SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sea_urchin who wrote (9851)1/23/2006 7:11:50 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 22250
 

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate

Showtrial in Baghdad

by Eric Margolis

        

Saddam Hussein's trial in Baghdad has become a circus. The presiding judge refuses to return to court, and defense lawyers have been murdered.

What to make of this spectacle? Emotionally, it's good to see the tyrant who terrorized so many on trial for his life. But morally and legally, Saddam's trial is a travesty of justice. This is an old-fashioned Soviet-style show trial set up by U.S. occupation authorities.

Its goal is not to determine Saddam's guilt or innocence, but to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq – which, by the way, was a blatant violation of international law.

The court lacks any legal basis, being created by the puppet regime installed by the U.S. after the invasion.

Saddam has no proper legal defense. Witnesses remain secret and beyond cross-examination. Defense witnesses risk murder by Shia hit squads.

Pre-trial publicity – the vast propaganda campaign by the U.S. to demonize Saddam – and Iraqi TV programs (controlled by U.S. authorities) about Saddam's alleged crimes, would trigger a mistrial in any proper legal system.

In short, a kangaroo court, designed to find Saddam guilty and probably order his execution.

Dead dictators tell no tales. If allowed to fully testify, Saddam would reveal the whole sordid story of America's long, intimate collaboration with his regime, and how the U.S. and British governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher encouraged, armed and financed Iraq to invade Iran.

Saddam is being tried for ordering a massacre in a small Shia village where he narrowly escaped assassination. He will not be tried for his worst crime, the invasion of Iran, that caused 1.5 million casualties on both sides.

Saddam's regime ferociously repressed Kurdish tribes, and used poison gas against them – as it did against Iranian troops. But these attacks occurred while Iraq was fighting to the death against Iran, and its chronically rebellious Kurdish tribes had defected to the Iranian invaders.

Similarly, Saddam's forces killed many Shia after George Bush Sr. called on them to rebel against Baghdad. Israel and Iran had been stirring up, arming and financing Kurdish rebels in Iraq for decades.

Under international law, Saddam had every right to fight rebels seeking to either overthrow Iraq's government, or trying to secede. Across the border, Turkey waged similar war against its Kurdish rebels.

Recall that when Imperial Britain ruled Iraq, which it created to grab Mesopotamian oil, that saint of neoconservatives, Winston Churchill, ordered the RAF to use poison gas against "Kurds, Pathans, and other primitive tribesmen." When Iraqis rose in the 1920s against British rule, Her Majesty's soldiers gunned down some 20,000.

Ironically, U.S. forces in Iraq are doing the same things Saddam's thuggish regime did: Bombing and blasting rebels (this time Sunnis); holding 18,000 political prisoners; torturing and executing suspects. Uncle Sam is the new Saddam.

Saddam should face trial for his many crimes, but in a proper legal venue, under full western and international law. The trial should be moved at once to the UN tribunal at the Hague. A fair trial will establish an important international legal precedent.

Those citing the World War II Nuremberg trials as precedent for Baghdad's kangaroo court should read the magisterial words of that court's Chief Justice, Robert Jackson: "No political or economic situation can justify the crime of aggression." Please take note, President Cheney and VP Bush.

January 23, 2006

Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.



To: sea_urchin who wrote (9851)1/23/2006 4:52:06 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
Will We Get a Spielberg Epic on Palestine Catastrophe?  

By Robert Fisk

 The Independent, January 22, 2006

Steven Spielberg’s Munich is absolutely brilliant. I can hear readers groaning already. It won’t open in Britain until next Friday. But in the United States, Arabs have condemned the movie about the Israeli assassination of Palestinians after the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics as an anti-Arab diatribe that dehumanizes an entire people suffering dispossession and occupation. Jewish groups have suggested that Spielberg has dishonored his Jewish roots by portraying Mossad agents as criminal, self-doubting murderers who ultimately come to despise their own country. There must be something interesting here, I said to myself, as I sat down on the other side of the Atlantic to watch the director’s blockbuster of murder and bloodshed.

There’s plenty to be appalled by: the killing of the athletes interlocked with scenes of assassination leader “Avner” copulating with his wife in a New York apartment; the Israeli murder of a Dutch call girl who has set up a Mossad killer for assassination — she walks naked and bleeding across the floor of her canal barge, trying to breathe through the bullet wound in her breast; and the Middle East cliché of the year. It comes when “Avner” — in an entirely fictional scene — talks to an armed Palestinian refugee whom he will later kill. “Tell me something, Ali,” he asks. “Do you really miss your father’s olive trees?” Well, of course, “Ali” does rather miss his father’s olive trees. Ask any Palestinian in the shithouse slums of the Ein el-Helwe, Nahr el-Bared or Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Lebanon and you’ll get the same reply.

It’s a staged, creepy scene in which Avner’s educated, philosophical approach is contrasted with the harsh, uneducated Palestinian’s anger.

