62nd Brigade Medical Staff report that also insisted that the exposures were safe.

 

Iraq isn't safe.  And the violence continued today . . .

 

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Yousifiyah roadside bombing which claimed 3 lives and left ten people injured and, dropping back to Wednesday, a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 person and left "four of his family members" wounded and a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded three people. The Scotsman notes the death toll on the Yousifiyah bombing has risen by 2 -- from three to five. Reuters drops back to yesterday to note a Jalawla roadside bombing which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left four more injured.

 

Wow.  Imagine what it would be like if, for example, we ignored either McClatchy or Reuters?  Imagine if we ignored it when the Los Angeles Times updates a death toll.  Imagine the crap-fest of a count we'd end up with each month?  We do a monthly count now because there are too many damn lies.  And we note, in the monthly count summary, that it's an undercount based on western outlets reporting.  And anyone can click on any of those days and check our count.  But what if we just went with Reuters?  And what if we kept a 'toll' and what if we were cited by the New York Times and other outlets for our 'count' of Iraqis killed?  That would be pretty pathetic.  On our part and their part.  And I'm not going to be nice too damn much longer.  We called out IBC for their nonsense and we'll call out anyone else.  This is where I'm nice and bite my tongue and that's the last time I'm nice. Next time I raise the issue, I won't be nice.  When do I plan for that to take place?  When the month of October toll is addressed.  So the first day(s) of November.  If you're an outlet and you're citing numbers, you better be damn sure of the count someone else is using if you're citing it.  Or you better be prepared for it to get ugly because I intend to make it very ugly.  Western reporting on deaths is an undercount.  For a number of reasons including limited mobility on the part of those outlets and the fact that a number of deaths are never known by reporters.  But if anyone's being cited as an expert on the count, they damn well better be using more than one source.  And reporters damn well better know what they're citing.  The Iraq War is one long undercount.  I'm not in the mood to be part of that.  This was the one warning.  Come November, it'll be ugly.  And we'll open with it. 

 

In July, July 27th, Nouri al-Maliki ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf which led to at least 11 deaths and to 36 Iranian dissidents being hauled off to an Iraqi prison.  They were kept there until yesterday despite rulings that they should be released.  As noted in yesterday's snapshot:

 

 BBC News reports the 36 have been released and returned to Camp Ashraf: "A spokeswoman for the group told the BBC they had been tortured in custody and were now being treated in hospital."  Anne Barker (Australia's ABC) notes "An Iraqi judge had ruled three times they must be released, but officials refused to comply" until today and that the US "The United States recently called for assurances that camp residents would be treated humanely and not sent back to Iran." Tim Cocks (Reuters) adds, "The camp's residents and the 36 arrested on rioting charges had said they were on hunger strike until they were released. PMOI spokesman Shahriar Kia, speaking by phone, said the detainees were critically ill because of their hunger strike, which he said had gone on for many days. It was impossible to verify this claim." 

 

Today Sebastian Usher (BBC News) reports the international protests will continue -- the hunger strike is ended -- until the United States and/or the United Nations takes back over the security responsibilities for Camp Ashraf.