Free Iraq

Greg Muttitt, ZNet, Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth: "[This is the executive summary of a November 2005 report sponsored by PLATFORM with Global Policy Forum, Institute for Policy Studies (New Internationalism Project), New Economics Foundation, Oil Change International and War on Want. The full text of the report is available in pdf and html.]

"While the Iraqi people struggle to define their future amid political chaos and violence, the fate of their most valuable economic asset, oil, is being decided behind closed doors.

"This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority[1] of Iraq's oilfields -- accounting for at least 64% of the country's oil reserves -- for development by multinational oil companies.*

"Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control."

The Executive Summary includes the following sections:

COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS

A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF

POLICY DELIVERED FROM AMERICA TO IRAQ

A RADICAL DEPARTURE

IN WHOSE INTERESTS?

"PSAs [production sharing agreements] represent a radical redesign of Iraq's oil industry, wrenching it from public into private hands. The strategic drivers for this are the US/UK push for 'energy security' in a constrained market and the multinational oil companies' need to 'book' new reserves to secure future growth.

"Despite their disadvantages to the Iraqi economy and democracy, they are being introduced in Iraq without public debate.

"It is up to the Iraqi people to decide the terms for the development of their oil resources. We hope that this report will help explain the likely consequences of decisions being made in secret on their behalf."*
-------------------------

* Emphasis added
 

Note re Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth (immediately above) -
A reading of this short, thoroughly intelligible article is highly recommended. One quote:

"Furthermore, PSAs generally exempt foreign oil companies from any new laws that might affect their profits. And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country's own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws. Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it."
 

John S. Hatch, Information Clearing House, Revolution: President Bush was recently criticized for not being forceful enough in denouncing Chinese human rights abuses during a trip there. Excuse me? This is the torture president. How on earth can the United States preach to anyone in the world about human rights or the rule of law, or morality? In even raising the question, has Mr. Bush abandoned any claim to sanity? If it is wrong for China to abuse human rights (and it’s true that their record is horrible) how is it acceptable for the US in Iraq to sexually torture imprisoned children as a means to coerce their (probably completely innocent) parents to disclose information they most likely don’t have?

There is within the mythology America finds so indispensable something so sick and downright evil, but so pervasive that even after all the revelations of torture and rape and murder sanctioned at the highest levels of government, even now the numbness persists, and writers still insist on thinking that America is somehow a shining example of decency to a world which needs its sanctimonious preaching. Who in their right mind would want to emulate America in this century? Who on earth would want to be an American in this darkest of times? America is like a born-again Christian fundamentalist—mean, ignorant, full of hate and rage and superstition, but utterly convinced of his own righteousness. In short, insane. Dangerously insane.

In Iraq American sanctioned and trained elements of the Iraqi military are back to using electric drills on ‘insurgents’, an old Saddam phenomenon. Drill for oil, drill for blood. They’ll drill your knee, or your arm, or your head. You are innocent. Doesn’t matter. Think George cares? White phosphorous. Depleted uranium. Shock and awe. Cluster bombs. Etcetera. Where are those photographs and videos of children undergoing torture at Abu Grahaib that a judge ordered released months ago? Whatever happened to the rule of law? Where did accountability go? Where the hell is the outrage? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and a bunch of others not in jail cells? Where is the outrage?

For those who think that change is coming in ’06 or ’08, think again—these people cannot relinquish power, whatever further lies and outrages they must commit to retain it. There are simply too many crimes against humanity and war crimes for which to avoid accountability at all costs. Lives depend on it. Many more crimes are yet to be reported. Do not for a moment consider that this bunch would not, if they saw it in their interests, engineer another deadly 911 incident (blamed on Muslims, of course) to once again terrorize the populace into meek submission. It may be pathologically manipulative and barbaric, but that’s Straussian politics. To them it’s not only acceptable, it’s business as usual. It’s probably going to happen, as Bush’s numbers continue to decline.

America has seen bad times—slavery, the civil war, McCarthyism and communist hysteria, never-ending racism, Nixon and Kissinger, the unheralded horror of Reagan, but Bush has brought disaster on a completely different level. Bush is a dupe, if an evil one, but there are truly ugly, nasty people pulling his strings. Nothing short of a second American revolution is going to rescue your nation. Even now Bush is making plans to violently stop such a thing from happening. We’re going to see once and for all if Americans stand for the vaunted values to which they give such eloquent and loud lip service. If so, then I fear they will have to pay in blood. It’s come to that. I’m sorry.
 

Zealots at work: corrupt - lying - destabilizing - pro-Israeli political shenanigans (cont'd)
Joshua Frank, Online Journal, Abramoff used DeLay to fund anti-intifada militia: "If there is any group in the US that can empathize with the occupation of the Palestinian people -- it's the Native Americans. But here Abramoff's clients were, unknowingly donating tens of thousands of dollars so that Israeli settlers in the West Bank could continue to occupy defenseless Palestinians. You can bet that DeLay and Abramoff snickered all the way to the (West) bank."
 

Black, White and Gray. Duty, Honor and Country.

The article below gives the new rulers of Iraq something to ponder. It is posted in its entirety, as it is very pertinent, in my humble view, to today's subject.
Abu Hasan


A Journey That Ended in Anguish

Col. Ted Westhusing, a military ethicist who volunteered to go to Iraq, was upset by what he saw. His apparent suicide raises questions.

By T. Christian Miller
Times Staff Writer

November 27, 2005

"War is the hardest place to make moral judgments."

Col. Ted Westhusing, Journal of Military Ethics


WASHINGTON — One hot, dusty day in June, Col. Ted Westhusing was found dead in a trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport, a single gunshot wound to the head.

The Army would conclude that he committed suicide with his service pistol. At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq.

The Army closed its case. But the questions surrounding Westhusing's death continue.

Westhusing, 44, was no ordinary officer. He was one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a full professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to better teach his students. He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended meditation on the meaning of honor.

So it was only natural that Westhusing acted when he learned of possible corruption by U.S. contractors in Iraq. A few weeks before he died, Westhusing received an anonymous complaint that a private security company he oversaw had cheated the U.S. government and committed human rights violations. Westhusing confronted the contractor and reported the concerns to superiors, who launched an investigation.

In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.

His death stunned all who knew him. Colleagues and commanders wondered whether they had missed signs of depression. He had been losing weight and not sleeping well. But only a day before his death, Westhusing won praise from a senior officer for his progress in training Iraqi police.

His friends and family struggle with the idea that Westhusing could have killed himself. He was a loving father and husband and a devout Catholic. He was an extraordinary intellect and had mastered ancient Greek and Italian. He had less than a month before his return home. It seemed impossible that anything could crush the spirit of a man with such a powerful sense of right and wrong.

On the Internet and in conversations with one another, Westhusing's family and friends have questioned the military investigation.

A note found in his trailer seemed to offer clues. Written in what the Army determined was his handwriting, the colonel appeared to be struggling with a final question.

How is honor possible in a war like the one in Iraq?

