Now we can see the reasoning behind China's recent choice to legislate private property rights.
Either that, or start killing people for protesting.
(Hey, if you're ideologically Communist, shouldn't you be doing that anyway?)
3.12.2007
Foreshadowing
Apparently, a lot of stuff happened when I wasn't paying any attention. Who knew there were terrorists in the US before 911?
Study the history of any nation-state, even ones that were (supposedly) formed out of an overwhelmingly righteous sense of collective destiny, and you'll notice that not everyone agrees with being forcibly coopted into a singular, unified identity. Can't imagine why.
But seriously, what's the take-away from all this?
1. Marion Barry may have gotten shot in the chest, but it still doesn't buy him K street cred, what with the crack rap he'll also never forget.
2. There was a time in US history when all was new and innocent, and it was 1977.
3. Because of this incident, we now know that individuals and groups of people will use violence to make a point .
4. If you can figure out how to pronounce "B'nai B'rith", try saying it three times fast.
5. That one-inch strip of fabric on the hem of your dress may save you from male attention, I mean, aggression.
6. If God's in charge, whose side is He on?
7. You can always make someone into a great person...after they're dead.
Study the history of any nation-state, even ones that were (supposedly) formed out of an overwhelmingly righteous sense of collective destiny, and you'll notice that not everyone agrees with being forcibly coopted into a singular, unified identity. Can't imagine why.
But seriously, what's the take-away from all this?
1. Marion Barry may have gotten shot in the chest, but it still doesn't buy him K street cred, what with the crack rap he'll also never forget.
2. There was a time in US history when all was new and innocent, and it was 1977.
3. Because of this incident, we now know that individuals and groups of people will use violence to make a point .
4. If you can figure out how to pronounce "B'nai B'rith", try saying it three times fast.
5. That one-inch strip of fabric on the hem of your dress may save you from male attention, I mean, aggression.
6. If God's in charge, whose side is He on?
7. You can always make someone into a great person...after they're dead.
Same Fucking Family, Better Research
While I'd like to think that I covered the essence of this subject in my previous post, the BBC News has, of course, trumped me by actually conducting research and interviews to base their arguments in actual facts.
Look, if you need facts, that's not my problem.
Look, if you need facts, that's not my problem.
3.09.2007
Over Stepping
Should we be at all surprised by this?
No. The answer is no. In case you were wondering.
Full text from the New York Times:
March 9, 2007
Justice Department Says F.B.I. Misused Patriot Act
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 9 — The F.B.I. has improperly used provisions of the USA Patriot Act to obtain thousands of telephone, business and financial records without prior judicial approval, the Justice Department’s inspector general said today in a report that embarrassed the F.B.I. and ignited outrage on Capitol Hill.
The report found that the bureau lacked sufficient controls to make sure that its agents were acting properly when they obtained records using administrative subpoenas, which do not require a judge’s prior approval. And the report found that the bureau does not follow some of the rules it does have on the matter.
Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, called a news conference today to accept responsibility for the lapses, and to pledge his best efforts to see that they are not repeated.
“How could this happen?” Mr. Mueller asked rhetorically. “Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable.”
Under the USA Patriot Act, the bureau has issued more than 20,000 demands for information known as national security letters. The report concluded that the program lacks effective management, monitoring, and reporting procedures.
The report is available on the Department of Justice’s web site.
Mr. Mueller noted that the report attributes the lapses to procedural errors rather than malicious intent; that the actual number of abuses was relatively small; that it appeared that no individual or business was harmed; and that the mistakes were committed in the tension-filled atmosphere of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Nevertheless, Mr. Mueller said, the abuses were serious because they infringed, at least potentially, on privacy rights that Americans cherish. The director said he welcomed Congress’s ideas on how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, and acknowledged Congress’s proper “trust but verify” posture.
Still, the report touched off a bipartisan storm in the Capitol.
