At Long Last Love

This is from Hillary is 44's "Stop Whitey Friday - The Ultimate Birth Certificate Issue - Where's Willard's?:"

Is Donald Trump even smarter than he thinks? Probably not, he thinks he is pretty smart. But his use of the missing Obama birth certificate issue might be smarter than many of us have realized. Is this his way of getting rid of not only Barack Obama but finishing off Mitt Romney?

Maybe it is that we are smarter than we think. But a funny thing dropped into the Big Pink head as we prepared for our sometime “Friday Follies” jovial article, April 15 edition. As we have previously stated it is possible that Donald Trump was just throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks when he first started fooling around with running for president in this election cycle. Trump has toyed with the idea in previous election cycles but backed away and that is one of the reasons cited by JournoListers as an excuse for not taking The Donald seriously this time.

Fair enough. It is very possible that The Donald was just putting himself out there, getting some publicity, throwing out the bait to see if anything would bite. Then came the polls from New Hampshire and Trump was tied for second and Mitt Romney on first. Placing a close second to Mitt Romney in New Hampshire was big news because Mitt Romney is the presumed Republican nominee, he’s a one-time neighbor Massachusetts governor, and Romney must win big in New Hampshire or die once again when the Republican primaries move south.

Mitt Romney must win New Hampshire big and Mitt Romney knows it. The moment the poll was published which showed The Donald moving up along the rail on The Mitt, the Romney people began to dump dirt on Trump. Indeed when Romney announced he’s running for president he took a direct shot at Trump by attacking the birth certificate issue thereby making himself a “serious” candidate in the eyes of Big Media.

So here we have Donald Trump demanding to see a birth certificate from Barack Obama and denouncing in the strongest terms the possibility that the Constitution has been violated and saying someone who is not legally qualified to be president is now president – while on the other side we have Mitt Romney denouncing the birth certificate issue:

"At Long Last Love." Link goes to Netflix where, if you're a member, you can now stream the film which has never been on DVD or videocassette in this country.

Peter Bogdanovich directed the film. It's a musical comedy starring Cybill Shepherd, Burt Reynolds, Madeline Kahn (now deceased), Duilio Del Prete (now deceased), Eileen Brennan, John Hillerman and Mildred Natwick (now deceased).

The film was considered one of the biggest turkeys and flops when it was released in 1975. The critics savaged it. One -- I think Gene Shalit -- said something like 'Cybill Shepherd can't sing, dance or act.'

So how awful is it and how awful is Cybill?

Cybill can sing. I know she took singing lessons throughout her life and was a night club performer in the 80s and beyond. So I was expecting her to have an unpleasant voice that maybe showed a little promise because the film's from 1975. She actually sang quite well. These are live takes, by the way. The actors aren't lip synching to pre-recorded tracks.

I love Madeline Kahn and she can work a song but if I was going to complain about any of the four lead actors singing it would have been Madeline's. Madeline is with Burt at the start of the film, Cybill with Duilio (who's quite good in the film and reminds me of Antonito Banderas). But they realize they're paired up wrong as the film goes along. It's set in the 30s and features Cole Porter songs.

The film has an art decco look and is filmed in color but the color scheme is mainly black and white for the costumes.

I think this is a good film. I urge you to watch yourself and come to your own conclusions. Bogdanovich has said that people had the axes out because of his success, Cybill's and their relationship. I think you'll be inclined to agree because the way the reviews were, Cybill couldn't sing. She has a lovely voice and she's quite charming in the film. A lot of people argue that Burt's best performance is in "Starting Over" but I think this is one of his two best performances.

"Lucky Lady" is a film he did with Gene Hackman and Liza Minelli which also got slammed. I'd be curious to see that one because some of the same critics hated it. I wonder if it would seem as bad?

I think the film ("At Long Lost Love") was hurt by the fact that it was Cole Porter. Supposedly, on Broadway, "Hair" and other musicals had revolutionized the theater. Then along comes this musical and it's using songs from the 30s. Back then, you didn't have Carly Simon or Linda Ronstadt or other well known singers also taking the time to dip into those old song books. Now it doesn't seem shocking but a lot of the reviews I found online that were written in real time express anger and/or dismay over the fact that it didn't have a "modern" soundtrack.

