North Carolina: Immigrant Freed Over Demeaning Photograph
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 11, 2007
A Mexican immigrant jailed on a drug trafficking charge was freed in a plea deal after the authorities learned that a federal agent had him pose for a demeaning photograph wearing a sombrero and holding a Mexican flag. The immigrant, Jorge Hernandez-Villalvazo, a native of Mexico with permanent United States residency, was arrested in April 2005 on a charge of conspiring to traffic in cocaine. District Attorney C. Colon Willoughby Jr. of Wake County said the photo had been taken by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent assisting in Mr. Hernandez-Villalvazo’s arrest.
AFGHAN CIVILIANS RECEIVE TREATMENT FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN SANGIN BATTLE
ReplyDeleteRelease Date:
5/10/2007
Release Number:
07-01-03P
Description:
BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan – Coalition forces provided medical treatment to 20 Afghan civilians who were apparently wounded during a 16-hour battle between Afghan National Army and Coalition forces and Taliban fighters on May 8 in the Sangin District, Helmand Province.
One child, who was evacuated to a Coalition medical treatment facility nearby, later died of wounds.
During the fight over 200 Taliban fighters repeatedly attacked the joint ANA and Coalition patrol. Taliban fighters fled into nearby compounds and continued firing on Coalition forces.
Afghan and Coalition forces estimate a significant number of Taliban fighters were killed to include a high-ranking Taliban commander from the Sangin District area.
“Taliban fighters are responsible for the Afghan civilian casualties in the village of Lwar Malazi,” said Army Maj. Chris Belcher, a Combined Joint Task Force – 82 spokesman. “Afghan and Coalition forces value the lives of all Afghan civilians and we express our condolences to the families.”
There are confirmed reports of civilian casualties however; it is unknown at this time how many civilian casualties resulted from the fighting.
A joint Afghan and Coalition force inquiry is being conducted
SEOUL, South Korea - North and
ReplyDeleteSouth Korea adopted a military agreement Friday enabling the first train crossing of their heavily armed border in more than half a century, the South's Defense Ministry said.
The rail test, planned for Thursday, would be the first time trains have crossed the tightly sealed border since inter-Korean rail links were severed in the middle of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Reunification?
Did you talk to the Germans first?
Reunification's gonna happen sooner or later, whit. What a fine mess that'll be.
ReplyDeleteFrom the WaPo:
"The heated meeting between the GOP moderates and Bush continued to reverberate through Capitol Hill yesterday, after several Republican conservatives told reporters that they shared the moderates' fears that the war is wrecking the party. 'There is no liberal-conservative divide on Iraq,' said one House GOP conservative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the White House further.
"The meeting's confrontational tone 'was reflective of where the whole [Republican] conference is,' said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a meeting participant."
I'm going to echo Buckley: GWB is the most politically tone-deaf president in our lifetime. He obviously had not a clue what was coming last November (hence the panicked shit-canning of Rumsfeld after rather than before the elections - and, hey, why bother). Republicans can forgive him for not being a conservative - plenty of RINOs to do that; but for being an idiot and tubing the Party as well?
Won't be a sleepy summer for the GOP.
BDS....Bush Denial Syndrone.
ReplyDeleteYep, those GOPers are all going to watch the up coming train wreck, and lament the failures, of others.
ReplyDeleteAs they get tuned out by the public and turned out of office.
Where is that "Ace" up Mr Bush's sleeve?
As Ms Clinton said:
ReplyDelete"I think we're going to go back and forth on this for a while longer," Clinton said in an interview Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program with Joe Scarborough.
"It is clear that whatever the mission used to be, it is either accomplished or over," Ms Clinton said. "If there are remaining American interests, then let's spell them out."
Mr Bush could do just that, spell out the US's interests, in a Treaty with Mr Maliki's Government, the the Senate would then have to ratify, or not.
A five or six year agreement. Just enough time to fulfill General P's just recently released field manual's expectations.
Winning Dirty
ReplyDeleteInteresting...
"Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances - foolishly, my Congressional source contends - to al-Sadr, who's regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled."
Sunni side up I guess.
Funny. Winning dirty assumes the shiites would win.
ReplyDeletePlenty of dirt. Still no win.
bro d-day
ReplyDeleteWhy sure, that is why Mr al-Hakim, the Badr Brigade commander was visiting Mr Bush at the White House.
President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
announced the White House on 04Dec06.
Then, not two weeks later, two Iranian agents were arrested at one of his group's locations.
Even after Mr al-Hakim said this, at the White House:
"Therefore, we believe that the Iraqi issue should be solved by the Iraqis with the help of friends everywhere. But we reject any attempts to have a regional or international role in solving the Iraqi issue. We cannot bypass the political process. Iraq should be in a position to solve Iraqi problems. We welcome any effort that could enhance the democratic reality in Iraq and protect the constitutional role of that state."
Uh Oh. It looks like General Patreus wants to wage Law, not War. Or at least he wants to wage a kinder and gentler war by seizing the Moral High Ground. But won't this allow the insurgents to continue to swim like fish in the sea of the people. And the people need not worry about their complictness? Whatever happened to "when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"?
ReplyDeleteI ask, is it good ground, General?
Petraeus Seeks the High Ground
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- America's top military commander in Iraq has sent a letter to troops challenging them to "occupy the moral high ground" after a Pentagon survey showed some service members were reluctant to report the "illegal actions" of fellow personnel.
In the letter, dated Thursday, Gen. David Petraeus wrote he was "concerned" with the poll's findings.
"This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground," he said.
The survey of ethics, released last week, assessed the mental health and ethical attitudes of more than 1,300 soldiers and nearly 450 Marines last year.
Results showed that fewer than half of soldiers and Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior.
The general, who since February has overseen the Bush administration's troop "surge" in Iraq, said while bonds formed on the battlefield are understandable, "we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up."
Do you back the Iraq project, Stoutfellow? I take it you do.
ReplyDeleteWhen you back a peace-keeping/nation-building/
policing exercise, this is what you get.
Don't be sorry.
Do you back the Iraq project, Stoutfellow? I take it you do.
ReplyDeleteI do support it, Trish, as the de facto front line in the fight against expansionist, militant Islam and because of its strategic position in the Middle East.
But I don't support ROE and missives from Generals that leave our troops having to second guess whether or not to pull the trigger during combat. Should I concede that the Battle for Iraq is lost? What should our fallback position be? Seville? Antwerp? or Fort Dix?
"But I don't support ROE and missives from Generals that leave our troops having to second guess whether or not to pull the trigger during combat."
ReplyDeletestoutfellow,
This is about hearts and minds - winning the favor of the local population - or at least keeping it from open revolt. The ROE are intended to facilitate this goal, which is part and parcel of the strategy given the generals by their civilian leaders.
As long as we are there in such capacity, soldiers will have to exercise caution in their operations with and among the Iraqis. Precious few are those with top cover to protect them.
In other words, soutfellow, second-guessing comes with the territory.
ReplyDelete