The U.S. announced it will release 500 Iraqi prisoners. That leaves 12,300 more.

The release of Iraqis held indefinitely and without charge has been a top demand of community and tribal leaders, as well as human rights advocates.

"All they do is put a bag on their heads, bind their hands behind them with plastic handcuffs and take them away. Families don't know where they go," Malek Dohan al-Hassan, head of the Lawyers Syndicate in Baghdad, said last month. "They violate human rights up to their ears."

The U.S. is also increasing bounty awards for the capture of those Iraqis it wants the most.

13 remain at large. Twelve of those have rewards of $1 million for their capture - or for confirmation that they are dead, Bremer said. The U.S. military has also put a $10 million bounty for Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, vice chairman of Saddam's revolutionary council. He became the most-wanted fugitive after Saddam's Dec. 13 capture. Fifteen of the fugitives command bounties of $200,000 each; rewards for the remaining 15 are $50,000 apiece.

CincyDemo asks:

Is it true that Bush's occupation forces have tortured Iraqi POWs?

Yes. Bush's occupation forces have tortured Iraqi POWs. Prisoner deaths have been ruled homicides by US military coroners too. And mass graves in Afghanistan brim full with the bodies of thousands of disappeared POWs from Bush's Afghan war. Since no one has bothered to conduct a credible investigation of any Bush War Crime, it's worth considering why one minor incident in Bush's gruesome War Crimes history should receive worldwide attention this week.

He provides news sources and more, go read.

Rather than face court martials, three U.S. soldiers have been discharged from the military following a non-judicial hearing on charges they abused Iraqi prisoners. All were from Pennsylvania and are back there now.

The three soldiers, all from Pennsylvania, were scheduled to face courts-martial this month but opted instead to submit to a nonjudicial hearing, in which their conduct was judged by a commander without a jury, Lt. Col. Vic Harris said. Such hearings are common practice, he said. Brig. Gen. Ennis Whitehead III, the acting commander of the 143rd Transportation Command, found the three soldiers had maltreated prisoners at Camp Bucca, southern Iraq, on May 12. He demoted two of the soldiers and ordered that all three forfeit their salaries for two months.

Reports persist that it was the Kurds, not the U.S., that first captured Hussein, and that they drugged him and then left him for US troops to capture. The Christian Science Monitor has the latest. Our earlier coverage of the topic is here.

A TalkLeft reader writes in:

I'm very suspicious of the fact that there has been no official denial by our government regarding the capture of Saddam Hussein. Has a White House reporter even asked the question?

One thing I know is that the story is gaining credence in the Arab world, giving them that much more reason not to trust us. If they end up believing that story, which is more likely if we do not officially dismiss the rumours (with the Arab press continuing to report that omission), then they will come to believe that the whole thing was a ruse, and we will lose more hearts and minds.

And Scotland's Sunday Herald asks whether a deal was brokered for Saddam's capture. Their original article on the capture and the role of the Kurds is here.

From Colonel David Hackworth:

So far somewhere between 14,000 and 22,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been medically evacuated from Iraq to the USA. So at the end of this turbulent year, we must ask ourselves: Was the price our warriors paid in blood worth the outcome? Are we any safer than before our pre-emptive invasion?

Even though Saddam is in the slammer and the fourth-largest army in the world is junkyard scrap, Christmas 2003 was resolutely Orange, and 2004 looks like more of the same. Or worse.

Our first New Year's resolution should be to find out if the stated reasons for our pre-emptive strike Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's connection with al-Qaeda constituted a real threat to our national security. Because, contrary to public opinion, the present administration hasn't yet made the case that Saddam and his sadists aided and abetted al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11. We also need to know why our $30 billion-a-year intelligence agencies didn't read the tea leaves correctly, as well as what's being done besides upgrading the color code to prevent other similar strikes. [hat tip to Kevin Hayden]

[comments now closed]

Legal experts point out Saddam's options with respect to a trial. The first step most likely will be to challenge the authority of whichever body it is that seeks to put him on trial. None of the professors interviewed are optimistic about Saddam's future. But, they point out,

Saddam has nothing to lose by putting on a vigorous defense. He's not likely to win his freedom, but he could save his life.

[comments now closed]

The military is getting very concerned about the army suicide rate:

Since the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq last spring, 18 soldiers and two Marines have committed suicide, most of them after major combat was declared over May 1, the military said.

The Army is concerned about the deaths. Outside experts have said the rate is alarmingly high compared with the military's average suicide rates. A report by a 12-member team of military and civilian mental health professionals dispatched to Iraq in October to evaluate mental health of soldiers is expected to be released after the holidays, officials said.