Also true is that musicals had been killed and were dead. "Funny Girl" was probably the last huge success. That was in 1968. Flop after flop had followed (film musicals) including "Paint Your Wagon." America was reeling from Vietnam and Watergate and this probably seemed like so much fluff.

Peter Bogdanovich's work was already under criticism from some for being set in the past and not 'contemporary' (only "What's Up Doc" qualified as contemporary of his films prior to this) and there's an element of that in the reviews as well.

But I find it a strong film and greatly enjoyable.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, April 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protesters turn out in Baghdad and call for Nouri to step down, the UN human rights chief calls for an investigation into the assault on Camp Ashraf, and more. Baghdad has seen protests every Friday since February 25th. Today in Baghdad, AGI reports, "hundreds" are protesting and calling for Nouri al-Maliki to resign. They are doing so in "Liberation Square" (Tahrir Square in downtown Baghdad) and have rejected the notion that they will be penned inside a stadium. Alsumaria TV adds: "Demonstrators chanted "Leave Maliki, Leave" and "wind of change has arrived" in the middle of an intensive presence of the Iraqi security forces," the reporter added. Baghdad Operations had declared on Wednesday that Al Shaab and Al Kashafa Stadiums in Al Rassafa and Al Zawra' Stadium in Karakh were appointed as substitute regions to hold licensed demonstrations instead of Al Tahrir and Al Ferdaws squares. This demonstration is the first of its kind, since the beginning of demonstrations in February 25, as to calling for Prime Minister Al Maliki to step down. Demonstrations slogans have called to halt corruption and to implement reforms and change. These demonstrations were organized by university students and independent educated people thru social networking websites. It is to be noted that security forces had applied tight security measures and curfew to prevent demonstrators from reaching the gatherings. To that, Iraq police opened fire and many people were killed and injured. As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, "AFP reports that Baghdad security forces have announced that protests in the capital from now on will only be allowed in one of three football stadiums. The excuse being offered is complaints from shop keepers about traffic issues but the reality is this is yet another effort to hide the protests away." Kitabat featured an essay Thursday rejecting the demand that protesters gather in stadiums, noting that they would instead keep the voices of the protest close to the ears of the Iraqi officials in the Green Zone and would refuse efforts to isolate the voice of the Iraqi people. Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf observed: Demonstrators gathering in #Baghdad's Tahrir square despite government ban - burning national registration cards in protest about 16 hours ago via web Prashant Rao (AFP) quotes protester Mohammed Abdul Amir speaking to the crowd, "Why should we go to Al-Shaab stadium? Are we going to play a football match with the police? No! We will demonstrate here!" Human rights activist Sarah Abdallah tweets: The demands of the Iraqi people are clear: free all political prisoners, down with #Maliki and end the criminal 8-year US #occupation. #Iraq about 1 hour ago via web Tens of thousands marched through #Baghdad today for the "Friday of the Free," in defiance of the #Maliki regime's ban on protests. #Iraq about 1 hour ago via web At Al Jazeera's live blog of MidEast protests today, Jane Arraf reported that some activists "burned their Iraqi identiy cards in protest against the government. Military and police units deployed at the square did not prevent the gathering". On the subject of protests we're again left with the crazed rantngs of Raed Jarrar (see Sunday's "And the war drags on . . ." for a dissection of his previous crazy). How fitting that his latest revisionary history shows up at Iran's state controlled Press TV -- what would propaganda be without a propaganda mill? Making like Moqtada al-Sadr's girlfriend -- the Eva to Moqtada's Adolph, Raed's again writing about Saturday's protests. If you're wondering, no, he's not written of any of the other over 30 big protests which have taken place across Iraq in the last three months. But his Mookie Moqtada didn't have a hand in those and Raed's all about spreading the love for Mookie: "the prominent nationalist Shia cleric" -- does anyone else see the hilarity in referring to chicken Moqtada hiding in another country (Iran) as a "nationalist"? But, hey, the hilarity is right there the minute you apply "nationalist" to Moqtada. He's attempting to make Iraq a satellite of Iran, don't mistake that for nationalism unless you're grossly uneducated. All of the protests that came before are reduced by Raed to a one and a half sentences: "Iraqis had already been demonstrating in the streets of Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities for a week as of this writing. So far most of the protests have focused on better services". He. Just. Can't. Stop. Lying. Protests