Special Section on the Trial of President Saddam Hussein
Lynching Saddam
Gabriele Zamparini, The cat's dream
June 21, 2006 On June 12, 2006 after reporting: BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An American lawyer on Saddam Hussein's defense team lashed out at the court Monday, saying it was not giving defenders enough time and was intimidating witnesses. Curtis Doebbler chided the chief judge for not responding to a series of defense motions, including ones challenging the court's legitimacy and seeking documents. He asked for a break in the proceedings until those issues were resolved.the Associated Press concluded: "The perceived fairness of the trial is a crucial issue, since U.S. and Iraqi officials have hoped that showing justice toward Saddam will help heal the deep Shiite-Sunni divisions that have exploded since his regime's fall."Today, June 21, 2006, the BBC reports: Saddam defence lawyer shot dead Do the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, the European Union, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the "liberal media" (among others) have anything to say about this peculiar form of "justice"? Or should we assume that in the New World Order we have accepted the pre-emptive concept of justice: lynching! Lynching Saddam – Part 2: Juan Cole’s informed comment
|
June 23, 2006 Lynching Saddam – Part 2: Juan Cole’s informed comment Following the murder of one of the main lawyers defending prisoner of war President Saddam Hussein in that lynching circus the US’ government exported to Iraq (even Kafka would have not dared calling that thing a "trial"), one of the most interesting comments comes from Juan Cole. The favourite of much part of the western anti-war movement spent as many as 111 words to comment: Another of Saddam's defense attorneys was assassinated. That tribunal, which at one time seemed as though it would be source of good news for the Bush administration, has been handled so badly that it has become nothing short of an embarrassment. Three defense lawyers killed, and one witness alleging that some of the men Saddam is alleged to have had killed at Dujail are still alive. Saddam even emerged after the February bombing of the golden dome at Samarra and the subsequent faith-based massacres between Shiite and Sunni as a voice of national unity. To give the old mass murderer the occasion to grandstand that way. It is incompetence, criminal incompetence. (1)The former (?) head of state overthrown by a foreign, military, illegal and immoral invasion that’s destroyed the whole state of Iraq and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, is called by Cole’s informed comment"Saddam" for three times and finally "the old mass murderer". Cole's Conclusion: "It is incompetence, criminal incompetence". This is the same Juan Cole who wrote last November, about the US’ use of White Phosphorous in Fallujah: "This is a public relations issue, not an issue of war crimes". (2) Maybe Juan Cole should listen to the US National Public Radio more often. American historian and journalist William Blum wrote a few days ago: National Public Radio foreign correspondent Loren Jenkins, serving in NPR's Baghdad bureau, met earlier this month with a senior Shiite cleric, a man who was described in the NPR report as "a moderate" and as a person trying to lead his Shiite followers into practicing peace and reconciliation. He had been jailed by Saddam Hussein and forced into exile. Jenkins asked him: "What would you think if you had to go back to Saddam Hussein?" The cleric replied that he'd "rather see Iraq under Saddam Hussein than the way it is now." (3)Besides Cole’s agenda, his followers in the West and the anti-war movement in its whole should remember the words William Blum writes at the end of his report: "And many Iraqis actually supported him [Saddam Hussein]". Legitimate, respectable different opinions and point of views can and should go together with intellectual honesty and historical truth. That’s the only possible way to build opposition to this vicious and rapacious empire. All the rest is propaganda’s smokescreen we all should be very careful of. NOTES: 1) Juan Cole, June 22, 2006, Informed Comment 2) Open letter to Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan By Gabriele Zamparini 3) The Anti-Empire Report. Some things you need to know before the world ends, William Blum, June 21, 2006 Lynching Saddam – Part 4: the NYT enjoys that bloody show!