“This is, regrettably, part of an ongoing process where the federal authorities are not really sensitive to privacy and go far beyond what we have authorized,” said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and a member of the judiciary panel, said the report demonstrates that “ ‘trust us’ doesn’t cut it.”
Mr. Mueller said in response to a reporter’s question that he had no intention of resigning his post.
Details of the inspector general’s report emerged on Thursday, a day ahead of its formal publication, as Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other officials struggled to tamp down a Congressional uproar over another issue, the ouster of eight United States attorneys.
Mr. Gonzales told Democratic and Republican senators that the Justice Department would drop its opposition to a change in a one-year-old rule for replacing federal prosecutors, senators and Justice Department officials said.
Mr. Gonzales offered the concession at a private meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Gonzales also agreed to let the panel question Justice Department officials involved in the removals, Congressional aides said. The officials would testify voluntarily without subpoena.
Mr. Gonzales’s willingness to give in to Senate demands appeared to underscore how the Justice Department had been put on the defensive by the criticism over the prosecutors’ ousters.
The use of national security letters since the September 2001 attacks has been a hotly debated domestic intelligence issue. They were once used only in espionage and terrorism cases, and then only against people suspected as agents of a foreign power.
With the passage of the Patriot Act, their use was greatly expanded and was allowed against Americans who were subjects of any investigation. The law also allowed other agencies like the Homeland Security Department to issue the letters.
The letters have proved contentious in part because unlike search warrants, they are issued without prior judicial approval and require only the approval of the agent in charge of a local F.B.I. office. A Supreme Court ruling in 2004 forced revisions of the Patriot Act to permit greater judicial review, without requiring advance authorization.
As problems for the Justice Department appeared to be piling up, criticism of Mr. Gonzales seemed to grow more biting as Republicans senators complained about Mr. Gonzales, some because of a letter in USA Today in which he said he had lost confidence in the ousted prosecutors and regarded the question an “overblown personnel matter.”
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, senior Republican on the judiciary panel, said in a telephone interview that those comments were “extraordinarily insensitive” and that the prosecutors were “professionals who are going to have a cloud over them which could last a lifetime.”
“I have been trying to hold down the rhetoric and try to deal with this on a factual and analytical basis, and his letter was volcanic,” Mr. Specter said. “We don’t need that,” he added.
Earlier at the Judiciary Committee business meeting, Mr. Specter also had harsh words for Mr. Gonzales, saying, “One day, there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later.”
Mr. Specter said later his remark did not indicate that Mr. Gonzales had any intention of stepping down.
Other Republican senators expressed strong criticism of the removals and handling by Mr. Gonzales’s aides. Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was quoted by The Las Vegas Review-Journal as saying the prosecutors’ removals had “been completely mishandled.”
The United States attorney in Nevada, Daniel G. Bogden, was one of the eight dismissed without explanation until he was told by a senior Justice Department officials that he was being replaced to make room for other appointees. Mr. Ensign said the department fired Mr. Bogden over his objections. Mr. Ensign said last month that he was told that the change was for “performance reasons,” but said he was surprised when a Justice Department official testified at a House hearing on Tuesday that Mr. Bogden’s performance had no serious lapses.
Even staunch Republican defenders of the department expressed criticism. One ally was Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, where Paul K. Charlton was among those dismissed.
“Some people’s reputations are going to suffer needlessly,” Mr. Kyl said. “Hopefully, we can get to the point where we say, ‘These people did a great job.”‘
The withdrawal of objections to changing the rules for the prosecutors appears to assure passage of a measure to restore rules changed last March, when the attorney general was given authority to appoint replacement United States attorneys indefinitely, several senators said.
“The administration has withdrawn its objections to my legislation,” the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said. She was one of the senators who met with Mr. Gonzales. Others were Mr. Specter, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Feinstein said: “My concerns have been that the firing of people with strong performance reviews all at one time, a number of whom were involved in corruption cases, sends an adverse signal to the rest of the U.S. attorneys, as well as to the general public. They may be hired by the president, but they serve the people and they should not be subjected to political pressure.”