have been going on in Iraq since February, not for a week. There's been a sit-in that's gone on non-stop for weeks, day after day. Better services? No. What an insulting thing to say, insulting and uninformed. Iraqi protests this year kicked off in February and kicked off outside of Baghdad. It's amazing because people died in these protests but they're being stripped from the record by Moqtada's Fan Club. As January wound down, Ned Parker. reported on the secret prisons for the Los Angeles Times and Human Rights Watch issued their report on it. Parker's January report on the secret prisons and how they were run by Nouri's security forces, the Baghdad Brigade followed up on his earlier report on how the Brigade was behind the prison that he and the paper exposed in April 2010. All the whilte Nouri insisted that there were no secret prisons in Iraq. Such as February 6th when Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported, "The Iraqi government on Sunday denied a human rights organization's allegation that it has a secret detention center in Baghdad, run by Prime Minister Nur al-Maliki's security forces." The report then quoted Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi stating, "We don't know how such a respectable organization like Human Rights Watch is able to report such lies." Camp Honor is a prison that's under Nouri's control, staffed by people working for him. Amnesty International would also call the use of secret prisons out while Nouri continued to deny them. But while many in the press would play dumb, the Iraqi people knew better. They knew their loved ones were gone, disappeared into Iraq's legal system. That is what began the protests in Iraq: the prisons. It's what fueled them throughout. And that's not "going on for a week as of this writing." From the Feb. 10th snapshot: Alsumaria TV reports protests took place in Babel Province today with one protest calling for the release of prisoners and another calling out the continued lack of public services. Dar Addustour reports the the Council of the Bar Association issued a call for a Baghdad demonstration calling for corruption to be prosecuted, for the Constitution to be followed and sufficient electricity in all the schools. Nafia Abdul-Jabbar (AFP) reports that approximately 500 people (mainly attorneys "but also including some tribal sheikhs") marched and that they also decried the secret prisons. They carried banners which read "Lawyers call for the government to abide by the law and provide jobs for the people" and "The government must provide jobs and fight the corrupt." Bushra Juhi (AP) counts 3,000 demonstrating and calls it "one of the biggest anti-government demonstrations in Iraq" this year. Juhi also notes that attorneys staged smaller protests in Mosul and Basra today. Al Rafidayn reports that five provinces saw protests yesterday as the people demanded reliable public services and an end to government corruption. Noting the Babylon Province protest, the paper quotes Amer Jabk (Federation of Industrialists in Babylon president) stating that the provincial government has not provided any of the services the province needs, that basic services have deteriorated and that heavy rains have not only seen streets closed but entire neighborhoods sinking. Hayder Najm (niqash) observes protests have taken place across Iraq, "The protesters' grievances have been many and varied: the quality and level of basic services, government restrictions on civil liberties and freedom of expression, violations against civil servants, and the rampant financial and administrative corruption within state institutions. [. . .] Eight years after the US invasion of Iraq, the electricity supply in most areas of the country still does not exceed two hours a day, and the country still suffers from poor infrastructure, a weak transport network, and an acute crisis of drinking water and sanitation." An AP report on the protests above included: "This is in solidarity with the Iraqi people," said Kadhim Zubaidi, spokesman for Iraq's lawyers' union in Baghdad. "We want the government to sack the corrupt judges." Noting recent reports by human rights groups revealing secret prisons in Iraq, Zubaidi added: "We also demand that the interior and defence ministries allow us to enter the secret prisons … We want to get information about these prisons." And that's not when the protests started. We can go further back than that. But Raed Jarrar -- as usual -- does not know what he's writing about or is intentionally attempting to deceive. You cannot distort events to suit your own political aims and be considered credible. It just makes you a liar. Raed wants to get to the SOFA possibly being extended and does as he wraps up. To his credit, he shows a stronger understanding of the SOFA at the end of his column than he has prior. He doesn't want the SOFA extended. I don't either. But I'm not going to lie to make my point. Raed states that if the SOFA is extended "without approval by Iraq's legislators" [which appears to mean he's acknowledging at last that Nouri has twice extending the occupation without the permission of the Parliament -- he did so in 2006 and