Even at Jenks High School in suburban Tulsa, one of the biggest in Oklahoma, Westhusing stood out. He was starting point guard for the Trojans, a team that made a strong run for the state basketball championship his senior year. He was a National Merit Scholarship finalist. He was an officer in a fellowship of Christian athletes.

Joe Holladay, who coached Westhusing before going on to become assistant coach of the University of North Carolina Tarheels, recalled Westhusing showing up at the gym at 7 a.m. to get in 100 extra practice shots.

"There was never a question of how hard he played or how much effort he put into something," Holladay said. "Whatever he did, he did well. He was the cream of the crop."

When Westhusing entered West Point in 1979, the tradition-bound institution was just emerging from a cheating scandal that had shamed the Army. Restoring honor to the nation's preeminent incubator for Army leadership was the focus of the day.

Cadets are taught to value duty, honor and country, and are drilled in West Point's strict moral code: A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal — or tolerate those who do.

Westhusing embraced it. He was selected as honor captain for the entire academy his senior year. Col. Tim Trainor, a classmate and currently a West Point professor, said Westhusing was strict but sympathetic to cadets' problems. He remembered him as "introspective."

Westhusing graduated third in his class in 1983 and became an infantry platoon leader. He received special forces training, served in Italy, South Korea and Honduras, and eventually became division operations officer for the 82nd Airborne, based at Ft. Bragg, N.C.

He loved commanding soldiers. But he remained drawn to intellectual pursuits.

In 2000, Westhusing enrolled in Emory University's doctoral philosophy program. The idea was to return to West Point to teach future leaders.

He immediately stood out on the leafy Atlanta campus. Married with children, he was surrounded by young, single students. He was a deeply faithful Christian in a graduate program of professional skeptics.

Plunged into academia, Westhusing held fast to his military ties. Students and professors recalled him jogging up steep hills in combat boots and camouflage, his rucksack full, to stay in shape. He wrote a paper challenging an essay that questioned the morality of patriotism.

"He was as straight an arrow as you would possibly find," said Aaron Fichtelberg, a fellow student and now a professor at the University of Delaware. "He seemed unshakable."

In his 352-page dissertation, Westhusing discussed the ethics of war, focusing on examples of military honor from Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee to the Israeli army. It is a dense, searching and sometimes personal effort to define what, exactly, constitutes virtuous conduct in the context of the modern U.S. military.

"Born to be a warrior, I desire these answers not just for philosophical reasons, but for self-knowledge," he wrote in the opening pages.

As planned, Westhusing returned to teach philosophy and English at West Point as a full professor with a guaranteed lifetime assignment. He settled into life on campus with his wife, Michelle, and their three young children.

But amid the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he told friends that he felt experience in Iraq would help him in teaching cadets. In the fall of 2004, he volunteered for duty.

"He wanted to serve, he wanted to use his skills, maybe he wanted some glory," recalled Nick Fotion, his advisor at Emory. "He wanted to go."

In January, Westhusing began work on what the Pentagon considered the most important mission in Iraq: training Iraqi forces to take over security duties from U.S. troops.

Westhusing's task was to oversee a private security company, Virginia-based USIS, which had contracts worth $79 million to train a corps of Iraqi police to conduct special operations.

In March, Gen. David Petraeus, commanding officer of the Iraqi training mission, praised Westhusing's performance, saying he had exceeded "lofty expectations."

"Thanks much, sir, but we can do much better and will," Westhusing wrote back, according to a copy of the Army investigation of his death that was obtained by The Times.

In April, his mood seemed to have darkened. He worried over delays in training one of the police battalions.

Then, in May, Westhusing received an anonymous four-page letter that contained detailed allegations of wrongdoing by USIS.

The writer accused USIS of deliberately shorting the government on the number of trainers to increase its profit margin. More seriously, the writer detailed two incidents in which USIS contractors allegedly had witnessed or participated in the killing of Iraqis.

A USIS contractor accompanied Iraqi police trainees during the assault on Fallouja last November and later boasted about the number of insurgents he had killed, the letter says. Private security contractors are not allowed to conduct offensive operations.

In a second incident, the letter says, a USIS employee saw Iraqi police trainees kill two innocent Iraqi civilians, then covered it up. A USIS manager "did not want it reported because he thought it would put his contract at risk."

Westhusing reported the allegations to his superiors but told one of them, Gen. Joseph Fil, that he believed USIS was complying with the terms of its contract.

U.S. officials investigated and found "no contractual violations," an Army spokesman said. Bill Winter, a USIS spokesman, said the investigation "found these allegations to be unfounded."

However, several U.S. officials said inquiries on USIS were ongoing. One U.S. military official, who, like others, requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case, said the inquiries had turned up problems, but nothing to support the more serious charges of human rights violations.

"As is typical, there may be a wisp of truth in each of the allegations," the official said.

The letter shook Westhusing, who felt personally implicated by accusations that he was too friendly with USIS management, according to an e-mail in the report.

"This is a mess … dunno what I will do with this," he wrote home to his family May 18.

The colonel began to complain to colleagues about "his dislike of the contractors," who, he said, "were paid too much money by the government," according to one captain.

"The meetings [with contractors] were never easy and always contentious. The contracts were in dispute and always under discussion," an Army Corps of Engineers official told investigators.

By June, some of Westhusing's colleagues had begun to worry about his health. They later told investigators that he had lost weight and begun fidgeting, sometimes staring off into space. He seemed withdrawn, they said.

His family was also becoming worried. He described feeling alone and abandoned. He sent home brief, cryptic e-mails, including one that said, "[I] didn't think I'd make it last night." He talked of resigning his command.

Westhusing brushed aside entreaties for details, writing that he would say more when he returned home. The family responded with an outpouring of e-mails expressing love and support.

His wife recalled a phone conversation that chilled her two weeks before his death.

"I heard something in his voice," she told investigators, according to a transcript of the interview. "In Ted's voice, there was fear. He did not like the nighttime and being alone."

Westhusing's father, Keith, said the family did not want to comment for this article.

On June 4, Westhusing left his office in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone of Baghdad to view a demonstration of Iraqi police preparedness at Camp Dublin, the USIS headquarters at the airport. He gave a briefing that impressed Petraeus and a visiting scholar. He stayed overnight at the USIS camp.

That night in his office, a USIS secretary would later tell investigators, she watched Westhusing take out his 9-millimeter pistol and "play" with it, repeatedly unholstering the weapon.

At a meeting the next morning to discuss construction delays, he seemed agitated. He stewed over demands for tighter vetting of police candidates, worried that it would slow the mission. He seemed upset over funding shortfalls.

Uncharacteristically, he lashed out at the contractors in attendance, according to the Army Corps official. In three months, the official had never seen Westhusing upset.

"He was sick of money-grubbing contractors," the official recounted. Westhusing said that "he had not come over to Iraq for this."

The meeting broke up shortly before lunch. About 1 p.m., a USIS manager went looking for Westhusing because he was scheduled for a ride back to the Green Zone. After getting no answer, the manager returned about 15 minutes later. Another USIS employee peeked through a window. He saw Westhusing lying on the floor in a pool of blood.