The bill would let the attorney general appoint a temporary replacement for 120 days. If the Senate confirms no one after that time, the appointment of an interim United States attorney would be left to a federal district judge.
Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said Thursday night: “The department stands by the decision to remove the U.S. attorneys. As we have acknowledged in hindsight, we should have provided the U.S. attorneys with specific reasons that led to their dismissal that would have help to avoid the rampant misinformation and wild speculation that currently exits.”
No. The answer is no. In case you were wondering.
Full text from the New York Times:
March 9, 2007
Justice Department Says F.B.I. Misused Patriot Act
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 9 — The F.B.I. has improperly used provisions of the USA Patriot Act to obtain thousands of telephone, business and financial records without prior judicial approval, the Justice Department’s inspector general said today in a report that embarrassed the F.B.I. and ignited outrage on Capitol Hill.
The report found that the bureau lacked sufficient controls to make sure that its agents were acting properly when they obtained records using administrative subpoenas, which do not require a judge’s prior approval. And the report found that the bureau does not follow some of the rules it does have on the matter.
Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, called a news conference today to accept responsibility for the lapses, and to pledge his best efforts to see that they are not repeated.
“How could this happen?” Mr. Mueller asked rhetorically. “Who is to be held accountable? And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable.”
Under the USA Patriot Act, the bureau has issued more than 20,000 demands for information known as national security letters. The report concluded that the program lacks effective management, monitoring, and reporting procedures.
The report is available on the Department of Justice’s web site.
Mr. Mueller noted that the report attributes the lapses to procedural errors rather than malicious intent; that the actual number of abuses was relatively small; that it appeared that no individual or business was harmed; and that the mistakes were committed in the tension-filled atmosphere of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Nevertheless, Mr. Mueller said, the abuses were serious because they infringed, at least potentially, on privacy rights that Americans cherish. The director said he welcomed Congress’s ideas on how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, and acknowledged Congress’s proper “trust but verify” posture.
Still, the report touched off a bipartisan storm in the Capitol.
“This is, regrettably, part of an ongoing process where the federal authorities are not really sensitive to privacy and go far beyond what we have authorized,” said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and a member of the judiciary panel, said the report demonstrates that “ ‘trust us’ doesn’t cut it.”
Mr. Mueller said in response to a reporter’s question that he had no intention of resigning his post.
Details of the inspector general’s report emerged on Thursday, a day ahead of its formal publication, as Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other officials struggled to tamp down a Congressional uproar over another issue, the ouster of eight United States attorneys.
Mr. Gonzales told Democratic and Republican senators that the Justice Department would drop its opposition to a change in a one-year-old rule for replacing federal prosecutors, senators and Justice Department officials said.
Mr. Gonzales offered the concession at a private meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Gonzales also agreed to let the panel question Justice Department officials involved in the removals, Congressional aides said. The officials would testify voluntarily without subpoena.
Mr. Gonzales’s willingness to give in to Senate demands appeared to underscore how the Justice Department had been put on the defensive by the criticism over the prosecutors’ ousters.
The use of national security letters since the September 2001 attacks has been a hotly debated domestic intelligence issue. They were once used only in espionage and terrorism cases, and then only against people suspected as agents of a foreign power.
With the passage of the Patriot Act, their use was greatly expanded and was allowed against Americans who were subjects of any investigation. The law also allowed other agencies like the Homeland Security Department to issue the letters.
The letters have proved contentious in part because unlike search warrants, they are issued without prior judicial approval and require only the approval of the agent in charge of a local F.B.I. office. A Supreme Court ruling in 2004 forced revisions of the Patriot Act to permit greater judicial review, without requiring advance authorization.
As problems for the Justice Department appeared to be piling up, criticism of Mr. Gonzales seemed to grow more biting as Republicans senators complained about Mr. Gonzales, some because of a letter in USA Today in which he said he had lost confidence in the ousted prosecutors and regarded the question an “overblown personnel matter.”