in 2007] "it would be the last straw that would destroy the Iraqi government's legitmacy and end the credibility of the country's political and electoral systems. It would push many Iraqis who have joined the government to boycott the political process and resort again to violence." What would is Raed living in? The last elections concluded March 7, 2010 (early voting started the Thursday before Sunday the 7th). Sunnis turned out in larger numbers and did so because they'd skipped the 2005 national elections in large numbers and felt short changed (to put it mildly) in the years that followed. Were it not for the increased Sunni turnout, the commnetary would have been on how low the turnout was. That's because Shi'ites stayed home in large numbers. You're seeing disenchantment in the turnout already. If the puppet government survived Nouri extending the SOFA in 2006 (to cover the year 2007) and in 2007 (to cover the year 2008), you're going to have to offer some sort of support for your claim that his doing so again will destroy Iraq. In 2008, he did take the matter (then the SOFA, not the UN mandate) to the Parliament. And, try to remember, he promised that the people would get to weigh in. They'd get a referendum on the SOFA. And they could reject it!!!! They could say no!!! They could end the war!!! (They actually couldn't. Had they said "no" in July 2009, per the SOFA, the Iraq War would have continued until the end of 2010 -- read the SOFA.) But that July referendum? Never held. And did the puppet government fall apart? No, it didn't. Repeatedly the occupation's been extended, repeatedly Iraqis have been lied to. There is outrage. There has always been outrage. The puppet government has not fallen. Which isn't to say it wouldn't. It is to say that if Raed wants to assert a claim that it likely will, he's going to have to offer some supporting evidence for his conclusion because, at present, the facts argue otherwise. What has kept the puppet government in control has been the US military on the ground. My guess has always been that it's very likely the puppet government falls when the US finally leaves. If there's a case to be made for it falling while US forces are on the ground in Iraq, Raed needs to make it. But his wet dreams about Moqtada aren't doing it. Nouri attacked Moqtada's forces in Basra and Baghdad. And Moqtada's forces melted away. Many of them ran at the start of the attacks. Though it drove up Moqtada's popularity, it didn't drive up his authority. Again, if you're going to offer predictions, try to provide supporting evidence for them as opposed to distorting events and reality to fit your own personal desires. Reality doesn't need 'improving.' You can't offer an honest take if you distort. And the claim that people might lose faith in the government begs the question of who still has faith in Nouri? The Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq note: These days, Iraqi authorities feel free to carry out arbitrary arrests, physical assault and torture of Iraqi citizens who participate in peaceful demonstrations. In fact, they have begun to recruit and utilize of the expertise of the masterminds who were part of the horrific Baathist regime of Saddam. In doing so, they announce the end of any commitment to human rights stipulated in the Constitution they have offered to the Iraqi people as a social contract. Yesterday, on April 13th at 1:45 pm, armed military\secret-intelligence forces arrived in three vehicles, stormed the offices of the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI) and also the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), for the second time in one month. They arrested OWFI affiliate youth activist Firas Ali, one of the leaders of February 25 Group on Facebook and in Baghdad's Tahrir square. Those who raided the building intimidated all the youth present, calling them terrorists, though they were the organizing team of a group of demonstrators within Baghdad's weekly protests who have clearly shown their peaceful intentions, week after week. The armed forces immediately blindfolded Firas Ali, handcuffed him, and took him away, where demonstrators are detained and tortured with the same feared methods used under Saddam's reign. The armed forces had no court order for the arrest of Firas Ali, or for breaking into the offices. Alaa Nabil, another youth leader of February 25 Group, was arrested in much the same manner on April 8th, and he remains in custody. It is thought that he is jailed in one of the prisons close to the Baghdad International Airport, along with 17 other demonstrators from Tahrir, but it is impossible to be sure. The Maliki government thinks it can silence the youth, determined to end what have become the signature characteristics of its rule - oppression and corruption. All the Saddam-style violations, group arrests, and torture will not deter the youth from demanding an end to corruption and to start to an era of equality and freedom, expected in any civilized society. The OWFI demands the immediate release of Firas Ali and Alaa Nabil. OWFI reserves the right to take to court all those who have given orders for arbitrary arrest, and those who