The manager rushed into the trailer and tried to revive Westhusing. The manager told investigators that he picked up the pistol at Westhusing's feet and tossed it onto the bed.

"I knew people would show up," that manager said later in attempting to explain why he had handled the weapon. "With 30 years from military and law enforcement training, I did not want the weapon to get bumped and go off."

After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a suicide. A test showed gunpowder residue on his hands. A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired from his service revolver.

Then there was the note.

Investigators found it lying on Westhusing's bed. The handwriting matched his.

The first part of the four-page letter lashes out at Petraeus and Fil. Both men later told investigators that they had not criticized Westhusing or heard negative comments from him. An Army review undertaken after Westhusing's death was complimentary of the command climate under the two men, a U.S. military official said.

Most of the letter is a wrenching account of a struggle for honor in a strange land.

"I cannot support a msn [mission] that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars. I am sullied," it says. "I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.

"Death before being dishonored any more."

A psychologist reviewed Westhusing's e-mails and interviewed colleagues. She concluded that the anonymous letter had been the "most difficult and probably most painful stressor."

She said that Westhusing had placed too much pressure on himself to succeed and that he was unusually rigid in his thinking. Westhusing struggled with the idea that monetary values could outweigh moral ones in war. This, she said, was a flaw.

"Despite his intelligence, his ability to grasp the idea that profit is an important goal for people working in the private sector was surprisingly limited," wrote Lt. Col. Lisa Breitenbach. "He could not shift his mind-set from the military notion of completing a mission irrespective of cost, nor could he change his belief that doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do should be the sole motivator for businesses."

One military officer said he felt Westhusing had trouble reconciling his ideals with Iraq's reality. Iraq "isn't a black-and-white place," the officer said. "There's a lot of gray."

Fil and Petraeus, Westhusing's commanding officers, declined to comment on the investigation, but they praised him. He was "an extremely bright, highly competent, completely professional and exceedingly hard-working officer. His death was truly tragic and was a tremendous blow," Petraeus said.

Westhusing's family and friends are troubled that he died at Camp Dublin, where he was without a bodyguard, surrounded by the same contractors he suspected of wrongdoing. They wonder why the manager who discovered Westhusing's body and picked up his weapon was not tested for gunpowder residue.

Mostly, they wonder how Col. Ted Westhusing — father, husband, son and expert on doing right — could have found himself in a place so dark that he saw no light.

"He's the last person who would commit suicide," said Fichtelberg, his graduate school colleague. "He couldn't have done it. He's just too damn stubborn."

Westhusing's body was flown back to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Waiting to receive it were his family and a close friend from West Point, a lieutenant colonel.

In the military report, the unidentified colonel told investigators that he had turned to Michelle, Westhusing's wife, and asked what happened.

She answered:

"Iraq."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colonel27nov27,0,1641096.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 

Abu Hasan,
The article you posted indeed is relevant to today's subject.
Regarding the psychologist, I note: "Westhusing struggled with the idea that monetary values could outweigh moral ones in war. This, she said, was a flaw."
I wonder.
 

Hello Evelyn,

Your observation hit the nail right on the head.
Abu Hasan
 

Bravo, Imad.
Thank you.

I hope you forward my comment to your friends and ELDER.

I cried as I read Riverbend's "Even when they slaughter sheep, they take them away from the fold so that the other sheep aren’t terrorized by the scene.", not just because of what the basturd and ruthless Iraqi collaborators have been doing to other fellow Iraqis, but as a semi-vegetarian, I cried imagining the ruthless and sickenning slaying of a poor sheep.

Your response, although was very long, was outstanding. You are amazing, Imad, you even translated two lengthy Arabic paragraphs?, what a commitment and patience, I solute you, your persistance and energy!

I wish you and all those from your Iraqi kind all the best and the continued energy, pride and stamina to never give up and be intimidated by someone like friend 1 or the Elder, what a shameful crowd.

I suggest they soak their Ph.D. not in water and drink it as the saying goes, but in urine instead. "God gives the walnut to those with no teeth"

I loved your expression, "Sad Damn Glasses" I think it deserves an article with such a title about those sick (with Saddam complex) and weak element of IRAQ that they keep babbling about Saddam (in every related or unrelated occasion or subject) nearly three years later after IRAQ's occupation while in prison degraded and when all of IRAQ has been destroyed and Iraqis, by the thousands, have been killed or tortured!!

I solute you for writing this paragraph as well:

"I had previously used this metaphor for Iraq's approaching calamity. Iraq is like an antique vase, deeply fractured all over but was still held together, before the occupation, by a tight metal ring around the neck of the vase, meaning Saddam and his Intelligence and Security. Bush was going to fire a bullet into that vase which would shatter the whole structure, and nobody would be able to predict where the pieces will fall. But we, the Iraqis, will rebuild Iraq. We have done it several times before. However, this time, we will not be easily forgetting the injustice of what occurred, who incurred it and we shall not be forgetting to exact retribution, for generations to come. Mark my words."

Not only I fully agree, I sign my name as well and look forward to build IRAQ and participating in punishing the basturds who destroyed IRAQ and inflicted such suffering to IRAQIS and Arabs. I shall never forget it what the Americans, British, the foolish so-called CPA, Israelis, Iranians and Iraqi collaborators did in IRAQ, NEVER.

These are not words by MEN who have been dictating the world, destroying mother earth by force and tearing nations a part. These are the words of a determined woman who is utterly sick of characters like the Kurdish leaders and Peshmergeh, the hateful Makkiyya's, the Chalabi and Allawi clowns and like your Friend 1 & the Elder.

To A United IRAQ, OR a BLOODSHED to ALL its Disunited Parts (especially Kurdistan), IRAN, ISRAEL, the USA and the UK,

Amen
Baghdadia (The Proud Iraqi Woman)
 

Hussein set to argue Iraq isn't sovereign


Let's ask the Iraqi people if U.S. forces should leave (What a peculiar idea!)


Former US attorney general joins Saddam's defence
 

An Arab-American Priest, Depleted Uranium, and Iraq: “We saw a baby with a head growing out of his head,” recalled Harak. “We saw babies with intestines growing outside their bodies.”
 

(See Abu Hasan's 3:01 PM post - above)
Wayne Madsen Report, November 27, 2005 -- Top US Army officer dealing with ethics issues in Iraq found dead last June in trailer near Baghdad Airport, -- a victim of one of the Bush administration's infamous "suicides.": "According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, Col. Ted Westhusing, a professor at West Point and himself a West Point graduate, and the Army's top expert on military ethics, was found dead in his trailer near Baghdad Airport last June. At the time of his death, Westhusing was investigating a private military contractor (PMC), US Investigations Services (USIS) of Virginia, for fraud and human rights abuses. USIS is financially linked to The Carlyle Group, the same company that is accused by U.S. Special Forces vets who served in Iraq of shipping deadling binary VX nerve gas to Saddam Hussein in 1988 and 1989.

"Westhusing's family and friends are rejecting the Army's determination that Westerlung took his own life. The Army based its decision on a 'suicide' note said to be written in Westhusing's handwriting. Westhusing served with Special Forces units in Honduras, South Korea, and Italy."
 