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, senior Republican on the judiciary panel, said in a telephone interview that those comments were “extraordinarily insensitive” and that the prosecutors were “professionals who are going to have a cloud over them which could last a lifetime.”
“I have been trying to hold down the rhetoric and try to deal with this on a factual and analytical basis, and his letter was volcanic,” Mr. Specter said. “We don’t need that,” he added.
Earlier at the Judiciary Committee business meeting, Mr. Specter also had harsh words for Mr. Gonzales, saying, “One day, there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later.”
Mr. Specter said later his remark did not indicate that Mr. Gonzales had any intention of stepping down.
Other Republican senators expressed strong criticism of the removals and handling by Mr. Gonzales’s aides. Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was quoted by The Las Vegas Review-Journal as saying the prosecutors’ removals had “been completely mishandled.”
The United States attorney in Nevada, Daniel G. Bogden, was one of the eight dismissed without explanation until he was told by a senior Justice Department officials that he was being replaced to make room for other appointees. Mr. Ensign said the department fired Mr. Bogden over his objections. Mr. Ensign said last month that he was told that the change was for “performance reasons,” but said he was surprised when a Justice Department official testified at a House hearing on Tuesday that Mr. Bogden’s performance had no serious lapses.
Even staunch Republican defenders of the department expressed criticism. One ally was Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, where Paul K. Charlton was among those dismissed.
“Some people’s reputations are going to suffer needlessly,” Mr. Kyl said. “Hopefully, we can get to the point where we say, ‘These people did a great job.”‘
The withdrawal of objections to changing the rules for the prosecutors appears to assure passage of a measure to restore rules changed last March, when the attorney general was given authority to appoint replacement United States attorneys indefinitely, several senators said.
“The administration has withdrawn its objections to my legislation,” the sponsor of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said. She was one of the senators who met with Mr. Gonzales. Others were Mr. Specter, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Feinstein said: “My concerns have been that the firing of people with strong performance reviews all at one time, a number of whom were involved in corruption cases, sends an adverse signal to the rest of the U.S. attorneys, as well as to the general public. They may be hired by the president, but they serve the people and they should not be subjected to political pressure.”
The bill would let the attorney general appoint a temporary replacement for 120 days. If the Senate confirms no one after that time, the appointment of an interim United States attorney would be left to a federal district judge.
Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said Thursday night: “The department stands by the decision to remove the U.S. attorneys. As we have acknowledged in hindsight, we should have provided the U.S. attorneys with specific reasons that led to their dismissal that would have help to avoid the rampant misinformation and wild speculation that currently exits.”
3.08.2007
Give This Guy A Purple Brain!
No, I mean heart. No, I mean whatever award you give to a military leader who's intellectual process includes options other than killing people on a massive scale.
And really, it's just the basis of comparison that's wanting.
But even without the constant, intense levels of sarcasm: Well thought out, General, we do, in fact, need to explore diplomatic solutions with the Iraqis.
Now, if you can make it happen, you'll win the proverbial battle, and the actual war.
Article text from the New York Times:
March 8, 2007
U.S. Commander Calls for Talks With Militants
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:39 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Military force alone is not sufficient to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday. ''This is critical,'' Gen. David Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations ''will determine in the long run the success of this effort.''
American troops have stepped up efforts to clear and secure major highways around the capital as part of the Baghdad security crackdown, which began last month. The Pentagon has pledged 17,500 combat troops for the capital.
Petraeus said ''it was very likely'' that additional U.S. forces will be sent to areas outside the capital where militant groups are regrouping, including the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.
The region has become an increasingly important staging ground for groups including al-Qaida in Iraq. Meanwhile, many Sunni extremists apparently have shifted to Diyala to escape the Baghdad clampdown.
Petraeus declined to predict the size of the expected Diyala reinforcements.
He said that ''any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency in Iraq.''
''Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient,'' Petraeus said. ''A political resolution of various differences ... of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq and so forth -- that is crucial. That is what will determine, in the long run, the success of this effort.