physically assaulted the youth activists. The OWFI also warns those who consider the further torture of freedom lovers such as Firas Ali and Alaa Nabil… They will be pursued, brought to trial for their crimes against humanity, and thrown in the same prisons they now misuse. We warn the Maliki government to stop denying the human rights of the demonstrators, and we demand an immediate official response, stating any legitimate charges against our activists, their place of detention, and physical condition. We also hold them directly responsible for any and all physical abuse or torture which our activists have been subjected to. Down with the Baathist oppression Down with the oppressive and corrupt despots No more torture of youth activists… Enough is enough! Yanar Mohammed OWFI president That's what Iraqis face to protest. In Defense of Marxism posts an alert from Iraqi union organizer Akram Nadir: Firas Ali, an Iraqi political activist, was detained at the office of the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq, Baghdad, at about 2pm on 13 April. A protester, Haidar Shihab Ahmad Abdel Latif, is believed to have been detained on 1 April on Tahrir Square, Baghdad. Alaa Nabil, another youth leader of the February 25 Group, was also arrested on April 8, and remains in custody. It is feared that they and other detained activists are at high risk of torture. Political activist Firas 'Ali, 30 years old, is reported to have been detained by members of the armed forces early in the afternoon of 13 April, at the Baghdad office of the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions in Iraq. An eyewitness told Amnesty International: "Two men in plain clothes and three soldiers asked about Firas 'Ali. They did not show an arrest warrant. Later I could see Firas 'Ali blindfolded and handcuffed being forced by soldiers into a vehicle and taken away." Friends of Firas Ali have not been able to contact him via his mobile phone since his detention and his whereabouts remain unknown. Amnesty International fears that Firas 'Ali is at high risk of torture. Haidar Shihab Ahmad Abdel Latif, a 24 year old casual worker, attended protests at Tahrir Square on 1 April for the first time. He was with two friends who briefly left him at about 11.30, but when they returned about 10 minutes later he was no longer there. There were no witnesses to his detention. However, Iraqi activists have told Amnesty International that on previous occasions protesters have been "discretely" led away from the protests and detained. A member of his family who is a political activist told Amnesty International he fears that Haidar Shihab Ahmad Abdel Latif was taken instead of him. His family has searched at hospitals and made inquiries with the authorities but has still no information of his whereabouts. Alaa Nabil, another youth leader of the February 25 Group, was also arrested on April 8, and he remains in custody. It is believed he is being kept j in one of the prisons close to the Baghdad International Airport, together with 17 other demonstrators from Tahrir, but it is impossible to be sure. PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in English or Arabic. We provide a Model Letter below to be sent to the following email addresses: info@pmo.iq This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and admin@cabinet.iq This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it shakawa@humanrights.gov.iq This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and info@humanrights.gov.iq This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Add also the address of your nearest Iraqi embassy that can be found at the following link: http://embassy.goabroad.com/embassies-of/Iraq (Please send appeals before 26 May 2011 to the Iraqi embassy in your country) Please send copies also to: akram_nadir_1999@yahoo.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and editor@marxist.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it so that we can keep those campaigning for their release informed. For more on the protests and the risks protesters face in Iraq, see Amnesty International issued the report [PDF format warning] "DAYS OF RAGE: PROTESTS AND REPRESSION IN IRAQ." See Tuesday's snapshot for more on the report and Mona Dohle covers the report today at Bikya Masr. Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing injured four people, a Kirkuk sticky bombing injured one Iraqi military officer, a Mosul grenade attack injured a police officer, a Mosul roadside bombing injured an Iraqi military officer, and, dropping back to Thursday, a Kirkuk sticky bombing left two people injured. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, UN observers confirmed that 34 residents of Camp Ashraf were killed in last Friday's assault. Louis Charbonneau and Todd Eastham (Reuters) report that United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay has noted that "most were shot and some appear to have been crushed to death, presumably by vehicles" and is now calling for an independent investigation into the assault. Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) adds: The Iraqi military, which rings the perimeter of the 19-sq.