|
June 25, 2006 The Washington official reactions to the lynching of prisoner of war President Saddam Hussein comes - as usual - from the pages of the New York Times: No arrests have been made in any of the trial-related assassinations, including those of a judge and his son, also a court employee. Some American officials strongly suspect that members of Mr. Hussein's Baath Party may have played a role with the aim of discrediting the court. Indeed, each killing has been followed by an upsurge of demands, from Western human rights organizations as well as Baathists, for the trial to be moved out of Iraq. (1)But once again, something doesn't seem right here. A few days ago the same New York Times wrote: Iraqi witnesses said that Mr. Obeidi was transported in a convoy of vehicles by people known as belonging to the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia known to be affiliated with the rebellious anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr. Witnesses said they wore flak jackets and shouted "terrorist" at one point. Mr. Obeidi was taken to a spot called Hamidiya, about six miles from his house, according to witnesses. His body was dumped in a place for construction debris, apparently retrieved again, and then dumped in a lot in Sadr City. It was then taken to the Tahtheeb police station there, an area known as a stronghold of the Mahdi Army, riddled with bullets in the head, chest and back. (2)What did it happen between this first NYT's story published on June 21 and the other NYT's story, published four days later on June 25? Do "some American officials" have new elements to tell the NYT that they "strongly suspect that members of Mr. Hussein's Baath Party may have played a role with the aim of discrediting the court."? And why All The News That's Fit to Print does not ask "some American officials" to demonstrate what they say with facts and evidence instead of publishing undocumented speculations? Does the NYT believe in "conspiracy theories"? Let's go back to facts. Two years ago, on 3 July 2004, Al-Jazeera reported: Shaikh Raid al-Kadhimi, a senior preacher among Iraq's Shia, warned the lawyers, whom he described as "mercenary lawyers", against coming to Iraq.Earlier this year, Reuters reported about the resignation of the chief judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein: The killings of two defense lawyers have already prompted questions over the U.S.-backed decision to hold the trial in the midst of bitter sectarian and ethnic conflict. (...) A source close to Kurdish judge Rizgar Amin himself told Reuters that tribunal officials were trying to talk him out of his decision but he was reluctant to stay on because Shiite leaders had criticized him for being "soft" on Saddam in court. "He tendered his resignation to the court a few days ago but the court rejected it. Now talks are under way to convince him to go back on his decision," he said on Saturday. "He’s under a lot of pressure, the whole court is under political pressure. "I am not sure if he will go back on his decision," said the source, who is familiar with Amin’s thinking. "He had complaints from the government that he was being too soft in dealing with Saddam. They want things to go faster." The last straw, the source said, was a letter criticizing his handling of the trial from radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, whose movement is part of the ruling Islamist bloc. (4)Just a few months ago, the Associated Press reported about shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr: The cleric, speaking from the holy city of Najaf, said Saddam Hussein should not be tried but executed immediately. He criticized what he called American intervention in the trial and causing to take too much time. (5)It's also interesting to notice that while Gulf News reported: Shopowners told reporters that three gunmen had dumped the body at a roundabout under a poster of a senior Shiite cleric killed by Saddam's agents in 1999. The cleric is the father of Moqtada Al Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army. "They fired into the air and said 'this is the fate of Baathists!'," said a shopkeeper.the Independent wrote: Mr Obaidi is the eighth person associated with the court case to be killed. Witnesses described how three masked gunmen threw his corpse under the poster of a prominent Shia cleric executed by Saddam Hussein's regime in 1999 while shouting "This is the fate of all Baathists." Police were unable to confirm reports that his abductors were wearing police uniforms. (6)I wonder why the Independent didn't report that the cleric in that poster was"the father of Moqtada Al Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army." Once again, I reiterate my questions with the hope that other people will join: Will the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the European Union, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the "liberal media" (among others) have the courage and honesty to demand the (American directed) "trial" to be stopped? Notes 1) Hussein Thinks He Will Get Death Penalty but Sees Escape Hatch, His Lawyer Says, EDWARD WONG, NYT, June 25, 2006 2) Third Lawyer in Hussein Trial Is Killed, By JOHN F. BURNS and CHRISTINE HAUSER, NYT, June 21, 2006 3) Saddam's lawyers threatened, By Ahmed Janabi, Al-Jazeera, Saturday 03 July 2004 4) Iraq tries to convince Saddam judge to stay. Amin tenders resignation amid claims of government interference, REUTERS, Jan. 15, 2006 5) Iraqi Shi'ite cleric calls U.S., Britain and Israel a 'Triad of Evil', By The Associated Press, 11/03/2006 6) Saddam's lawyer is tortured and murdered, By Kim Sengupta, The Independent, 22 June 2006 Lynchng Saddam – Part 5: United Nations and Saddam’s Lawyers’ call