I will try to be as inoffensive as possible here without losing my honesty.
I have to say that none of what has happened since the 2003 invasion says much about Iraqi society, or Iraqis. Torture, degradation and a lack of respect for life seem so entrenched in this society; maybe Saddam was nothing out of the ordinary afterall?
New torture chambers have been unearthed and new dictators have emerged that are powerful bodies of either a Shia, pro-Iranian religious nature or of a Kurdish nature that is hell bent on revenge.
On top of that you have those that continually kill with waves of suicide bombs and those that abduct and rape and kill just for ransom.

Something has happened to Iraqi society. I would have thought that with Saddam out of the way that they would try to turn over a newer more gentle leaf of their own. They have turned a new leaf but it is brutal as Saddam's. What has happened to this society?
 

Saddam Hussein Trial Resumes in Baghdad


Saddam argues with judge as his trial resumes


Kurt Nimmo, Ludicrous al-Qaeda Plot to Kill Saddam Judge: "In Bushzarro world, where Saddam 'dead-enders' have morphed into wild-eyed al-Qaeda Muslims, you need a scorecard just to keep track of the convoluted twists and turns of the story as the Pentagon and the neocons make it up as they go along."
 

Extract -
Ghali Hassan, Global Research, Iraq: A Criminal Process: Just before the U.S. forces attacked the town of Qaim, a thriving town of 150,000 people in western Iraq, they cordoned off the town, cut off electricity, water and food supplies. Then they indiscriminately and disproportionately carpet bombed the town from the ground and from the air with artillery shells, cluster bombs and napalm bombs with the full knowledge that civilians, particularly women and children, will be killed. When it is all over, the U.S. marines entered the city to fight (with air cover) those who still alive. Humanitarian aides and medical supplies are prevented from entering the town – in gross violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions. This cycle of criminal process to legitimise the colonisation of Iraq is depicted by the Bush-Blair axis as the “political process” towards “democracy”.

In preparation for the so-called “referendum” on the U.S.-crafted Iraqi constitution, U.S. forces besieged and attacked – with conventional and chemical weapons – the city of Tel Afar, an ethnically mixed ancient metropolis in western Iraq. For more than a month, U.S. forces and their collaborators have terrorised the city 300,000 people. The deliberate and indiscriminate attacks, which began just before the attacks on the town of Qaim, have destroyed Tel Afar old centre (the Sarai) and killed hundreds of innocent people. Iraqi news reports revealed, “‘scores of casualties’ due to indiscriminate bombing” by U.S. forces. Paralleling the atrocities committed in other towns and cities, all of which savagely attacked and destroyed the entire population of Tel Afar are now ‘ethnically cleansed’ refugees.

The result of the “referendum” – like the January’s 2005 fraudulent elections – was a forgone conclusion rightly described by Mr. Hussein al-Falluji, a prominent Iraqi politician, as “a fraud conducted by an electoral commission that is not independent. It is controlled by the occupying Americans and it should step down before elections in December”, the stage for which a criminal process is already in full swing.

As I am writing these lines, the cycle of violence continues. U.S. forces began their attacks against the city of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, about 80km west of Baghdad. Consistent with the U.S. strategy, the attacks are part of the December elections campaign to force U.S. ideology on the Iraqi people by means of war and violence. ...

This November marks the one year anniversary of the fascist destruction of the vibrant city of Fallujah, where more than 6000 innocent men, women and children were deliberately massacred by U.S. forces. ...

Since March 2003, U.S. and British forces have savagely attacked and obliterated countless Iraqi towns and cities, leaving hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, mostly women and children buried in mass graves. The UN and members of the “international community” have failed to oppose and condemn U.S. war crimes in Iraq. To the contrary, the UN and many of its member states are complicit in the war crimes against the Iraqi people, and the destruction of Iraq. ...

The UN certified fraudulent January’s elections didn’t end the Occupation, but produced a puppet government, a collection of Kurdish warlords and U.S./Iranian-trained thugs, totally subservient to the U.S. agenda. After several months of infighting, the façade of discredited quislings has not accomplished any tangible improvement in Iraq living conditions. Their main service is to provide an “Iraqi face” and justification for the ongoing Occupation of the country.

Taking order from the White House and the Iranians, the thugs have adopted a Gestapo-like tactics in terrorising the Iraqi people on behalf of their masters. The death squads – created, trained and nurtured by the U.S. and Iran – are torturing and murdering not only innocent members of the former regime, but also prominent Iraqi opposition leaders, Iraqi academics and professionals. Even Iraqis who participated in the 1980s war to defend Iraq against the Iranian hordes are targeted. The thugs are eliminating anything looks like opposition. Iraq is in a criminal process of total destruction and the U.S. Occupation is the catalyst.

Furthermore, to secure the next fraudulent elections in December and on order from the Bush Administration, the Talabani and Jaafari-Chalabi thugs are excluding Iraqis from public jobs on ethnic and sectarian grounds and replacing them with their own loyalists.* In addition, to increase the level of corruption and crimes, the U.S. and its loyal thugs are negotiating the “merger of different death squads into the Iraqi Army and police without considering the necessity of forming the army from independent individuals who will only follow the orders of the government and not the directions of their parties or who are affected by their parties' policies”, adds the MHRI report.

As long as the Occupation of Iraq continues, elections are illegitimate. The U.S. does not have any right to force elections on the Iraqi people. Iraq’s sovereignty still resides in the hands of the Iraqi people and in the state known as the Republic of Iraq, ...*

The Iraqi people have strongly rejected the Occupation, and their Resistance against the occupying forces is a legitimate right of all peoples, and within international laws granting peoples the rights to self-defence against criminal war of aggression. Under the Nuremberg principle, it is a war crime. The Iraqi Resistance arose as a reaction to a war of aggression committed by the U.S. and Britain in gross violations of international law and humanity. U.S. forces and their mercenaries have no rights to be in Iraq.* The sooner the Occupation ends, the better for the peoples of Iraq and the U.S.
--------------------------

* Emphasis added
 

NEWSWEEK: U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad Says He's Received Permission to Talk to Iran to Help Secure Iraq After U.S. Troop Drawdown; 'There Will Be Meetings ... That's Also a Departure and an Adjustment'
 

Saddam's trial has been postponed (yet again) til the 5 December.
This will only contribute to the already crazy situation in this country which is simmering to boiling point. Things seem to be going backward rather than forward, in almost every aspect. The fact that Saddam's lawyers are constantly buying time for this murderous animal will be infuriating and disheartening the normal Kurdish and Shia people.
It has been almost 3 years since the invasion, and 2 years since Saddam's capture, and all I see is Saddam sitting pretty and being taken care of (diet-wise and clothes-wise) whilst normal Iraqis are being pummelled by religious, psychotic and hardline individuals and groups.
At first I was prepared to give the new Iraqi government the benefit of the doubt, but now I think they are not the best people to lead the country.
I wonder what their latest instructions are from Tehran?
Where is the UN?
The Arab League obviously cannot get their act together to help one iota.
 

