654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation

Stories

Unknown News | Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq :

Estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is based on this study, published in Britain’s most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq’s normal death rate.

US authorities, including President Bush himself, have loudly complained that the study is based on “flawed methodology” and “pretty well discredited,” but as often happens when Bush speaks, that’s simply untrue. The study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and family members were able to show a death certificate to document 80% of the deaths they described. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. It’s the same method used by the US Centers for Disease Control to estimate deaths from disease outbreak anywhere in the world, the same method routinely trusted by the US and UK when counting deaths from warfare, civil unrest, or other situations anywhere in the world.

Based on the study’s estimate of 654,965 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation, we have extended this rate of civilian deaths (16,374 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published. Of course, we will adjust this figure when more accurate or credible information becomes available.

. US and coalition military deaths and US military injuries in Iraq are announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tracked by the good folks at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. Our heading “seriously injured” reflects DoD listing of injuries described as “Wounded in action, [did] not return to duty within 72 hours,” and excludes injuries wherein troops return to duty within 72 hours.

The officially-announced number of US injuries is deceptive, however, because the US military does not include in its figures service members who are evacuated “from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses not caused directly by enemy bullets or bombs.” This would leave out, for example, soldiers sickened by radiation or injured in transport accidents.

According to this article by Salon reporter Mark Benjamin, an additional 25,289 service members had been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses, but not included in the official numbers. Based on Salon’s article, dated December 2005 and including injuries through the first 34 months of occupation, we have extrapolated this rate of un-reported military injuries (743 injuries per month) over subsequent months of the extended occupation. Of course, we will adjust this figure when more accurate or credible information becomes available.

Coalition injuries are not tracked, and posted number reflects an estimate, per ratios explained below.

. US and coalition civilian deaths in Iraq are tracked by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

Where no credible data on serious injuries to citizens or troops has been made public, our rough estimate uses a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops, 1.8:1 for civilians.

Deaths and injuries included are generally only those resulting directly from military actions — bombs, missiles, bullets, etc. Civilians’ deaths and injuries from the chaos of Afghan and Iraqi day-to-day life after the invasions, from disease, from malnutrition, from depleted uranium, from post-traumatic stress disorder, and other incidental effects of warfare are not included.

Numbers are updated often, so if you find more recent or more credible numbers, please let us know. Our email address is unknownnews at inbox.com.

Ken Starr Lives

Stories

Crooks and Liars » He’s back! This Time it’s Free Speech:

Kenneth Starr will take the side of an Alaska school board against a student who displayed a banner that said: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” off school property.

Frederick was suspended in 2002 after he unfurled the 14-foot-long banner — a reference to marijuana use — just outside school grounds as the Olympic torch relay moved through the Alaskan capital headed for the Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers.

Principal Deborah Morse ordered the 18-year-old senior to take down the sign, but he refused. That led to a 10-day suspension for violating a school policy by promoting illegal drug use. (h/t Joe)

New Yorker To Revamp Web Site – 12/08/2006:

Stories

EVEN VENERABLE TITLES BELIEVE IN makeovers. That’s why there’s a new New Yorker Web site coming.

A relaunch of the famed weekly publication’s Internet address will appear before the end of February, confirmed a spokesperson for the Conde Nast publication. Web editor Blake Eskin and deputy editor Pamela McCarthy are teaming up to develop the site, and they have invited staffers throughout the publication to offer ideas.

The news originally appeared in yesterday’s WWD, a sister publication to The New Yorker.

A spokeswoman pointedly refused to confirm other details of the story, however–including speculation that the site would include blogs from several of the magazine’s writers, first vetted by its legendary fact-checking network.

She echoed David Remnick, the editor in chief, when he told the fashion title that “the site will reflect the values of the magazine” and “everything is up for grabs.”

Conde Nast acquired the social-news site Reddit in late October, similar to digg.com, with the strategy to integrate its structure into other online properties.

“We’re looking at various ways to leverage the Reddit technology across the various Conde Nast sites,” says Jennifer Miller, a CondeNet spokesperson.

Gassed His Own People

Stories

Gassed His Own People:

The Justice Department announced new rules yesterday that will make it harder for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against companies, bending to intense pressure from business groups that claim the government has overreached in its pursuit of financial malfeasance.

In presenting the revised rules, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty called the changes a substantial and direct response to a lobbying drive by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others.

Since devastating bankruptcies at Enron and WorldCom prompted Congress to pass a stringent corporate accountability law four years ago, business interests increasingly have pushed back on efforts to police their operations, arguing that the government has imposed too many costs on companies with too few benefits for investors.

