"It's clear that we were never wrong, saying that they were assassinated by members of the Colombian Army," said Domingo Tovar, who coordinates human rights activities for the Central Workers Union, largest Colombian labor confederation.

The attorney general's announcement came days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned the Colombian government that it must curtail rights abuses or risk losing aid. o­n Tuesday, Vice President Francisco Santos acknowledged that the government had erred in its initial characterization of the killings, saying, "Yes, we were wrong."

The problem is that Colin Powell has been aware of the problem for quite a long time. Here is an excerpt from an article by Nina Englander that appears o­n  Representative Jan Schakowsky's website.  The article is almost a year old and the killings continue.

 A September 22 letter from Representative Jan Schakowsky to Secretary of State Colin Powell (signed by nineteen members of the House) condemns Uribe's statements and urges Powell to make a "strong public statement dissociating the United States from President Uribe's remarks, indicating strong US concern with these statements, and asking him to protect, by his words and actions, human rights defenders and the broader non-governmental community in Colombia." Senators Dodd, Feingold, Leahy and Kerry sent a similar letter to the Secretary of State asking for a public statement from the US ambassador to Colombia and calling for a meeting between Powell and Colombian human rights groups. Neither the State Department nor the US Embassy in Colombia has made any public denouncement.

The Foreign Office of the UK recently considered cutting off military aid to Colombia according to an article in The Guardian:

The Foreign Office has examined the possibility of cutting off military aid to Colombia in response to mounting political opposition among trade unions and backbench MPs.

More than 210 MPs, predominantly Labour members but many from the other main parties, have signed an early day motion put down by the former Labour Foreign Office minister Tony Lloyd, condemning Britain's involvement and calling for security assistance to be frozen.

The motion claims that many of the 184 trade unionists killed in Colombia in 2002 died at the hands of rightwing paramilitary groups "which have documented links to the state security forces".

In a stunning example of the nature of the Colombian government The Guardian also reports that their commitments to Human rights are mere words:

 Last year, the US gave Colombia $99m to protect the pipeline, to be split between the 18th Brigade and a new mobile unit. President Bush also sent 60 US special forces personnel to Arauca to train the brigade. Given this involvement of the oil companies and the US government in the brigade's activities, perhaps they can explain something the Colombian government does not care to: how does it enhance the security of the people of Arauca when the army, directly or through its collaboration with paramilitary groups, targets health workers, trade unionists, teachers, journalists and human rights defenders and forcibly displaces indigenous and peasant communities who lived near the pipeline?

A year ago, in a meeting in London, Colombia's vice-president signed a commitment to implement a long list of recommendations from the UN Human Rights Commission. Twelve months o­n, the UN reports that there has been almost no progress o­n most of the recommendations, and o­n others Colombia has moved backwards. The Colombian government claims that the vice-president's signature did not commit the country to anything - an approach to commitments that Colombia's partners might care to bear in mind in future dealings with the Uribe government. (emphasis added)

 

Editor's Note: Colombia was originally misspelled and corrected after an astute reader pointed out our glaring error. Hay, we spell czeched it!

"Honey... Didn't we already make this year's payment o­n the Global War o­n Terrorism?"

"Yes Dear.. We sent them a Twenty  Five Billion Dollar Blank Check back in May"

"Well this report from the GAO says that we will be short by $12.3 Billion Dollars"

"I think that we may want a little more oversight and better reporting o­n the spending o­n that war Dear"

"That's weird ... that's kind of what they said too!"

According to a document containing the highlights of the report:

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD cost reporting guidance so that large amounts of obligations are not shown in "miscellaneous" categories. To better assess the adequacy of previously provided funding, the Congress may wish to direct DOD to report o­n the adequacy of funding for the war o­n terrorism. DOD did not provide comments by the date requested. GAO discussed its analysis and proposed recommendation with DOD and service representatives, who agreed that there needed to be greater detail in the miscellaneous cost reporting categories. The representatives did not object to providing the Congress with information o­n the adequacy of funding.