Evlyn, the Americans have not forced the Iraqi people to vote, they have given them the opportunity to take part in an election.

Look at the plain facts.

The only individuals and groups FORCING Iraqis to vote are the Ayatollah's (Sistani and Sadr), their cronies (Mahdi Army) and the Peshmerga. Iraqi Shia know only too well what will happen to them if they fail to carry out the orders of the Ayatollah's.

As for the women voting? They will do as their husbands tell them. The same men that have been threatened by the religious cronies out there.
 

Alternative Press Review, Interview with Scott Ritter: Well it’s curious that we suddenly went to war to depose a brutal dictator. That wasn’t the case being made. And if you call yourself an American citizen and if you understand the importance of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, you can not accept any notion of the ends justifying the means.* We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that supposedly posed a threat to the security of the United States. We didn’t go to war to get rid of a brutal dictator, especially one that in the 1980’s we called a true friend of the United States, somebody whom we recognized as a secular leader, yes a dictator, but a secular leader who represented a bulwark against the expansion of Islamic fundamentalism coming out of Iran. This is basically those who got caught out on their hyped up case for war about WMD trying to re-create a new justification. And again, the justification fails on all levels, not just in terms of the notion of this brutal dictator. Do you think Iraq is better off today under a brutal American occupation than it was under a brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein? We fail on every benchmark.* More Iraqis are being killed, there’s less electricity, there’s less fresh water. What we call freedom of speech is really just a reflection of chaos and anarchy. Yes, you can be free to speak in a society where there are no rules, when there is no governance. But it’s an artificial freedom, because it doesn’t bring with it any reward. Screaming out at the top of your lungs is not freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the ability to express one’s self openly and without fear of prosecution in a stable environment. A stable environment simply does not exist in Iraq. So, again, anybody who makes the claims that, ‘okay, there’s no WMD, but we got rid of a brutal dictator and we’ve instilled some sort of a viable democracy with freedoms’, is, again, it’s a false argument.

. . . [T]he easiest aspect of a disengagement strategy—because that’s what I’m advocating, I’m not advocating a reinforcement of failure, I’m not advocating continuing down the same failed course of action—I’m advocating a disengagement strategy, and the first aspect of that is to actually disengage. To get the troops out of Iraq and bring them home. Every senior officer in the United States military recognizes that it is the presence of American troops in Iraq that is exacerbating the situation. There is no positive benefit coming from the ongoing presence of this occupation. The Iraqi people reject this occupation. Those who support this occupation in Iraq are those who use the American troops for their own limited scope political gain, i.e., there are some Shiia politicians and some Kurdish politicians who understand that once U.S. troops leave, they will be held to account by much of Iraq, and so their future is dependent upon the maintenance of American forces, American troops in Iraq.*
----------------------

* Emphasis added.
 

Amos,
I'm wondering what you consider to be the origin of the prevailing "ground rules" in Iraq?
 

Jack Dalton, He Dared to Challange Power and the Official Consensus: Part One: Why does a man who refuses to be a participant in what were illegal orders, in an illegal war, which was based on provable lies and deceptions, spend 15 months in a military jail; while a thief, a commissioned officer at the same base at the same time, gets caught selling the troops protective equipment and only gets 45 days in jail? Something is seriously wrong with this picture to say the least! In fact, why is Kevin Benderman in a military jail at all? What was Kevin’s “crime” other than having the courage to act on his principles, his convictions, and then through proper military channels, filed application as a Conscientious Objector?

When Kevin’s unit was sent to Iraq the first time, Kevin, like so many of us from previous U.S. wars, saw the utter destruction caused by our invasion of Iraq. He saw the slip by people around him into complete disregard for human life in their struggle to just stay alive; he saw the slaughter of innocent people; he saw the total disregard and elevation of man’s inhumanity to man; he heard orders to “shoot to kill” even children. He saw, heard, and began to understand that what American’s were being told about what was happening in Iraq were lies; whose only purpose were to keep public approval for this U.S. war of aggression up—deliberate deception. Kevin began to realize, as have so many others, that war is not the answer. And a war based on deliberate deceptions and lies, as is this war of choice that has been unleashed in Iraq, is definitely not an answer to anything.
 

MilitaryProject.org, "We Have Torture Conducted On Our Own Soldiers, Right Here In America, At Fort Lewis": "And did I mention torture,....can't have torture because it's against military regulations......unless you call chaining a soldier up with his arms and legs tied behind him for 4 straight days in a chair, making him sit in his own waste, is torture,.....then Yes, we have torture, both mental and physical abuse conducted on our own soldiers...right here in America, at Fort Lewis in Washington State. Violating all military regulations on our own soil. And this is just the tip of the iceberg."
 

Evlyn the ground rules' origins must go back right through Iraqi and Islamic history. The US certainly did not create the likes of Sadr and Sistani. The influence of these types of individuals and their religious forces go back a long long way.
Will Iraq always be a country that will be ruled with nothing but brute force?
Is brute force actually necessary in such a nation?
Is that the only way to govern this country?

Is the answer to segment Iraq into 3 different countries? I bet you could argue that, at this point.
 

Toronto Star, Fascism then. Fascism now?: Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970s leads to an inescapable conclusion: The vast bulk of legislative activity favours the interests of large commercial enterprises. Big business is very well off, and successive Canadian and U.S. governments, of whatever political stripe, have made this their primary objective for at least the past 25 years.

Digging deeper into 20th century history, one finds the exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism. Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity.

These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America's most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. "Yes," he replied, "but we will call it anti-fascism."
[ . . . ]

Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were, on paper, liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the result of political and economic changes these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.

Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. ...
[ . . . ]

 

LibertyForum, History Proves That Israel Will Kill US Military Personnel: Many people on the internet are watching the killings of US military personnel in western Iraq's border region, and are taking note of how the killings only benefit the Israeli program to take the war into Syria. This article here is a very good primer on how this is happening.

However, many naive and well-intentioned folks say that it is insane to believe that Israel would kill US military personnel.

After all, these folks believe the Zionist propaganda about how Israel is a best friend of the United States.

For these people, the best thing to do is to look back in time and study the historical record of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, to realize that Israel has no qualms about killing US military personnel.

USS Liberty Massacre

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the USS Liberty in international waters. The Israelis killed 34 sailors and injured 172 more in a particularly heinous attack that involved intense aerial strafing, torpedo boats, and napalm from Israeli jets.

Miraculously, the Israelis did not sink the Liberty, and the Israeli treachery has been exposed.

Israel's objective with the Liberty attack, had it went off successfully for Tel Aviv, was to blame the attack on Egypt, so that the United States would jump into the Six Day War on the side of the Israelis.
 

LibertyForum, Is An Attack On A US Airliner Imminent?
 

(Check out the maps - decide for yourself.)
LibertyForum, The Mossad Has Been Behind These Pipeline Bombings -

The Mossad Has Blown Every Pipeline, Except One
The Mossad has been busy blowing every pipeline, except the one that goes west, from Mosul to Israel. This has caused gas to go from $1.75 to $3.00 at the pumps, and Bush sees an Israeli pipeline as the answer.

