History repeating itself: 9 Afghan kids killed by ‘mistake’

While writing the blog entry for Kathy Kelly’s recent Antiwar Radio interview, I did a Google search for the New York Times piece on the nine firewood-gathering Afghan boys killed by NATO gunships. I clicked on what I thought was the correct link, a Times article appropriately titled “Afghan Villagers Torn by Grief After U.S. Raid Kills 9 Children.” This story, however, was from 2003. Instead of nine boys gunned down while gathering firewood, seven boys were blown up while playing marbles and two girls were killed while fetching water from a stream. Afghan President Hamid Karzai was “profoundly shocked” and sent a delegation to investigate, while the U.S. military command “expressed regret.”

After nearly ten years in Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO military operations are still plagued by mistakes and faulty intelligence; still killing civilians with regularity; still making the same excuses. When is enough, enough?

Our Relationship With Amazon

Some of you may have noticed that we have resumed our relationship with Amazon.com. The reason is simple: it was dumb to boycott just Amazon when practically every banking institution and every hosting service in the country was caving in to pressure to refuse services to WikiLeaks. We thought it was important, however, to speak out against the intimidation tactics of the US government, and that we did: as George W. Bush would say – “Mission accomplished!” Seriously, though, we didn’t really think that one through: and I, for one, never thought that so many would be cowed into bowing to the dictates of the US government. Ever the optimist, I was shocked when so many caved. Live and learn.

And of course another reason for our return to the Amazon fold is financial: we just can’t afford the thousand or so dollars a month we make from the relationship, and several of our donors raised this question with us during the recent fundraising drive. It is a point well taken. We listen to you, our readers and supporters, and not only that, we respond.

Marines Seize Bradley Manning’s Clothes

In the wake of announcing 22 additional charges against him, Pfc. Bradley Manning’s clothing was seized by the guards at the US Marine base at Quantico, Virginia, leaving him naked in his cell.

The seizure of Manning’s clothing was revealed by his lawyer, David E. Coombs, who said Manning’s clothing was seized at 5:00 AM and he was ordered to stand naked outside of his cell. Reports indicate his clothes weren’t returned for at least 7 hours.

Coombs’ report was later confirmed by Marines spokesman Lt. Brian Villiard, who insisted that he could not explain publicly why Manning’s clothes were taken because “I can’t explain it to you without violating the detainee’s privacy.”

It would be inappropriate for me to explain it,” insisted Villiard. Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell later insisted Manning’s treatment was appropriate because of “the seriousness of the charges he’s facing” and was done to protect national security.

Manning faces charges of leaking classified documents to “the enemy,” though the Pentagon never provided any indication of who “the enemy” actually is. He is assumed to be the source of WikiLeaks documents which embarrassed top US officials and revealed broad war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wednesday Iran Talking Points

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for March 2nd, 2011:

The Wall Street Journal: The WSJ’s editorial board catalogs newspaper and blog commentary on “The ‘Israel First’ Myth: Obsessed with the Jewish state, Mideast ‘experts’ got the region all wrong.” The writers lash out at the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman for his history of endorsing “linkage” and for suggesting that, “If Israel could finalize a deal with the Palestinians, it will find that a more democratic Arab world is a more stable partner.” They write: “It was fanciful of Friedman to think that Arab dictators–whom he now acknowledges have depended on scapegoating Israel to maintain their hold on power–would have agreed to such plans,” and “The current regime in Iran is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. It’s hard to see how Israel would be better off today if it had entrusted its security to the Arab dictators whose own people have suddenly made them an endangered species.”

Tablet Magazine: Hudson Institute Visiting Fellow Lee Smith opines that “While protest rage across the Middle East, Israel stands as a regional model of resiliency, relevance and democratic stability.” Smith admits that this is an about-face from the position he took last week, when he claimed that “Israel is finished” and “the fall of Hosni Mubarak is only the latest setback in a decade of extraordinary strategic debacles for Israel.” This week, he argues, “The Arab model for success is not Iran, or Turkey, but Israel,” and, more specifically on Iran: “Iran’s nuclear program and full-throated opposition to the United States and the Zionist entity may make it the envy of some fans of resistance in the region, but the fact is that an Iranian bomb is the Hail Mary pass of a dying society where there’s been no economic development for 30 years.”

The Washington Post: The Post’s “Right Turn” blogger takes issue with the White House’s “tepid language” in denouncing the Iranian government for its detainment of opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Jennifer Rubin observes that “[the administration’s statements] highlights perhaps the greatest failing of the Obama administration: its failure to seize the moment and provide support (rhetorical and otherwise) to the Green Movement in 2009.”