Thousands of soldiers are being forced to stay in the service through "stop-loss" orders and many of them are very unhappy about it.

....thousands of soldiers [are being] forbidden to leave military service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions.

"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military sociologist. To the Pentagon, stop-loss orders are a finger in the dike -- a tool to halt the hemorrhage of personnel, and maximize cohesion and experience, for units in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Through a series of stop-loss orders, the Army alone has blocked the possible retirements and departures of more than 40,000 soldiers, about 16,000 of them National Guard and reserve members who were eligible to leave the service this year. Hundreds more in the Air Force, Navy and Marines were briefly blocked from retiring or departing the military at some point this year.

....To many of the soldiers whose retirements and departures are on ice, however, stop-loss is an inconvenience, a hardship and, in some cases, a personal disaster. Some are resigned to fulfilling what they consider their patriotic duty. Others are livid, insisting they have fallen victim to a policy that amounts to an unannounced, unheralded draft.

One soldier said, "I'm furious. I'm aggravated. I feel violated. I feel used." The military's response has not been sympathethic.

"We're all soldiers. We go where were told," said Maj. Steve Stover, an Army spokesman. "Fair has nothing to do with it."

Sounds like involuntary servitude to us. We just hope it's not another sign the draft is coming.

[comments now closed]

Here's the latest death toll from the war in Iraq:

As of Friday, Dec. 26, 471 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq, according to the Department of Defense. Of those, 323 died as a result of hostile action and 148 died of non-hostile causes, the department said.

...On or since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 333 U.S. soldiers have died - 208 as a result of hostile action and 125 of non-hostile causes, according to the Defense Department's figures as of Friday.

Since the start of military operations, 2,332 U.S. service members have been injured as a result of hostile action, according to the Defense Department's Friday figures. Non-hostile injured numbered 370.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, 20 U.S. soldiers have committed suicide.

The Army is concerned about the deaths. Outside experts have said the rate is alarmingly high compared with the military's average suicide rate. A report by a 12-member team of military and civilian mental-health professionals dispatched to Iraq in October to evaluate troops is expected to be released after the holidays, officials said.

Independent experts said they hope the team's report offers some insight into the suicides. Did they result from personal issues, such as the loss of close relationship, or from legal or financial matters? Or did they involve larger, more sensitive issues about the U.S. mission?

Those broader questions relate to the morale of troops in Iraq, many of whom have complained of their long deployments. And they bear upon whether the Bush administration is overstraining the military with such practices as deploying soldiers, such as Suell, on consecutive tours with insufficient family time, experts said.

Saddam does have supporters after all. Lawyers from Jordan and France are seeking to visit him and represent him at an Iraqi War Crimes Tribunal:

Saleh Armouti and French attorney Emmanuel Ludot are asking the U.S. State Department for permission to visit Saddam, who is being held by the American military at an undisclosed location in Iraq after his Dec. 13 capture.

"As soon as we get the authorization from the State Department we shall travel to Iraq and meet with Saddam Hussein to get an official empowerment from him," Armouti told The Associated Press.

The Arab state, while maintaining close relations with the United States, also has historically strong ties with neighboring Iraq and relied on Saddam's regime for its entire oil supply. Jordanian professional organizations, including the bar association, have long supported Saddam, including during Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Bar association president Hussein Mejali said last week he believed Saddam was unlawfully deposed by coalition forces and unlawfully captured by U.S. troops.

Of course, Saddam's lawyers don't need to support him personally or his past actions or his regime -- only his right to a fair trial. We believe he should have a fair trial and a vigorous defense. But the tone of this article suggests that these lawyers support Saddam as well. Does that mean they will try to show his actions were justified? Or backed by the U.S. and other countries? How much power will the Bush Administration have in the decision as to who represents him in a foreign proceeding?

Update: More than 600 Jordanian lawyers have now volunteered to represent Saddam:

When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced after the capture of Saddam Hussein that he would be treated as a prisoner of war and provided the protections of the Geneva Convention, he issued a caveat: Provided, that Saddam was not involved in the post-war attacks on coalition forces. The Washington Times now reports exactly that:

Saddam Hussein was personally directing the postwar insurgency inside Iraq that has claimed the lives of more than 200 coalition troops, playing a far more active role than previously thought, American intelligence officers have concluded since his capture.

Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war only have to give their name, rank and serial number when being interrogated. They don't have to answer questions.

So, how long until Rumsfeld announces a change in Saddam's status? Bets, anyone? And what will result from the change? Will he be transferred into the custody of a country that allows torture during interrogation? Will he be shipped to Guantanamo or some other secret place? Or will he be turned over to the Iraqis to be put in an Iraqi prison? We'd bet on door #3.