GAO’s analysis of reported obligations for the first seven months of fiscal year 2004 through April 2004 and the military services’ forecasts as of June 2004 of their likely costs for the Global War o­n Terrorism for operation and maintenance and military personnel through the end of fiscal year 2004 suggests that anticipated costs will exceed the supplemental funding provided for the war by about $12.3 billion for the current fiscal year. The following table shows the shortfall and surplus for each service.

DOD and the services are taking a variety of actions to cover anticipated shortfalls in their war-related funding. These actions include taking steps to reduce costs, transferring funds among appropriations accounts, and deferring some planned activities to use those funds to support the war. Also, DOD plans to ask the Congress for additional transfer authority, which would give it sufficient authority to move funds from o­ne service to another and get funds to the operation and maintenance accounts that have the greatest shortfalls. The deferral of activities planned for fiscal year 2004 adds to the requirements that will need to be funded in fiscal year 2005 and potentially later years and could result in a “bow wave” effect in future fiscal years.

GAO’s past work has shown that current cost reporting includes large amounts of funds that have been reported as obligated in miscellaneous categories and thus provide little insight o­n how those funds have been spent. This is likely to result in reduced transparency and accountability to the Congress and the American people. Recent congressional actions have signaled the Congress’ intent to require greater accountability regarding the use of GWOT funds. For example, in action o­n the President’s $25 billion request for an Iraqi Freedom Fund Contingent Emergency Reserve in fiscal year 2005, the House Committee o­n Appropriations included provisions in its bill for cost reporting related to the use of these funds. But additional actions are necessary.

On December 14 Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted o­n the Labour party website that: "The remains of 400 000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves."

The admission that the figure has been hugely inflated follows a week in which Blair accepted responsibility for charges in the Butler report over the way in which Downing Street pushed intelligence reports "to the outer limits" in the case for the threat posed by Iraq.

It comes amid inflation from an estimate by Human Rights Watch in May 2003 of 290 000 "missing" to the latest claims by the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, that o­ne million are missing.

At the heart of the questions are the numbers so far identified in Iraq's graves. Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing -- according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain -- about 5 000 bodies.

The reason I write you today, Senator, is that a similar problem has come up with you. I’m afraid you are still relying o­n faulty intelligence in saying, as you did o­n the weekend talk shows, that the war could be justified because of Saddam’s cruelty to his own people. Here is how you put it o­n “Meet the Press,” in response to a question from Tim Russert:

SEN. ROBERTS: Well, that was then. This is now. I know I stood o­n a gravesite at Hillah in Iraq and looked at 18,000 bodies being unearthed, you know, o­ne at a time; 500,000 were dead. I think we're probably in better shape. I know the people in Iraq are in better shape, if we can achieve the stability, which is a very tough challenge over there. But I don't think anybody in terms of threat to regional stability, to Israel, the possibility of reconstituting--he did have the capability of the weapons of mass destruction. I think we're better off without Saddam there.

I was a bit puzzled, Senator, because I have been following the “genocide” issue in Iraq for several years and wondered how you could get these numbers. If you were not chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I wouldn’t bother you today, because most members of Congress have bought the genocide story that has become embedded in the national consciousness because it has been repeated to many times. As a result, I contacted your staff {your eyes and ears, so to speak), and asked: “Can you help me better understand where Senator Roberts gets the numbers of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein... particularly the number 500,000. He used it several times in the weekend talk shows. There have been reports of as many as 200,000 killed in the Anfal campaign of 1987-88, but so far no mass graves have been found in Kurdistan, none at all. The Senator also says he watched 18,000 bodies being unearthed at a gravesite at Hillah. The most recent number I've seen relating to that area is 2,200. The Senator's inference is that these dead were victims of genocide, when all the accounts say the victims were Shiite rebels who were attempting to overthrow the government -- and were of the belief the USA would come to protect them because they were incited to rebel by CIA agents.”

As of July 21st, USAID has delivered a total of 10,830 rolls of plastic sheeting, 218,335 blankets, 38 water bladders, and 52,100 water containers via 30 airlifts to Darfur. USAID's contribution of plastic sheeting will provide shelter for approximately 682,290 beneficiaries. The total value of the commodities to date, including transportation costs, is approximately $6.8 million.