|
June 27, 2006 The United Nations reported: A United Nations expert on human rights and legal systems today called on the Iraqi Government to launch an independent investigation into the killing of a lawyer working for the defence team of former President Saddam Hussein. (…) Leandro Despouy, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers said (…) "This is the third killing of a member of Saddam Hussein's defence team since the trial started in October last year," (…) In that light, the statement said that the Special Rapporteur reiterated his criticisms of the Iraqi High Tribunal, namely, that its jurisdiction is limited to certain groups of individuals, that it was set up in the context of an armed occupation, that it violates the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal and under those conditions is empowered to impose the death penalty. " The Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate his support for the establishment of an international tribunal to ensure that the entire spectrum of barbaric crimes committed in Iraq are prosecuted in a comprehensive, independent and impartial manner, in full respect of the right to truth of all victims and of the international community at large," the statement said.The Lawyers for the Defendants had already demanded on 21 December 2005 in the PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE SPECIAL COURT: CONCLUSIONI am sure WE ALL in the anti-war and anti-occupation movement WILLsupport the United Nations’ call! Lynching Saddam – Part 6: The More You Watch the Less You Know
|
June 29, 2006 Lynching Saddam – Part 6: The More You Watch the Less You Know By Gabriele Zamparini (*) "(…) there can be no doubt that behind all the actions of this court of justice, that is to say in my case, behind my arrest and today's interrogation, there is a great organization at work. An organization which not only employs corrupt warders, oafish Inspectors, and Examining Magistrates of whom the best that can be said is that they recognize their own limitations, but also has at its disposal a judicial hierarchy of high, indeed of the highest rank, with an indispensable and numerous retinue of servants, clerks, police, and other assistants, perhaps even hangmen, I do not shrink from that word. And the significance of this great organization, gentlemen? (…)" - Franz Kafka, The TrialA few years ago journalist, film-maker and media activist Danny Schechter, wrote a book whose title - The More You Watch the Less You Know - is perfect to summarize the news we get from our mainstream media on the trial of Prisoner of War President Saddam Hussein. (Note: the words "news", "our","mainstream media" and "trial" need to be read in italics). "The second trial of Saddam Hussein, for genocide against Kurds in northern Iraq in the 1980s, will start on August 21, prosecutors at the Special Tribunal said" (1) Reuters informs us on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 8:01 in the morning. After a few hours, same day, late afternoon at 5:24 PM Reuters tells us that "Forensic experts have uncovered identification cards beside alleged victims of Saddam Hussein in mass graves that Iraqi prosecutors hope will offer damning evidence in his trial for genocide against the Kurds."(2) Wait fifty-six minutes and on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 6:20 PM Reuters reports: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Executing Saddam Hussein would fuel more sectarian violence in Iraq, a U.S. lawyer for the deposed Iraqi leader said on Tuesday.At this point, the media circus has all the news that’s fit to print. Interestingly though, a particular aspect of the same press conference is not reported by the Reuters above: (CNSNews.com) - An attorney defending Saddam Hussein in the Iraqi High Criminal Court on Tuesday accused the United States government of intimidating and hampering the efforts of the disposed Iraqi dictator's defense team.This blog has already published and passed on to the British liberal media: - the CONCLUSION from the PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE SPECIAL COURT presented on 21 December 2005 by the Lawyers for the Defendants’ team; andThe darkest scandal of our time, the supreme international crime, the invasion-occupation of Iraq, has been hidden behind a thick web of lies and propaganda. The trial of PoW President Saddam Hussein stands at the center of this web and "… there can be no doubt that behind all the actions of this… [trial] … there is a great organization at work. … And the significance of this great organization, gentlemen?" NOTES 1) Second Saddam trial to start August 21: prosecutor, Reuters, Tuesday, June 27, 2006; 8:01 AM 2) Experts say key evidence against Saddam in graves, Reuters, Tuesday, June 27, 2006; 5:24 PM 3) Saddam death would worsen Iraq violence: lawyer, Reuters, Tuesday, June 27, 2006; 6:20 PM 4) Attorney Says US Intimidating Saddam Hussein's Lawyers, By Nathan Burchfiel, CNSNews.com Staff Writer, June 28, 2006 5) Lynchng Saddam – Part 5: United Nations and Saddam’s Lawyers’ call, By Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, Tuesday, June 27, 2006 Lynching Saddam – Part 7: the Myth of Human Rights