Pipeline Must Go Through Syria
Today, there are six 24” lines going to the pumping stations at Haditha (major hydro-electric dam for power). They cross over the Euphrates, into Syria, and onto the refineries at Tripoli. The smart route, is to junction off this major line, and go through Syria, and onto Haifa, Israel. This is what ‘Operation Matador’ is all about.

Marines Have Secured Bases
The US has established three major bases at H1, H2, and H3. We will continue to have our troops die for Israel, we will pay for, and build the pipeline, and Israel will sell us the oil. Whoever controls Iraq and the fields (Zionists), will sell the oil to Yukos, and their Haifa refineries. When it’s all said and done, Israel will control 40% of the world’s oil, and we will probably be paying $5.00 a gallon for gas at the pumps.

All the phony ambushes, supposedly coming from Syria, have been Israeli false-flag provocations, to drive us into a Syrian occupation.
 

(The following article, reproduced here in full, has no URL.)
Nizar Sakhnini, "THERE COULD HAVE BEEN PEACE" - Count Folke Bernadotte’s report and recommendations were submitted to the UN Security Council on 16 September 1948. On the following day, 17 September, Bernadotte arrived at Kalandia, just north of Jerusalem. After lunch with Dov Joseph, the Governor of Jerusalem, the UN party proceeded to inspect various UN and Red Cross facilities in the Jewish sector.

In the Katamon quarter of Jewish Jerusalem, the three UN vehicles were stopped by an Israeli jeep occupied by several men wearing the dark khaki uniforms typical of the Israeli army. One of the men put a machine gun through the left rear window and sprayed bullets point-blank at Bernadotte. The UN vehicle rushed to Hadassah Hospital but it was too late.

Those who had planned and carried out the assassination were never really punished. One of them, Yitzhak Ysenitsky, using the name Yitzhak Shamir, later served as Israeli Foreign Minister under Menachem Begin, whom he succeeded as Prime Minister.

Bernadotte’s final proposals to end the conflict were published on 20 September.

“It would be an offence against elemental justice,” Bernadotte wrote, “if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right of return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine and indeed, offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries”. According to Bernadotte, “no settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the Arab refugee to return to his home.” He further stated, “as a result of the conflict in Palestine almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation.” He was conscious that the Israelis were stealing Arab property and land while destroying those homes that were not suitable for use by Jews. Bernadotte noted that, according to “numerous reports from reliable sources”, there was, “large-scale looting, pillage and plundering and destruction of villages without apparent military necessity” in Israeli controlled territory and affirmed Israeli liability, “to restore private property to its Arab owners and to indemnify those owners of property wantonly destroyed”. He proposed that Jerusalem would be internationalized while the Negev and Lydda-Ramle would be part of an Arab state. The entire area of Galilee including portions still in Arab hands would be given to Israel.*

Operation Hiram in the Galilee on 29 October and Operation Horev on 22 December in the Negev made it clear that with an army of 70,000 the new Jewish State was willing and able to take the territory by force of arms. Moreover, Sharett asserted that Israel did not consider that Bernadotte’s report had provided a basis for discussion (1).

UN General Assembly resolution # 194 of December 11, 1948 expressed its “Deep appreciation of the progress achieved through the good offices of the late UN Mediator in promoting a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine, for which cause he sacrificed his life”. The resolution also “established a Conciliation Commission” to assume the functions given to the UN Mediator on Palestine by resolution 186 (S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948 and “to carry out any other functions and directives given to it by the General Assembly or by the Security Council with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between the Governments and authorities concerned”.

In addition, the resolution stipulated that the Holy Places, including Nazareth, should be protected and free access to them assured. And that “the Jerusalem area, including the surrounding villages and towns from Abu Dis in the east, Bethlehem in the south, Ein Karem in the west, and Shu’fat in the north should be placed under effective UN control”. Moreover, the resolution resolved that “the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return”. It also instructed that “the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees”.

During the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) discussions in 1949, the Arabs were ready to make peace with Israel provided the refugees were allowed to return to their homes. Israel rejected the offer. The “return” and “rehabilitation” of the Palestinian refugees are inconsistent and incompatible with the Zionist objective of building an exclusive Jewish State.* Ussishkin was very clear in this respect when he stated in 1938 that “There is no hope that this new Jewish State will survive, to say nothing of develop, if the Arabs are as numerous as they are today.” Ussishkin, who was addressing the “Transfer Committee” at the time, added, “The worst is not that the Arabs would comprise 45 or 50% of the population of the new state but that 75% of the land is owned by Arabs.” This land was desired for waves of Jewish immigrants who would populate the Jewish State.

On 17 March 1949, eight hundred delegates convened in Ramallah (The Ramallah Congress of Refugee Delegates) and discussed the terrible conditions of refugee life as well as political issues. The congress demanded the return of the refugees “without awaiting the ultimate settlement for the Palestine question” - that is, the country’s political fate.

A high-ranking delegation representing the Ramallah congress was sent to the PCC. Their presentation and demands were so impressive that the Arab governments and other refugee committees had no alternative but to meet with them to co-ordinate presentations before the Arab League, the PCC, and other UN agencies.

The delegation of the Ramallah congress insisted on the right of the refugees to return to their homes, and argued that that was the only way to guarantee peace and security in Palestine and in the Middle East. The delegation also expressed its readiness to discuss directly with Israel the question of return, compensation, and peace in Palestine. It explained to the PCC the harm and danger that would result from dispossession, neglect, and denial of the rights of the refugees, and from the perpetuation of their life in exile:

“There is no human force that could stop the personal revenge of individual refugees against the party that sentenced them to death. It is inconceivable that the refugees should be left to die with their children in caves and deserts in Arab lands, while watching European families of various extractions living by force in the homes that they had built with their own sweat and blood, enjoying a peaceful life. * Nothing could prevent these refugees from infiltrating, as individuals, and blowing up those houses over their own heads and the heads of those now living in them (2).”

The PCC took two steps to try to break the logjam:

1. Set up a Technical Committee on Refugees to workout measures for implementation of the provisions of UN resolution # 194.

2. Called an international conference at Lausanne where, under PCC chairmanship, the parties could discuss the whole range of issues – refugees, Jerusalem, borders, recognition – and hammer out a comprehensive peace settlement (3).

The PCC conference was opened in Lausanne, Switzerland on 26 April 1949. Under the threat that the U.S. would prevent Israel’s admission to the UN, Israel finally agreed to attend the conference. President Truman threatened Ben-Gurion: “If the government of Israel continues to reject the basic principles of the UN resolution of Dec. 11, 1948, and the friendly advice offered by the U.S. government for the sole purpose of facilitating a genuine peace in Palestine, the U.S. government will regretfully be forced to the conclusion that a revision of its attitude toward Israel has become unavoidable” (4).