And there’s a lot else wrong. The same Mossad team’s real-life murder of a perfectly innocent Moroccan waiter in Norway is deleted from the narrative of the film — thus avoiding, I suppose, the embarrassment of showing one of the murderers later hiding in the Oslo apartment of the Israeli defense attaché to Norway, a revelation that did not do a lot for Scandinavian-Israeli relations.

But Spielberg’s movie has crossed a fundamental roadway in Hollywood’s treatment of the Middle East conflict. For the first time, we see Israel’s top spies and killers not only questioning their role as avengers but actually deciding that an “eye for an eye” does not work, is immoral, is wicked. Murdering one Palestinian gunman — or one Palestinian who sympathizes with the Munich killers — only produces six more to take their place. One by one, members of the Mossad assassination squad are themselves hunted down and murdered. Avner even calculates that it costs $1million every time he liquidates a Palestinian.

And the film’s ending — when Avner’s Mossad minder comes to New York to persuade him to return to Israel, only to be rebuffed when he fails to supply evidence of the murdered Palestinians’ guilt, and to walk away in disgust from Avner’s offer to break bread at his home — suggests for the first time on the big screen that Israel’s policy of militarism and occupation is immoral. That the camera then moves to the left of the two men and picks up a digitalized re-created image of the twin towers through the haze was what I call a “groaner.” Yes, Steve, I said to myself, thank you — but we’ve got the message.

Yet that’s the point. This film deconstructs the whole myth of Israeli invincibility and moral superiority, its false alliances — one of the most sympathetic characters is an elderly French mafia boss who helps Avner — and its arrogant assumption that it has the right to engage in state murder while others do not.

Perhaps inevitably, the author of the book upon which Munich is based — George Jonas, who wrote Vengeance — has done his best to deconstruct Spielberg. “One doesn’t reach the moral high ground being neutral between good and evil,” he says. What turns audiences off the movie is “treating terrorists as people ... in their effort not to demonize humans, Spielberg and Kushner (Tony Kushner, the chief screenplay writer) end up humanizing demons.” Yes, but — that’s the point isn’t it? Calling humans terrorists does dehumanize them, whatever their background.

The “why?” question — prohibited after the Sept. 11, 2001 crimes against humanity — is the very same question every cop asks at the scene of any crime: What was the motive? Presumably intended to coincide with the movie, Aaron Klein has come out with a new book on Munich, published by Random House. As one reviewer has pointed out, he writes of the same Mossad hoods as cold-blooded hit squads rather than self-doubting mercenaries. In quite another context, it’s interesting to learn that Klein, a captain in the Israeli Army’s intelligence unit, also happens to be Time magazine’s military affairs correspondent in Jerusalem. I assume that august pro-Israeli journal will soon appoint a Hamas member as its military affairs reporter on the West Bank.

But again, all this misses the point. It’s not whether Spielberg changes the characters of his killers — or whether Malta doubles for Beirut in the film and Budapest for Paris — but that Israel’s whole structure of supermorality is brought under harsh, bitter self-examination. Toward the end, Avner even storms into the Israeli Consulate in New York because he believes Mossad has decided to liquidate him too.

So now the real challenge for Spielberg. A Muslim friend once wrote to me to recommend Schindler’s List, but asked if the director would continue the story with an epic about the Palestinian dispossession which followed the arrival of Schindler’s refugees in Palestine. Instead of that, Spielberg has jumped 14 years to Munich, saying in an interview that the real enemy in the Middle East is “intransigence.” It’s not. The real enemy is taking other people’s land away from them.

So now I ask: Will we get a Spielberg epic on the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948 and after? Or will we — like those refugees desperate for visas in the wartime movie Casablanca wait, and wait — and wait?



To: sea_urchin who wrote (9851)1/25/2006 10:48:22 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 22250
 
US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible

by Paul Craig Roberts
Is there a person anywhere in the world who still thinks there is an ounce of sanity in the Bush administration? If so, let that person read John Bolton's orders to Syria in the Jan. 24 online edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

Bolton is Bush's unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, a neoconservative warmonger, has managed to get the UN Security Council on Jan. 23 to instruct Syria to disband and disarm the Lebanese militias. Bolton says, "I hope in Damascus they read it very carefully and then comply."

How is Syria to meet this demand?

Last year, Syria complied with U.S. demands to withdraw its troops from Lebanon. As Syria has no military presence in Lebanon, it could not disarm a local police force, much less the Shia militias that defeated the Israeli army, drove it out of Lebanon, and have representatives in the Lebanese parliament.

After three years and unimaginable expense, the superpower American military has proved that it cannot disarm the recently formed Iraqi militias. Yet the idiot Bolton thinks puny Syria can disarm the Lebanese militias that defeated the brutal Israeli army!