|
June 30, 2006 Lynching Saddam – Part 7: the Myth of Human Rights By Gabriele Zamparini (*) "We have been trying to train the Iraqis in human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs. We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche. We want to help them I think" - Ann Clwyd, UK Prime Minister Blair’s Human Rights Envoy in Iraq, Newsnight, BBC 2, 15 November 2005 Part 1. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND THE INVASION OF IRAQ These are some excerpts from "War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention", written on January 2004 by executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth: "By contrast, the United States-led coalition forces justified the invasion of Iraq on a variety of grounds, only one of which—a comparatively minor one—was humanitarian. The Security Council did not approve the invasion, and the Iraqi government, its existence on the line, violently opposed it. Moreover, while the African interventions were modest affairs, the Iraq war was massive, involving an extensive bombing campaign and some 150,000 ground troops. (…) Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiringhumanitarian intervention. Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war." (1) [emphasis added]Besides the HRW’s arguments to justify and when the so-called "humanitarian interventions" (sic!) [in other words when some people would be allowed to kill some people to save some people, if I understand… but maybe I am wrong] it’s interesting to understand HRW’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq: a) "The Security Council did not approve the invasion" The meaning of these few words has been highlighted many times already but obviously not enough. After WWII "THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights… of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained… AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest…"(2) On 20 March 2003 the governments of the United States and United Kingdom broke their solemn pledge [as they had also done with 2001 bombing of Afghanistan and the 1999 NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans] with the invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq, "an illegal act that contravened the UN charter" according to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. (3) The darkness that they brought to the Iraqi people has already slaughtered hundreds of thousands of human lives and contaminated that land with nuclear and chemical wastes for thousands of years to come. The crime perpetrated by the Bush and Blair’s alliance is "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes [Abu Ghraib, Falluja, Haditha, etc.] in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." (4) b) "Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war… sole exception… humanitarian intervention… Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war" In other words, because after careful consideration HRW excluded that the US-led invasion of Iraq could be a "humanitarian intervention", Human Rights Watch "at the time took no position for or against" that "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes [Abu Ghraib, Falluja, Haditha, etc.] in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Is this the last fashion for a Human Rights Philosophy for the Brave New World of the "War on Terror" and "Pre-Emptive Wars"? It looks like the XXI will be an interesting Century… maybe the last one? Part 2. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN The official position of HRW on the invasion of Iraq must be completed with the official position of Human Rights Watch on Saddam Hussein. "One can only rejoice at the capture of Saddam Hussein. Few people are more deserving of trial and punishment. U.S. forces deserve credit for arresting the deposed dictator so that his crimes can be presented and condemned in a court of law, rather than arranging to kill him in combat." (5) [emphasisadded] Those U.S. forces that – according to HRW’s Kenneth Roth – "deserve credit" are the same US forces that are responsible, according to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, for "an illegal act that contravened the UN charter", using Nurember’s words "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes [Abu Ghraib, Falluja, Haditha, etc.] in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth at the end of his December 2003 article writes: "Governments should encourage Washington to allow an internationally led tribunal to try Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. The people of Iraq deserve no less." (Ibid.) Human Rights Watch has written extensively about Saddam Hussein’s Trial: Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein witnessed extraordinarily serious human rights crimes. Human Rights Watch has documented genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in its several investigative reports on Iraq over the years. But now that Saddam Hussein has been apprehended, the question has grown more urgent: how will the crimes of the past be prosecuted? Human Rights Watch recommends that a mixed domestic-international tribunal should prosecute Saddam Hussein.and finally on June 27, 2006, HRW states: "The brutal murder of Iraqi lawyer Khamis Al-Obeidi, defense counsel for former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, underlines