|
| Who Is Responsible? June 2, 2006 Rep. John Murtha, a former Marine who served his country in war, says the deaths of as many as two dozen Iraqi civilians and an ensuing cover-up threaten to do more harm to U.S. efforts in Iraq than even the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. “This is the kind of war you have to win the hearts and minds of the people,” Murtha, D-Pa., said Sunday. “And we're set back every time something like this happens. This is worse than Abu Ghraib.” He was comparing the shootings last November at Haditha, a city in western Iraq, with the revelations that U.S. military personnel had abused Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, a U.S.-run prison outside of Baghdad. The prison scandal severely damaged the U.S. effort to win over the Arab world. A bomb was claimed to have rocked a military convoy in Haditha on Nov. 19, killing a Marine. The Marines then shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot other people, according to numerous reports. Then, according to evidence being gathered, the Marines planted rifles and other items on the victims in order to justify the killings. Murtha said high-level reports he received indicated that no one fired upon the Marines and there was no military action against the U.S. forces after the initial explosion. Yet the deaths were not seriously investigated until March because an early probe was stifled within days of the incident. Murtha has criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the war. He repeated his view that the war cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions, which he said were damaged by such incidents involving the U.S. A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, told The Associated Press on Friday that evidence gathered so far strongly indicated that the Haditha killings were unjustified. Early this year, a videotape of the aftermath of the incident, showing the bodies of women and children, was obtained by Time magazine and Arab television stations. The military then undertook another investigation. Obviously, anyone who has been subjected to attack will be frightened and the troops and followers may react in a manner that appears to be illegal. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is making such claims to justify his troops’ retaliation against civilians following an attempt on his life - and he is now being tried by the courts! Saddam may not have specifically ordered the killing of those he believed made the attempt on his life - but he is being held responsible. Should U.S. President George W. Bush be held to the same type of accountability? Elect, Don't Appoint!! | June 2, 2006 The editorial writers at The Arizona Republic newspaper are now suggesting that the state legislature put a constitutional question on the ballot to deprive the voting public of the right to elect certain public officials. That newspaper thinks the democratic principle of voting for such positions as State Treasurer, School Superintendent and others are wasted on the ignorant mass of voters! About 25 years ago that same newspaper endorsed a constitutional amendment (and the public subsequently approved it) that judges should be appointed by some all knowing board and the governor - instead of being elected. The result of that has been the establishment of numerous limited jurisdiction courts in which the judges can do just about anything they want without reprisal from the voters. The judicial system in Arizona has become a complicated mockery of speedy (?) justice (?) that even trained attorneys do not understand. If a judge is a screw-up under the appointment system, it is virtually impossible to remove him or her from the bench. Under the non-elected judicial system, the rules are changed on an almost monthly basis. Arizona voters were totally misled when they changed the Constitution to allow appointment of judges. Instead of speedy justice and legal principles being involved that require specific actions by the courts, the procedures are long and drawn out. The ever-increasing court cases testifies to this fact! The same results will evolve if the Arizona Constitution is amended to exclude voter participation in electing any public officials. True - the voters don’t always know everything about a candidate or even the job when they go to vote. But when an “elected” official screws up and is not doing the job correctly, someone will step forward who knows the right way and run for that office. The candidate will spend time and money to educate the voters about the mishandled post and the public will decide who is right and who is wrong - at the poles - on election day! The system of appointments (instead of elections) means that wrong-doing will be covered up by those who do the appointing and nobody will be standing as a watch-dog over the post! |