U.S. officials, including Petraeus' predecessor Gen. George W. Casey Jr., have long expressed the opinion that no military solution to the Iraq crisis was possible without a political agreement among all the ethnic and religious factions -- including some Sunni insurgents.
However, previous overtures to the insurgents all faltered, apparently because of political opposition within Baghdad or Washington to some of the conditions.
Last year, 11 Sunni insurgent groups working through mediators offered to immediately stop attacks on American-led forces in Iraq if the Shiite-led government and Washington set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all coalition forces from the country, according to insurgent and government officials.
The groups did not include several major groups, including the Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad's Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella for eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq.
The Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported last year that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad met seven times with insurgent representatives in late 2005 and early 2006. But the extremists broke off the contacts in April 2006 after the U.S. side failed to respond to a series of demands.
The U.S. never confirmed details of the account but Khalilzad later said he believed his contacts with Sunni groups had contributed to a temporary decline in U.S. battle deaths, which fell in March 2006 to 31 -- their lowest level in two years.
One of Iraq's most expansive militias -- the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- appears to have set aside its weapons under intense government pressure to lend support to the Baghdad security plan.
Mahdi militiamen also have allowed Iraqi authorities to try to protect at least 1 million pilgrims heading to Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Many are making the traditional trek on foot for rituals beginning Friday to mark the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Hussein's death in a 7th century battle near Karbala cemented the schism between Sunnis and Shiites.
The processions have proved to be vulnerable targets, with attacks killing more than 170 people this week.
Al-Sadr issued a statement urging pilgrims to join in chants denouncing the attackers. ''I ask almighty God to protect you from the sectarian sedition,'' said the message.
Petraeus denounced the ''thugs with no soul'' who have targeted Shiite pilgrims. ''We share the horror'' of witnessing the suicide bombings and shootings, he said.
He said U.S. forces are ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.
''It is an enormous task to protect all of them and there is a point at which if someone is willing to blow up himself ... the problem becomes very, very difficult indeed,'' he said.
Security forces in Karbala have taken unprecedented measures, including checkpoints for top-to-bottom searches and a six-ring cordon around the two main Shiite shrines. At least 10,000 policemen have been placed on round-the-clock patrols.
''All the city's entrances have been secured, and I call upon the pilgrims to follow the instructions of the security forces and let them do the necessary searches,'' Iraq's minister of state for national security, Sherwan al-Waili, said in Karbala.
In Baghdad, a mortar attack shattered some windows at the Iraqi Airways office on the airport compound, but the shells landed hundreds of yards from the passenger terminal and caused no serious flight disruptions.
Such attacks, however, send chills through Iraqi officials preparing to host an international conference Saturday on ways to help rebuild and stabilize the country.
The session will be a rare instance of Iranian and the U.S. officials at the same table. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, in September. Washington cut diplomatic ties with Tehran after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by radicals in the wake the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The United States has accused Iran of backing anti-American Shiite militants in Iraq, has detained Iranian officials there and has angered Tehran by bolstering its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Washington is also pushing for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday his country hoped ''the conference will bring forward the end of the presence of foreign forces'' in Iraq -- reiterating Tehran's stance that U.S. troops should withdraw.
BTW, How long as the NYT been spelling it "Al-Qaida"?
And really, it's just the basis of comparison that's wanting.
But even without the constant, intense levels of sarcasm: Well thought out, General, we do, in fact, need to explore diplomatic solutions with the Iraqis.
Now, if you can make it happen, you'll win the proverbial battle, and the actual war.
Article text from the New York Times:
March 8, 2007
U.S. Commander Calls for Talks With Militants
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:39 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) -- Military force alone is not sufficient to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday. ''This is critical,'' Gen. David Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month. He noted that such political negotiations ''will determine in the long run the success of this effort.''
American troops have stepped up efforts to clear and secure major highways around the capital as part of the Baghdad security crackdown, which began last month. The Pentagon has pledged 17,500 combat troops for the capital.