Another delegation of the Ramallah congress traveled to the Lausanne conference to be close to the negotiations related with the refugees’ problem, borders, and peace. The delegation was instructed to adhere to the UN resolution # 194 calling for repatriation of the refugees and was free to meet with all international and political bodies involved in the negotiations. The AHC sent its own delegation to Lausanne and a number of Palestinian notables were included as members of the official delegations of the Arab states. All the Palestinian delegations were united on a common platform, namely, to focus the debate on the fundamental problems of the refugees. “Two options were put forward to the delegations of the Arab states. The first was that they present their demands to Israel concerning borders, refugee rights, finances, and commitments, threatening to re-ignite the war if no agreement was reached. The second was to accept Israel as it existed on the condition that each refugee be allowed to return to his home, whether it was under Arab or Israeli jurisdiction (5).”

Israel was admitted as a member to the UN on 11 May 1949. Simultaneously, the Arab states and Israel signed a protocol stating that the UN Partition Resolution and the partition map included in it constituted the basis for negotiations. The Lausanne protocol stated that the aim of the conference was to achieve “as quickly as possible the objectives of the General Assembly resolution of December 11, 1948, regarding the refugees, respect for their rights, and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions”. By signing the Lausanne protocol, the Arabs had in fact accepted the legitimacy of the UN Partition Resolution. They had abandoned the idea of Palestine as a unitary Arab state, accepted the reality of Israel, and agreed to solve the dispute by political means.

Ahmad Shukairy, a Palestinian member and chief spokesman of the Syrian delegation, proposed direct negotiations between the Palestinian refugees and Israel on the basis of the Lausanne protocol, independent of the negotiations with the Arab states. Eliyahu Sasson, the Jewish Agency’s chief Arab affairs expert, dismissed the offer. In his guidelines to the delegation in Lausanne with respect to negotiating peace, Sharett pointed out that “it behooves us to do so not with haste and trepidation but by revealing strength and the ability to exist even without official peace.” According to Sharett, since official peace was not a vital necessity, Israel had nothing to lose from procrastination (6).

The efforts of the PCC were unsuccessful. It called for a return of the refugees to their homes. Israel simply rejected that. Palestinian homes and lands were coveted and needed to settle Jewish immigrants coming from all corners of the world. It also called for the assumption of the functions of mediation started with Count Bernadotte to arrive at a “final settlement of questions outstanding between the Governments and authorities concerned”. This meant final borders for Israel and peace with its neighbors, which would limit the Zionist plans for expansion.

Failure of the PCC to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict was repeated with a multitude of efforts for peace that followed ever since. Peace means respect for the other and respect for human rights and international law, which is incompatible with the Zionist goal to occupy more lands and push more Arabs into exodus. *

Footnotes:

(1) Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe: The 1948 Expulsion of a People from their Homeland, London/Boston: 1987, pp. 158-162.
(2) Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities. New York: 1987, pp. 214 – 222.
(3) Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, Cambridge, 1987, p. 260.
(4) Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities. New York: 1987, p. 214-222.
(5) Ibid, pp. 214 – 222.
(6) Ibid, p. 215, citing ISA 120.02/2447/3 & ISA 93.03/2487/11)
-----------------------------------

* Emphasis added.
 

What would really happen if US and UK troops deserted Iraq now? Would Iraq become a better place with the "Badr Brigade" at its throat?

Is there are future for Iraqis now the invasion has unleashed such religious butchers?

See below......

Iran is behind the Badr Brigade in Iraq accused this week of jailing and torturing Iraqis

Nov. 17, 2005

The Badr Brigade who were accused this week of jailing and torturing their Iraqi opponents, along with their political front Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), are financed and run by neighbouring Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), according to a report on an Arab-language website, which said it had uncovered documentary evidence of financial ties between Tehran and the dangerous militia.

Iran pays the Badr Brigade, recently renamed to Badr Organisation, a monthly salary of approximately three million dollars, the Jordanian website al-Malaf Net reported.

Al-Malaf Net said Iran's military as well as its notorious Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were involved in illegal activities in Iraq through their regional proxy, the Badr Brigade.

The report identified Hadi al-Ameri, head of the Badr militia and a member of Iraq's parliament, as a key link between Tehran and Iraq's Interior Ministry. It said that al-Ameri had a direct link to the IRGC's elite Qods Force, which is tasked with exporting Iran's Islamic revolution to Arab states. He is regularly received by Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani, it added.
 

Christopher Reed, Counterpunch, Public Humiliation and Official Secrets; The "Bomb Al Jazeera" Documents Trial: "When Lord Goldsmith, the British attorney general, pounced on the Daily Mirror tabloid newspaper last week, threatening it and the rest of the media with the nation's Official Secrets Act, he was accused of imposing censorship to save prime minister Tony Blair, and his master George W Bush, from embarrassment. This was likely the intention, but the result could become not a savior, but the ultimate confirmation of Bush's bomb-crazed reckless folly.

"The case, opening today (Nov 29) in Bow Street magistrates' court opposite the Opera House in London's Covent Garden, has the promise of extravagant theater. Such could be its revelations, that the authorities might wish to scuttle it entirely -- or at least hope that trumped-up secrecy requirements render it incomprehensible. Whatever happens however, the case is dynamite of an unwelcome kind for Bush.

"The reason is that it is not really about national security, but about Bush's reported remark to Blair in a Washington meeting 18 months ago, that he would like to bomb or otherwise incinerate the worldwide Arab television network Al Jazeera, for its effrontery in broadcasting news reflecting poorly on the USA. The only consolation, the Mirror reported, was that Blair managed to talk him out of it.
[ . . . ]

"Older commenators are recalling the absurdities of Britain's Spycatcher scandal of 20 years ago. In that case, a British ex-spy from MI5 called Peter Wright sought to publish a book in which he revealed embarrassing secrets of his former employers, who in turned sought urgently to prevent exactly that. To silence two newspapers that were revealing some of Wright's spicier stories, the attorney general invoked the Official Secrets Act. He spent much time, energy -- and public money -- in vain. The book was not only published but became a best-seller because of the publicity. Finally, the British government lost its case before the European Court of Human Rights.

"Going back to the 1980s, official British brandishing of its oppressive Official Secrets Act has almost always ended in humiliation for its champions. The present case of Bush and the Arab TV Bombing seems likely to add to these fiascoes."
 

Comments Made by Saddam and Chief Judge


Saddam Trial Reveals Divisions in Iraq


The Independent, Saddam on trial: Ten reasons justice may not be served -

DETENTION BEFORE TRIAL: Saddam Hussein has been held in custody by the US since December 2003. Under international law, a defendant facing a criminal prosecution must be brought before a court as quickly as possible. But his first appearance before the Iraqi tribunal was not until July 2004, seven months after his capture.

DEATH PENALTY: The death penalty is not prohibited under international law. But it has been outlawed in Europe for 50 years, and Britain is one of more than 40 countries that are signatories to the protocol of the European Convention of European Rights which outlaws the death penalty. If Saddam is found guilty and then sentenced to death, his execution will be seen as a stain on international justice.