the urgent need for the Iraqi High Tribunal in Baghdad to protect defense lawyers, Human Rights Watch said today. Its failure to do so jeopardizes the tribunal’s capacity to conduct fair trials." Iraq: Court Must Act to Protect Defense Counsel, Iraqi High Tribunal Has Neglected Defense Lawyer Security, HRW, June 27, 2006 Interestingly this HRW’s statement does not mention that on 23 June 2006 Leandro Despouy, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, had issued a statement that among other things reads: "The Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate his support for the establishment of an international tribunal to ensure that the entire spectrum of barbaric crimes committed in Iraq are prosecuted in a comprehensive, independent and impartial manner, in full respect of the right to truth of all victims and of the international community at large". (6) [emphasis added]I e-mailed HRW on June 27 with the full text of the June 23 UN’s press release "UN rights expert calls for probe into killing of Saddam Hussein’s defence lawyer" and asked if HRW had any comment on this. No reply… P.S. Just received from Amnesty International: From: ……. @amnesty.org.uk NOTES: 1) War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention, By Ken Roth, Human Rights Watch, January 2004 2) Charter of the United Nations – Preamble 3) "Iraq war illegal, says Annan", BBC News website, Thursday, 16 September, 2004 4) Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany 1946 5) Try Saddam in an international court, Kenneth Roth, International Herald Tribune, December 15, 2003 6) UN rights expert calls for probe into killing of Saddam Hussein’s defence lawyer, UN News Centre, 23 June 2006 Lynching Saddam – Part 8: “just after the court ruling”
|
June 9, 2006 The man chose by New Iraq’s Founding Fathers Bloody George and Bloody Tony to lead the New Democracy just welcomed by the International Community of hyenas and vultures (1), Puppet Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, recently said that the so-called "trial" of Saddam Hussein "will not take longer and his execution for the crimes he committed will come soon just after the court ruling." (2) Showing respect for that notorious Democratic Process wanted by hisprincipals "Maliki stressed that if Iraqi President Jalal Talabani refused to sign the death sentence, his two deputies will do the job" This is the so-called Iraqi government (sic!) that according to the UN and major Western human rights NGOs should investigate on the kidnapping, torture and brutal killing of three Saddam Hussein’s lawyers and provide security to the survivors in Saddam Hussein’s defence team. Green Zone’s Puppet Prime Minister Maliki may know just a couple of minutes in advance when and how presidents and prime ministers flying from abroad appear in front of him but he certainly has no doubts that "There is no resistance in Iraq, but political terrorism led by the Baath party which possesses money, experience and can mobilize extremists and use them... There is also the terrorism of gangs who are hired for stealing and killing". Maliki, his thugs and his principals can count on the omertà and complicity of that International Community (sic!) that plundered Iraq in the most savage, ruthless and barbarian invasion of our times. However, in this dark panorama of planetary wilderness, it’s also sad to see much part of the Western anti-war movement lost after this and that particular war crime but completely indifferent to the destiny of Iraq and its legitimate president. Whatever motivation lies behind personal and political opinions on his regime, Saddam Hussein and his barbarian lynching are at the very centre of this international scandal, the "war of aggression [invasion and occupation of Iraq, that] constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law." (3) This "war of aggression" is a POISONED TREE and ALL ITS FRUITS must be rejected, according to Art.1 of the UN Charter: Article 1 - The Purposes of the United Nations are:Instead of patronizing and perpetuating colonialism, we must finally apply the principles of international Law to ourselves as a cure against our endemic racism. IT’S UPON THE IRAQI PEOPLE to decide the destiny of THEIR OWN COUNTRY together with the destiny of THEIR OWN PRESIDENT Saddam Hussein. This can only be accomplished once the Iraqi People take THEIR OWN COUNTRY back from the foreign invaders that committed the "crime against the peace", the "war of aggression" against Iraq. The IRAQI RESISTANCE is recognized by international Law and it’s the only subject that can legitimately exercise the SOVEREIGNTY OF IRAQ. We all in the Anti-war and Anti-occupation movement must SUPPORT the IRAQI PEOPLE’S JUST STRUGGLE for freedom and independence AGAINST the US-led illegal invasion-occupation of a Member State of OUR Community and bring those responsible for this "crime against the peace" to Justice. In this frame, the lynching of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is going on surrounded by a deafening, guilty silence. NOTES 1) The International Community of hyenas and vultures. On the so-called "Iraq war" according to international Law, By Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, 7 July 2006 2) Maliki: Saddam's execution is imminent, UPI, 5 July 2006 3) United Nations General Assembly RESOLUTION 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970 |