-mi. (49 sq km) camp, denies using firearms and says only three residents were killed -- when they threw themselves in front of military vehicles. Major General Ali Ghaidan, commander of Iraqi ground forces, told a group of reporters briskly bused to the vicinity of (but not into) Camp Ashraf that violence broke out after security forces sought to give parts of the camp back to farmers who allegedly owned it before Iraq's then dictator Saddam Hussein gave the land to the MEK in the 1980s. He insisted that only batons and water cannons were used. Government spokesman Ali Dabbagh sought to explain the shooting deaths by telling Agence France-Presse that "the dead were killed by their own guards because they were trying to escape." "The Iraqi military were well aware of the risks attached to launching an operation like this in Ashraf," said Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement. "There is no possible excuse for this number of casualties. There must be a full, independent and transparent inquiry, and any person found responsible for use of excessive force should be prosecuted." The news that Nouri's government did kill 34 residents of Camp Ashraf and lied -- and LIED -- about it is news. Unless you're the New York Times which only has room for three brief sentences by Michael S. Schmidt on the issue. Al Kamen (Washington Post) notes that US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher will be leading a visit to Camp Ashraf in June. Considering the abusive rulers who've fallen in the last fifty or so years, you'd think the paper would want to have their documentation ready in real time for the inevitable. Human Rights Watch issued the following today: (New York) - Iraq should ensure that a promised investigation into deadly clashes between the Iraqi army and Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq dissidents at Camp Ashraf be thorough, independent, and transparent, Human Rights Watch said today. On April 14, 2011, the United Nations said that 34 camp residents were killed and dozens wounded during clashes six days earlier, on April 8. Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the army used excessive force against the unarmed Iranian dissidents. Iraq's military initially said three Ashraf residents were killed and the Iraqi Defense Ministry said on April 12 that it would investigate the incident. Authorities have still not made public the results of an investigation into a July 2009 raid by Iraqi security forces on Camp Ashraf that killed at least seven Mojahedin-e Khalq members. No one is known to have been held to account for those deaths. "The residents of Camp Ashraf don't need more lip service about yet another investigation," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Iraqi authorities need to reveal the results of the 2009 investigation and appoint credible independent experts to look into this latest incident." UN human rights spokesperson Rupert Colville said on April 14 that the UN team had seen 28 bodies at Camp Ashraf, and that most had been shot, including several women. Six bodies were missing, Colville said. Details of the incident remain murky, with camp residents and security forces blaming each other for the deaths and violence in widely different accounts of what happened. The Iranian exiles said that Iraqi security forces invaded their camp, killing 34 unarmed civilians and wounding more than 300, in an unprovoked attack that involved security forces opening fire and crushing people under Humvees. On April 14, Ali al-Dabbagh, the spokesperson for the Iraqi prime minister's office, told Agence France-Presse that "our security forces believe that the dead were killed by their own guards because they were trying to escape ... They had already committed similar acts in the past." Iraq's military had initially said three dissidents were killed when security forces responded to rock-throwing and threats by residents during an operation to reclaim land from the camp and return it to farmers. The deaths are the latest in a series of violent incidents at Camp Ashraf, where members of an Iranian dissident group, Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization, have lived for over two decades. The Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein allowed the Mojahedin-e Khalq to base itself in Iraq in 1986. In 2011 more than 3,000 persons remained in Camp Ashraf, in Diyala province, north of Baghdad; they surrendered their weapons to US forces following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many Iraqis have alleged that the group's members actively participated in campaigns against opponents of Saddam Hussein's government, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government has indicated its intention to shut down the camp. The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that "law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty." The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provide that law enforcement officials "shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force" and may use force "only if other means remain ineffective." When the use of force is unavoidable, law enforcement officials must "exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence." Amnesty International also weighed in today: Amnesty International has warned Iraqi authorities against taking any unnecessary military action that would put civilian lives in danger, amid reports of a military build-up inside a camp for Iranian exiles north of Baghdad. Amnesty International has received reports that new troop movements and military construction are taking place inside the camp, only days after an assault on the camp by Iraqi security forces on 8 April left over 30 camp residents dead and many others wounded. "Camp Ashraf's residents are looking on in fear and trepidation as Iraqi troops appear to be preparing for a new assault on them and their homes," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme. "The Iraqi government must not allow a repeat of last week's deadly attacks and ensure that Iraqi forces refrain from taking any military action that would further endanger civilian lives." "Iraqi forces are supposed to be stationed at the Camp to protect the residents, not to assault or intimidate them and restrict their movement." Camp Ashraf, located in Diyala province around 60 km north of Baghdad, is home to some 3,400 Iranian exiles and refugees, many of them members and supporters of the the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition group outlawed in Iran. According to PMOI spokespeople, on 14 April, several Iraqi engineering battalions completed a 6-kilometre-long embankment on the northern edge of Camp Ashraf's main road. The embankment cuts across the camp from east to west and is reportedly wide enough for military vehicles to patrol along its length. Control towers have also been set up along the embankment. "Given the nature and scope of these new military installations, we're very concerned what Iraqi security forces may be planning," said Malcolm Smart. "Excessive force must not be used against Camp Ashraf's residents, who are unarmed and include many women and children." On 8 April, 34 camp residents were killed when Iraqi security forces attempted to take greater control of the camp. Many of the dead, six women and 28 men, died of gunshot wounds inflicted by Iraqi security forces using live ammunition. Others appear to have been deliberately run over by military vehicles. Iraqi officials maintain that their forces took action to put down a "riot" in the camp and deny that their troops opened fire despite the strong evidence to the contrary. On 14 April, the Iraqi authorities released six men who they had detained during the 8 April military operation. Shortly after their release, the men told Amnesty International that they had been beaten and threatened with deportation to Iran during the course of their detention. Talking to Amnesty International from the camp on 14 April, one of the men said that Iraqi soldiers were then in the process of surrounding the camp. Amnesty International has repeatedly called on Iraqi authorities not to forcibly evict or repatriate Camp Ashraf's residents, some of whom are refugees who would be at grave risk of torture and other serious human rights violations, including execution, if they were to be forcibly returned to Iran. Meanwhile a former UN employee has been convicted in the US and could face up to 30 years in prison if he received the maximum sentence for each count he was found guilty of (no one expects that to happen). Scott Ritter was a voice of . . . something. Not the peace movement because he sneered at the peace movement and the notion of peace. (He also got bitchy in an interview where he mocked and attacked Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan.) Ritter had little to offer the peace movement but was embraced by elements of it and especially elements of the antiwar movement (the two are not the same thing). At this site, we noted him from time to time but were not 'followers' or 'groupies' and then we stopped noting him when a friend with CNN called me to ask what I was thinking? I was unaware that Scott Ritter had twice been arrested for attempting to have sexual relations with an underage girl and that he'd copped a plea in at least one of those arrests. When this was noted, we drew a strong line between Pig Ritter and ourselves and we mentioned only when it was required that he be called out such as in the May 29, 2007 snapshot: "You have Cindy Sheehan running around, a symbol of the peace movement. A symbol of what? Who is she? Who nominated her to be the spokesperson? She did one brave thing. I'm all for what Cindy Sheehan did last August. But people say, 'She sacrificed so much.' She didn't sacrifice anything." That lovely statement was made (or snorted) by the pig Scott Ritter when speaking to Colorado Springs Indy (an alternative weekly) in 2006. From his stye, he snorted that and he snorted a lot more. For some reason, Ritter is built up as a hero by some 'left' types. Apparently heroic is having the mainstream media report that you, over 40 years old, were twice arrested for trying to arrange meet ups with underage girls? That is the reality of the Scott Ritter (and when CNN offered him the opportunity to explain the first arrest, he refused to do