Petraeus said ''it was very likely'' that additional U.S. forces will be sent to areas outside the capital where militant groups are regrouping, including the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad.
The region has become an increasingly important staging ground for groups including al-Qaida in Iraq. Meanwhile, many Sunni extremists apparently have shifted to Diyala to escape the Baghdad clampdown.
Petraeus declined to predict the size of the expected Diyala reinforcements.
He said that ''any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency in Iraq.''
''Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient,'' Petraeus said. ''A political resolution of various differences ... of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq and so forth -- that is crucial. That is what will determine, in the long run, the success of this effort.
U.S. officials, including Petraeus' predecessor Gen. George W. Casey Jr., have long expressed the opinion that no military solution to the Iraq crisis was possible without a political agreement among all the ethnic and religious factions -- including some Sunni insurgents.
However, previous overtures to the insurgents all faltered, apparently because of political opposition within Baghdad or Washington to some of the conditions.
Last year, 11 Sunni insurgent groups working through mediators offered to immediately stop attacks on American-led forces in Iraq if the Shiite-led government and Washington set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all coalition forces from the country, according to insurgent and government officials.
The groups did not include several major groups, including the Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad's Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella for eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq.
The Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported last year that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad met seven times with insurgent representatives in late 2005 and early 2006. But the extremists broke off the contacts in April 2006 after the U.S. side failed to respond to a series of demands.
The U.S. never confirmed details of the account but Khalilzad later said he believed his contacts with Sunni groups had contributed to a temporary decline in U.S. battle deaths, which fell in March 2006 to 31 -- their lowest level in two years.
One of Iraq's most expansive militias -- the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- appears to have set aside its weapons under intense government pressure to lend support to the Baghdad security plan.
Mahdi militiamen also have allowed Iraqi authorities to try to protect at least 1 million pilgrims heading to Karbala, about 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Many are making the traditional trek on foot for rituals beginning Friday to mark the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Hussein's death in a 7th century battle near Karbala cemented the schism between Sunnis and Shiites.
The processions have proved to be vulnerable targets, with attacks killing more than 170 people this week.
Al-Sadr issued a statement urging pilgrims to join in chants denouncing the attackers. ''I ask almighty God to protect you from the sectarian sedition,'' said the message.
Petraeus denounced the ''thugs with no soul'' who have targeted Shiite pilgrims. ''We share the horror'' of witnessing the suicide bombings and shootings, he said.
He said U.S. forces are ready to help provide additional security for the pilgrims if asked by Iraqi authorities.
''It is an enormous task to protect all of them and there is a point at which if someone is willing to blow up himself ... the problem becomes very, very difficult indeed,'' he said.
Security forces in Karbala have taken unprecedented measures, including checkpoints for top-to-bottom searches and a six-ring cordon around the two main Shiite shrines. At least 10,000 policemen have been placed on round-the-clock patrols.
''All the city's entrances have been secured, and I call upon the pilgrims to follow the instructions of the security forces and let them do the necessary searches,'' Iraq's minister of state for national security, Sherwan al-Waili, said in Karbala.
In Baghdad, a mortar attack shattered some windows at the Iraqi Airways office on the airport compound, but the shells landed hundreds of yards from the passenger terminal and caused no serious flight disruptions.
Such attacks, however, send chills through Iraqi officials preparing to host an international conference Saturday on ways to help rebuild and stabilize the country.
The session will be a rare instance of Iranian and the U.S. officials at the same table. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki, in September. Washington cut diplomatic ties with Tehran after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy by radicals in the wake the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The United States has accused Iran of backing anti-American Shiite militants in Iraq, has detained Iranian officials there and has angered Tehran by bolstering its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Washington is also pushing for new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday his country hoped ''the conference will bring forward the end of the presence of foreign forces'' in Iraq -- reiterating Tehran's stance that U.S. troops should withdraw.
BTW, How long as the NYT been spelling it "Al-Qaida"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)