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia – New York Times:

Stories

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia – New York Times:

December 1, 2006
Cheating on an Ethics Test? It’s ‘Topic A’ at Columbia
By KAREN W. ARENSON

Cheating is not unheard of on university campuses. But cheating on an open-book, take-home exam in a pass-fail course seems odd, and all the more so in a course about ethics.

Yet Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism is looking into whether students may have cheated on the final exam in just such a course, “Critical Issues in Journalism.” According to the school’s Web site, the course “explores the social role of journalism and the journalist from legal, historical, ethical, and economic perspectives,” with a focus on ethics.

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the journalism school, said that students had to sign on to a Columbia Web site to gain access to the exam, and that once they did, had 90 minutes to write a couple of essays. But he was unwilling to detail how the cheating might have occurred.

Mr. Lemann said that no student had been formally accused of any violation, but that the issue had become “Topic A” at the school.

The situation was reported yesterday by RadarOnline.com.

The course was taught by Samuel G. Freedman, a professor of journalism at the school who also contributes columns on education and religion to The New York Times. Mr. Freedman confirmed yesterday evening that “there are allegations of cheating.”

“We are looking into them,” he said, adding that he did not want to comment further because of privacy concerns.

Students in the course, which is required of all students in Columbia’s basic journalism master’s program, have been told they must attend a specially scheduled additional session of the course today in connection with the exam. About 200 students took the course this fall.

“We have encountered a serious problem with the final exam, and will not register a passing grade in the course for anyone who does not attend,” David A. Klatell, vice dean at the school, wrote in an e-mail message, which was forwarded to a reporter by a student. Mr. Klatell did not respond to several telephone and e-mail requests for comment.

Mr. Lemann said that he was surprised that students might have been concerned about how they scored on the pass-fail exam, and that exams and grades at the school were rare.

“We are not a very grade-intensive institution,” he said. “Our school is run on a pass-fail basis.”

“Our students are strivers,” he added. “But they are striving to get good clips. It is not like law school, where fine differences in points make all the difference in the world.”

Because freedumb isn’t free!

Stories

Welcome to AJC! | ajc.com:

Because freedumb isn’t free! We just had to fight for it, quit asking me why and making me think, you’re making my head hurt. Besides, dissent is treason. I know, I know, the original argument was about WMD, and that wasn’t anywhere to be found. We can’t dwell on the past now, we must move on. Troops are on the ground now, and we need to show support. The message is that you should say whatever you have to say to get a war started, and we will feel obligated to keep it going. That’s just how it is. Don’t think we won’t get you later on for lying! In the meantime, let’s blow some limbs around! WooHoo! You know, you should go over there and freedomize something, then see if you ask why. Take a freedom bullet, put it in your freedom gun, and send some freedom into someone. Maybe you can get some freedom in you, too. Then, you can come home and vote. Yep. Haven’t you heard? Ever since Iraq threatened our freedom, of course we couldn’t vote or speak freely, but since we went over there and fought to keep us free, the Iraqis were forced to stop screwing with our democratic processes, and we are free once again. Go Freedom! Fly on, oh proud Eagle!

Is there nothing Neocons won’t politicize?

Stories

Crooks and Liars »

This is absolutely ridiculous.

 Flynt Leverett — former CIA analyst, NSC member and established foreign policy expert — has written an op-ed for the NYT bashing the Bush admin. for it’s failed policies towards Iran. The WH, in typical ruthless and authoritarian form, has pressured the CIA to heavily redact his draft on the grounds that it would reveal national security secrets — something the CIA disagrees with — and have even threatened him with criminal prosecution. Leverett, visibly distraught at his press conference today, has countered that this claim is a “fraudulent” and deliberate attempt to silence a respected critic by politicizing the CIA review process.

Video WMP | Video MOV

“It is fraudulent. It is an abuse of the pre-publication review process to silence an established critic of their policies at a time when they are under maximum political pressure to change those disastrous policies.”

Leverett’s full report can be found here (.pdf). The Washington Note has more, including an official statment from Leverett. I wonder when the swiftboating will begin? Tony Snow was asked about it at todays briefing and, like usual, he played dumb.

Technorati Tags:

powered by performancing firefox

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks

Stories

TULLYVISION – Is the FBI doing its best to combat terrorism? Highest-ranking Arab-American agent says no.:

Lawyer: Was there any relationship between the first World Trade Center bombing and the 9/11 attacks?

Lewis: I’m aware of no immediate relationship other than all emanates out of the Middle East, al-Qaida linkage, I believe. Not something I’ve studied recently that I’m conversant with.