so). Here's another reality of Scott Ritter: Katrina vanden Heuvel keeps publishing him. In the magazine and via Nation Books, she publishes Ritter who does not move books. Now you may, as some wrongly do, assume Ritter is a lefty. Until 2004, Ritter admits he voted Republican every time -- which he will no doubt return to doing in 2008 but how 'nice' of The Nation to give a twice busted Republican an outlet. Now here's how polite society worked once upon a time, when someone was reported to have been twice busted for pedophilia, that was really it for them. They didn't get write ups, they didn't pen op-eds. They weren't invited on programs to chat. But for some reason, Pig Ritter is seen as a voice the 'left' needs to adopt. Scott Ritter was allowed to repeatedly attack Cindy Sheehan on his joint-tour in 2006 (The Sky is Falling Tour -- DVD set retails for $19.99 unless you're going for the NC-17 version) and everyone looked the other way and most of the press (big and small) just chuckled. That's why he felt brave enough to issue the nonsense in an interview proper (and one that didn't require him to be handcuffed -- how novel that must have been for him). The peace movement needs to be inclusive, no question, but that doesn't translate as: "Because we have the Peace Mom, we need to have the Pedophile Man." That's not inclusion, that's stupidity on ever level (including legal liabilities should anything happen to an underage female). We washed our hands of him a long time ago in this community. He is "pig" when noted here for any reason. His name is being mentioned here (for the first time since he went public in attacking Sheehan) only because there are some who seem unable to believe it could be true. Well it is. And it's equally true that you need to ask your outlets why they have repeatedly featured a man who will not explain his criminal busts and allows to stand the mainstream media's reporting that they were for attempting to hook up with young (underage) girls online. It is amazing that the same independent media that wants to scream 'crackpot' and 'crazy' to make sure they are not associated with certain groups is perfectly happy to break bread with a pedophile. Repeatedly. While we publicly called him out, many others looked the other way -- including Katrina vanden Heuvel, Amy Goodman and Laura Flanders. Flanders would take offense to Gary Glitter's song being used by some sports team in 2008 because of Glitter's similar convictions yet she never called out her frequent guest Scott Ritter. As we pointed out many times, if a young girl is molested, assaulted or raped by Ritter, those who presented him as a person of trust would share in culpability. Mere months ago, Glenn Greenwald was presenting Scott Ritter as a trusted voice and a victim wrongly picked upon because, Glenn insisted, the two arrests happened when Bush was in the White House and they were trumped up charges resulting from the fact that Ritter was speaking out. Greenwald was apparently unaware that the arrests took place before Ritter spoke out. He was also unaware that in the fall of 2009, months after Barack was in the White House, Ritter was again arrested for the same thing. AFP reports, "A former UN weapons inspector nabbed in an online sex sting was convicted on Thursday on six counts, including unlawful contact with a minor, for exchanging explicit messages with a 15-year-old girl in a chat room and then performing a sex act on himself." Subrina Dhammi (WNYT -- link has video and text) has him on camera as he repeatedly insisted of his multiple felony convictions "an extraordinary disappointing decision and it will be appealed" and, unlike in the footage the jury was shown of Ritter jerking off -- he kept his clothes on for Dhammi, despite a camera being present. As Betty noted last night, Ritter endorsed Barack Obama in 2008. Where there was sexism and attacks on women -- whether it was Hillary Clinton or Lara Logan or any other woman -- you could find Ritter's work endorsed. We've already noted Glenn Greenwald's embrace of Ritter. in addition there's crazy ass Ray McGovern who joined Glenn and others in attacking two women who may have been raped by Julian Assange. Crazy Ass McGovern was treating Ritter as a "trusted source" only months ago and slamming Hillary for refusing to meet with the twice arrrested sexual offender. Those guys stick together, make no mistake. When you exist to hate and degrade and attack women, you tend to ban together. Which is why Ritter's work could be found at so many faux left outlets including Consortium News. Strangely, despite his many, many appearances on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman 'forgot' to include Pig Ritter's conviction in today's headlines. Ritter will be sentenced next month and, hopefully, head off to prison. His after prison-life will include being a registered sex offender which will limit some of his media appearances since many interns are under the age of 18 and he won't be able to be around them. iraq afp prashant rao kitabat jane arraf al jazeera npr alsumaria tv the washington post al kamen the new york times michael s. schmidt human rights watch amnesty international