Syria was never in Lebanon as a conqueror or invader, as the U.S. is in Iraq and Israel is in the West Bank and Golan Heights. Syria was invited into Lebanon by the Lebanese government for peacekeeping purposes, adding the weight of its military to indigenous militias in order to create stability where U.S., Palestinian, and Israeli bungling had brought disorder and massive bloodshed.

Until they were withdrawn, the Syrian troops were a counterweight to the Shia militias. Now that the Shia crescent is spreading from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon, the stupid neoconservatives are confronted with the error of their ways. The Bush administration was trying to set Syria up for U.S. attack by demanding that they withdraw from Lebanon. The neocons thought Syria would refuse and thereby become a target for demonization and invasion.

Alas, the Syrians departed. And now the problem is how to turn back the Shia advance, which is increasing in power inside Lebanon as well through the Hezbollah and Amal movements. Bolton's solution is a ridiculous attempt to turn Syria into a neocon proxy and to set it at war with the militias. Otherwise, Bolton intends to damn Syria for "noncompliance" and again threaten them with U.S. invasion.

It will be interesting to see who Syria fears most, the militias that triumphed over Israeli military might or the U.S. forces that have been defeated in Iraq.

        

comments on this article?

send them to backtalk!
[visit backtalk!]

Back to the Antiwar.com Home Page
 
 

Archives

US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible
1/25/2006

Unfathomed Dangers in PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
1/24/2006

A Challenge That Cannot Be Ignored
1/19/2006

Bush Has Crossed the Rubicon
1/16/2006

A Criminal Administration
1/2/2006

Three Books to Wake You Up
12/30/2005

Rendition Unto Caesar
12/12/2005

Condi to Europe: 'Trust Me'
12/6/2005

The Grave Threat Is the Bush Administration
11/29/2005

We Must Hold the Scoundrels Accountable
11/21/2005

Power Über Alles
11/12/2005

What Libby's Indictment Means for the Jacobins
10/31/2005

Who Are We to Pick Syria's President?
10/26/2005

How Long Can This Go On?
10/11/2005

The Police State Is Closer Than You Think
10/8/2005

The Triumph of Ideology Over Reality
10/6/2005

The Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History
10/3/2005

Bush Is Cooking Up Two More Wars
10/1/2005

Will Neocon Fanaticism Destroy America?
9/20/2005

America Has Fallen to a Jacobin Coup
9/16/2005

From Federal Failure Arises More Federal Power
9/12/2005

What's Next, Mr. War President?
9/5/2005

How New Orleans Was Lost
9/1/2005

Does Anyone Know What We Are Doing in Iraq?
8/29/2005

Get Ready for World War III
8/15/2005

Nuclear China Good, Nuclear Iran Bad?
8/11/2005

Armageddon Gets No Press
8/2/2005

The War Is Over, and We...
7/28/2005

Can Congressional Republicans Save Bush?
7/18/2005

A Defeat Bred in Deceit
6/29/2005

The Last Throes of US Dominance
6/28/2005

What Is Bush's Agenda in Iraq?
6/21/2005

Enabling Evil
6/15/2005

If Pinochet Is Guilty, so Is Bush
6/8/2005

Desperate for Terror Arrests, FBI Turns to Entrapment
6/7/2005

Washington Is the Source of Terror
6/2/2005

Bush Opts for Civil War in Iraq
5/30/2005

Is Bush a Sith Lord?
5/24/2005

America's Reputation in Tatters
5/17/2005

Call Me Unaccountable: Woodrow Wilson and George Bush
4/26/2005

Draft Needed to Bail Out Neocons
3/28/2005

Unhappy With One Quagmire, Bush Looks for Another
3/8/2005

Outfoxed by bin Laden
2/21/2005

Conservative Sycophants Lose Credibility
2/16/2005

We Have Nothing to Fear But Bush Himself
2/12/2005

Abandoning Liberty, Gaining Insecurity
2/1/2005

Wake Up! Bush Is Serious
1/26/2005

Jacobin to the Core
1/25/2005

Dying for Sycophants
1/20/2005

The New American Militarism
1/18/2005

Dear Ken: About That Cakewalk...
1/12/2005

Conduct Unbecoming
12/30/2004

Dangerous Delusions About Iran
12/14/2004

A Catastrophe Calculator
12/8/2004

Preemption for All!
12/6/2004

What Became of Conservatives?
11/26/2004

Won't Get Fooled Again?
11/22/2004

There Is No One Left to Stop Them
11/19/2004

The American Century Is Over
11/6/2004

Minimize the Mandate
11/5/2004

The Brownshirting of America
10/16/2004

Blair Sells Britain, Buys a House
10/15/2004

Kerry Caught in the Big Lie
10/11/2004

Hate and Delusion Have the Bit in Their Teeth
9/11/2004

A Shabby and Sinister Case for War
9/8/2004

More Archives


Dr. Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.