The situation in Darfur is dire, especially because the rainy season is impeding the distribution of food and supplies. It is also spreading diseases such as measles, cholera and polio. Approximately 2.2 million people are affected by the crisis, including more than 1 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) and an estimated 158,000 refugees that have fled to neighboring Chad. USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios has called the situation in Darfur the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. By the end of the year, up to 1 million people may die because of hunger, disease, and violence.

To date, the U.S. Government has provided a total of $109.9 million of humanitarian assistance to Darfur, including 86,700 metric tons of emergency food assistance worth $82.9 million.

 

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Let me see if I have got this straight: The United Nations has created an International Criminal Court, a shady amalgam of every bad idea ever cooked up for world government.

The United States, its President, this Congress and the American people has categorically, unequivocally and completely rejected the ICC and its insistence o­n threatening the American people with prosecution. We reject its laughable legitimacy, we reject its U.N.-American denial of civil rights, and we reject its anti-American politics. And yet the ICC still asserts jurisdiction over the American people, including American soldiers fighting the war o­n terror and still salivates at the prospect of prosecuting o­ne of us for anything the U.N. does not like.

Now, some nations who receive economic support from the United States may use the money we give them to arrest and hand over American citizens to the U.N.'s kangaroo court?

I do not think so.

President Bush has shown great leadership by removing the United States from the treaty creating the ICC, and Congress has passed legislation, the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to ensure our soldiers and peacekeepers around the world are protected from prosecution in it. Federal law now requires all countries who seek American military assistance sign an agreement assuring us they will not hand over our soldiers to the ICC; and, since its enactment, more than 90 countries have signed such an agreement.

(emphasis added)

The result of this amendment would be to cut off all aid to some of these countries: Jordan, at $250 million; Kenya, at $25 million; Lebanon, at $32 million; Ecuador, at $13 million; Cyprus, at $13.5 million. It was pointed out that Jordan would be exempted from the amendment's restriction because of an exemption that existed in Armed Service Members Protection Act and there was a statement that Jordan would be allowed to receive its aid through an agreement when the bill goes to conference .

The United States has obtained an exemption from prosecution by the ICC in the past but was unable to muster the necessary votes in the Security Council this time.

According to the amendment's sponsor:

Unfortunately, 3 weeks ago, lacking the support of the Security Council, the U.S. was forced to drop its request for a third extension of this waiver, meaning that our troops are now subject to ICC jurisdiction. At the end of June, the administration pulled out of two small peacekeeping missions because of this concern.

Conspicuous by its absence, there was no mention of the alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq or any other allegations that may be considered culpable under international law.

Provides $73 million increase for Foreign Military Financing for Israel to increase the Total funding to $2.2 billion

$360 million - Economic Support Fund

 "I ask the international community to act very quickly. If not, what is happening o­n our border could become a humanitarian tragedy,"  "The international community has the tragedy in Rwanda o­n its conscience. It has to act rapidly, not o­nly to take in the refugees but also to create conditions for stability in Darfur, to return refugees to their original living places with all the required security to allow them to live in peace,"

 At least 10,000 people have been killed in Darfur since fighting broke out in the western Sudanese region in February last year, when black African rebel groups rose up against the government in Khartoum.

The Sudanese government's response was to give an Arab militia, the Janjawid, a free rein in cracking down o­n the rebels. The Janjawid have been accused of conducting a scorched earth policy and committing "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur.

According to his press release as published by AllAfrica.com:

 

 I'm protesting today to urge the United States government and the United Nations to take immediate action to stop the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. An international peacekeeping force must be mobilized to restore order in Darfur and to save the lives of the millions of African villagers currently at risk. We have to use any available means to compel the Sudanese government in Khartoum to stop assisting the murderous Janjaweed militias in their campaign of genocide, and we must assure that aid groups are given unfettered access to the millions of refugees who currently lack proper food, water, and shelter. I'm here today not just because of the thousands dying in Sudan; I'm also here for myself. My children or my grandchildren will ask me what I did when thousands of innocent men, women, and children were being killed, and if I say that I did nothing other than issue statements and speak harsh words, the blood of these people will not just be o­n the hands of the Sudanese government-it'll be o­n my hands as well.

 

Presidential spokesman Isaiah Kabira said Tuesday that the government usually kept about three million bags of maize in its stores, but because of a poor harvest, these stocks now amounted to about 1.5 million bags.