A SHOW TRIAL: International human rights groups fear that the trial is not about Saddam's guilt or innocence. In their attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq, Tony Blair and George Bush have made inflammatory statements about Saddam. Contempt of court rules that should restrict prejudicial coverage of a criminal trial have been ignored. Pictures of the crime scene of the village of Dujail, accompanied by assertions of Saddam's guilt, have were beamed around the world long before the case opened yesterday.

THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT: The Iraqi Special Tribunal that will try Saddam was established under the Coalition Provisional Authority. But many believe the US State Department, the Pentagon and the US Department of Justice have been guiding it behind the scenes.

THE JUDGES: Questions remain over the selection, experience and impartiality of the five judges. Only the presiding judge has been identified. At least two of the others have never sat as judges before.

DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE: Not all the witnesses are expected to be identified - which may, given the security threats to them, be a proportionate response. However, it could handicap the defence. Saddam's legal team also claims it has been denied time and resources to examine the case against him.

THE CHARGES: The charges boil down to Saddam signing death warrants in his capacity as President, raising the question of whether the tribunal can convict him for an offence of obedience to Iraqi law.

THE STANDARD OF PROOF: The standard of proof in British courts and many other European jurisdictions is "beyond reasonable doubt". But the Iraqi court rules are silent on the standard of proof to be adopted in this case. The judges could convict Saddam on a much lower standard of proof.

INTERNATIONAL INPUT: Unlike the UN war crimes tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the Iraqi court will have no international representatives, undermining its authority to hear such heinous crimes.

DEATHS OF LAWYER: The murders of defence lawyers has undermined assurances from the coalition and the Iraqi government that they can guarantee the security of participants. It has also led to a temporary boycott of the trial by the lawyers and strengthened calls for the trial to take place outside Iraq.
 

BBC News, What happened at Dujail
 

'Honesty': A Reasonable Assumption -
That our individual & respective comments reflect honestly held views & opinions can be reasonably assumed. Nonetheless, the search for truth continues.
 

Guardian, US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq: "The Bush administration is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores."
 

See how the BRAVE British AEGIS mercenaries win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. They get paid by the Iraqi government, for the security of its top officials, at about $1,000 a day.
 

Why have US television stations refused to broadcast the following documentary?

VIDEO (57 minutes), "Afghan Massacre: the Convoy of Death": (On even my appallingly slow Internet connection the video plays exceedingly well.)

"Produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran. Doran is has worked at the highest levels of television film production for more than two decades. His films have been broadcast on virtually every major channel throughout the world. On average, each of his films are seen in around 35 countries. Before establishing his independent television company, Jamie Doran spent over seven years at BBC Television.

"The film was researched by award-winning journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who was beaten almost to death when he tried to obtain video evidence of US Special Forces’ complicity in the massacre. Two of the witnesses who testified in the film are now dead."

"The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.

"It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

"Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave."
 

Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, Up In The Air: In recent weeks, there has been widespread speculation that President George W. Bush, confronted by diminishing approval ratings and dissent within his own party, will begin pulling American troops out of Iraq next year. ...

A key element of the drawdown plans, not mentioned in the President’s public statements, is that the departing American troops will be replaced by American airpower. Quick, deadly strikes by U.S. warplanes are seen as a way to improve dramatically the combat capability of even the weakest Iraqi combat units. The danger, military experts have told me, is that, while the number of American casualties would decrease as ground troops are withdrawn, the over-all level of violence and the number of Iraqi fatalities would increase unless there are stringent controls over who bombs what.

“We’re not planning to diminish the war,” Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me. Clawson’s views often mirror the thinking of the men and women around Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “We just want to change the mix of the forces doing the fighting ...
[ . . . ]

Many of the military’s most senior generals are deeply frustrated, but they say nothing in public, because they don’t want to jeopardize their careers. The Administration has “so terrified the generals that they know they won’t go public,” a former defense official said. A retired senior C.I.A. officer with knowledge of Iraq told me that one of his colleagues recently participated in a congressional tour there. The legislators were repeatedly told, in meetings with enlisted men, junior officers, and generals that “things were fucked up.” But in a subsequent teleconference with Rumsfeld, he said, the generals kept those criticisms to themselves.
[ . . . ]

The . . . Pentagon consultant told me, “If Allawi becomes Prime Minister, we can say, ‘There’s a moderate, urban, educated leader now in power who does not want to deprive women of their rights.’ He would ask us to leave, but he would allow us to keep Special Forces operations inside Iraq—to keep an American presence the right way. Mission accomplished. A coup for Bush.”
[ . . . ]

The fear is that a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would inevitably trigger a Sunni-Shiite civil war. In many areas, that war has, in a sense, already begun, and the United States military is being drawn into the sectarian violence. An American Army officer who took part in the assault on Tal Afar, in the north of Iraq, earlier this fall, said that an American infantry brigade was placed in the position of providing a cordon of security around the besieged city for Iraqi forces, most of them Shiites, who were “rounding up any Sunnis on the basis of whatever a Shiite said to them.” The officer went on, “They were killing Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites,” with the active participation of a militia unit led by a retired American Special Forces soldier. “People like me have gotten so downhearted,” the officer added.

Meanwhile, as the debate over troop reductions continues, the covert war in Iraq has expanded in recent months to Syria. A composite American Special Forces team, known as an S.M.U., for “special-mission unit,” has been ordered, under stringent cover, to target suspected supporters of the Iraqi insurgency across the border. (The Pentagon had no comment.) “It’s a powder keg,” the Pentagon consultant said of the tactic. “But, if we hit an insurgent network in Iraq without hitting the guys in Syria who are part of it, the guys in Syria would get away. When you’re fighting an insurgency, you have to strike everywhere—and at once.”
 

Amos,
Re the "ground rules" existing in Iraq, what do you believe has been the role of the United States in their creation?
And, re your: "Is the answer to segment Iraq into 3 different countries? I bet you could argue that, at this point." - I ask: In your opinion, who is entitled to make such a decision?
 

PrisonPlanet.com, American Police State: The Frog Has Cooked
 

Free press, free expression, free elections... as soon as the Sunnis stop blowing up the country over their petty rage at being displaced in favor of democratic rule in which the opnions of the other 80% of Iraqs count for something too, Iraq will be in very good shape.

And please stop repeating the ignorant statements that elected Iraqis are puppets. You only insult Iraqi voters when you say that.
 

TallDave,
"Free press, free expression, free elections . . . democratic rule".
Thank you for your perspective!
 

Tall Dave, it is true that Saddy does have a loyal fan base in Tikrit and the surrounding areas, but my estimation is that the Sunnis only form part of the problem. Islamic groups surely play a strong role in making Iraq hell on earth.

They can call elected Iraqis "puppets" but only when they are prepared to go to Iraq and risk their lives to take part in the political process, or aid processes.
One can only change things by being in the country itself and by taking part in things. But being in Iraq and trying to change things means risking ones life. I'd like to know if anyone who frequents this board will risk their life by going to Iraq to help implement change.
 

Mavis,
As a frequenter of this "board", I'm interested to learn your specifics for interjecting oneself into the on-the-ground Iraqi socio-political process, thereby becoming entitled - in your view - to comment (on the processes set in motion by the occupation).