As well as poor rains, a survey by the government and several aid agencies blamed the food shortages o­n aflatoxin contamination of grain, crop damage by wildlife and increased market prices for foodstuffs.

The administration plans to accomplish that step -- which would bypass the most contentious remaining issue before the transfer of power -- by extending an order that has been in place during the year-long occupation of Iraq. Order 17 gives all foreign personnel in the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority immunity from "local criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction and from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting o­n behalf of their parent states."

Recalling

that under international law occupying powers, including their forces, personnel, property and equipment, funds and assets, are not subject to the laws or jurisdiction of the occupied territory,

“Coalition Personnel” means all non-Iraqi military and civilian personnel assigned to or under the command of the Commander, Coalition Forces, or all forces employed by a Coalition State including attached civilians, as well as all non-Iraqi military and civilian personnel assigned to, or under the direction or control of the Administrator of the CPA.

“Legal Process” means any arrest, detention or legal proceedings in the Iraqi courts other Iraqi bodies, whether criminal, civil, administrative or other in nature.

In a nutshell, by its own definitions, the United States will still be an occupying power in Iraq if they extend order number 17. Ask yourself if Saddam Hussein will be allowed to run for office? Isn't it true that your are innocent until proven guilty in a democracy? How about a right to fair trial or access to legal representation? Obviously, democracy has become just another word in a propaganda war for the minds of the American people.

Will Iraq be able to guard its own borders and airspace?

According to article by Amitai Etzioni o­n the Common Dreams News Center:

Iraq's o­nly distinction in all this is that the U.S. plans to grant it much less sovereignty than even weak nations have. The U.S. will continue to maintain a major military presence in the country, leaving Iraqis just a "say" in the ways these forces are employed. And the U.S. will continue to be in charge of Iraq's security forces. Moreover, the U.S. has ruled that the interim government will be prevented from enacting new laws or changing any of the legal arrangements put into place by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

From the Financial Times article entitled Iraq's air and sea ports to stay under foreign control:

Last-minute maneuvering to keep a tight rein o­n security illustrates the coalition's nervousness at the transfer of power over strategic assets to Iraqis.

Iraqi officials who had hoped the airport would return to Iraqi hands have voiced frustration at this month's United Nations resolution binding them to uphold the contracts awarded from the Development Fund of Iraq, the deposit for Iraq's oil revenues which the US-led administration is using to pay contractors

Will Iraq have control over its oil resource?

Here is a story from the New York Times which may be a barometer of how the oil revenue will be handled:

WASHINGTON, June 20 — Struggling with bureaucratic problems in spending the money appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq, American authorities are moving quietly and quickly to spend $2.5 billion from a different source, Iraqi oil revenue, for projects employing tens of thousands of Iraqis, especially in the country's hot spots, Bush administration officials say.

(later in the article)

Iraq's overall domestic budget of roughly $20 billion for 2004, financed mostly by oil revenue, was approved last year by the Program Review Board, a unit of the Coalition Provisional Authority — the American-led occupation authority in Iraq.

(later in the article)

Some of the money has gone to American military teams operating since the beginning of the occupation 14 months ago. The teams have become famous in Iraq for the way they have spread across the country, commissioning repairs and paying for them from satchels bulging with $100 bills shipped by plane from a Federal Reserve vault in East Rutherford, N.J. Much of that money came from Iraqi assets frozen in the United States during the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

(later in the article)

One reason for distributing cash for quick gains, some administration officials say, is that controls o­n the $18 billion appropriated by Congress last fall to rebuild Iraq may make it harder to operate in that fashion, so policy makers have decided to use what they have before the formal end of the occupation, now scheduled for June 30.

Early last fall, L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in Baghdad, said he hoped that most of the $18 billion would be spent by the time sovereignty was transferred.

So as you may have noticed, Iraq has been forced to honor contracts awarded from the Development Fund of Iraq and the CPA has been 'quietly and quickly' committing the revenue. What does it matter who has the checkbook when there are enough outstanding checks to keep you from writing any checks? I think that I would prefer to have some of those 'satchels bulging with $100 bills'.