Saddam - the charges

by Paul Moloney Wed Jun 30, 2004 16:56 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

"At the time Robin Cook said when asked why the British had helped him put down the uprising they had supposedly encouraged, he said, "we can't just have anybody taking over power". The uprising in that part of Iraq was very close to Iranian Islamic Republic lines! Again , the western powers should also have charges to answer in this regard."

What, Robin Cook? Darling of the Anti-War Left Cook? Man of Principles Cook? Burned My Bridges with the Blairites and Might As Well Find a Bandwagon Cook? Say it ain't so! At least he's consistent in his opposition to Iraqi freedom, I guess. And consistency is what's important, kids.

P.

by Hilaal Wed Jun 30, 2004 18:55

Chances are the "Robin Cook/Claire Short" manoever was just a ploy to take anti-war Labour supporters away from the "extremists" by making them think that some part of the Labour party was against the war, so they could stay within the Labour party and still have dignity as anti-war people..........this would never happen in Ireland of course!!!

Cook also stood over the bombing of Belgrade, a city full of civilians...........! See below for a list of his coalition partners of the day.

by Raise the Fist Thu Jul 01, 2004 02:27

He is the legitimate head of state. Bush should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes in the Hage.

by iosaf Thu Jul 01, 2004 13:00

Now Iraq is "sovreign" and about to put Saddam to trial. Aren't we all on the edge of our seats?
Mr Bremner has gone back to Washington and without even time to take of his desert boots has sat with Bush and looked smug.

He leaves behind, John D. Negroponte, who so as not to display any particular extra precendence or dominance presented his credentials to the new Government after the Australian ambassador.

Mr Negroponte weighs much more than the Australian ambassador, and is a good bit taller as well. Such little details count for a lot in dirty international politics.

And John D. Negroponte is a dirty international politician. He was appointed the 23rd of June to be the new US man in Iraq.
And the rôle will call for manipulation, and trickery on a scale he is well practised at.

Some examples of Negroponte's skullduggery:-

in 1982 Negroponte held the US ambassadorship to Honduras. He succeeded Jack Binns. The two clashed over the treatment of the notorious graduates of the CIA torture school "Escuela de las Américas". This was a military management school which supported the juntas of South America and offered sadists of extra-ordinary perversion the offer of a certificate in leadership and classes with former Gestapo officers to perfect their skills. In the last week, the CIA announcement that it wishes to change certain "aggresive interrogation practises" was a dircet reference to the "handbook" cobbled together by "the school of the Americas".

Negreponte was responsible for whitewashing all references to torture and extra-judicial executions from the diplomatic and media reports leaving Honduras at the time he took "pro-consul" type power from Binns.
Younger readers might have forgotten this was not only the time of the contras but also the lead up to the war of the Malvinas or Falklands, Thatcher's good relationship with Pinochet was to tie in with Reagan's central american imperialism.
General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, was appointed Honduran Chief of Security in 1982, he was a graduate of Argentina's miltary academy 1961 (his instructors included two former gestapo officers) and of the School of the Americas, he recieved the Order of Merit medal from the USA for his work in 1983 for "promoting the work of democracy in Honduras".
At the same time the USA comitted lots of money to supporting anti-communist rebels ostensibly based in Honduras, but quite happily operating in Nicaragua as well.

"Newsweek" in an 1985 edition entitled "The Secret War of the USA in Nicaragua"
:-
The CIA director Casey, personally supervised the operation. The ambassador Negroponte directed it. The Contras called him [Negroponte] "boss". The system for support of the Contras depended on the complicity of the NSC, set up by U.S. President Reagan, it's members included- Vice President Bush, and the Secretary of State Shultz, and the Defence Secretary Weinberger, Casey (CIA director), the station cheif of the CIA in Costa Rica , Joe Fernández a.k.a. "Tomás Castillo", and John Mallett a.k.a. "george" CIA staton chief in Honduras, and the U.S. ambassadors to Costa Rica, Lewis Tambs, and Honduras John Negroponte.

The Contra scandal outlasted the Malvinas war, between the Argentine Military junta and Thatcher's UK. Indeed it hastened the collapse of the Argentine Junta, and copperfastened the co-operation between Pinochet's Chile and the UK. Chile had offered Thatcher the intelligence she needed to predict the flow of troops to the Falklands. One revamped quasi nazi regime was to fall whilst another was to be re-assured. Meanwhile the good readers of American quality newspapers were to be delighted with stories about the skullduggery of the Contra escapade, and REagan was to present as fall guy good old Oliver North. Vice President Bush slipped off in to the background and remained unsullied by any of the emerging evidence of atrocities, torture, systematic disappearances, and all the horrible things a new generation are learning to associate with our vital Trade and Cultural Partners the USA.
Negroponte too, continuously refused to give interviews but finally in 1985 gave this statement to the particularly obstinate investigative team of the Baltimore Sun-

" During my mandate, the US embassy wored to promote the restoration and consolidation of democracy to Honduras, including the advance of Human Rights, in no case during my mandate did the Embassy pardon or hide Human Right violations, and to the contrary the embasy and the Department of State co-operated with the Honduran Government to help and remedy the administration of justice".

No-one off the US payroll or outside the Bush dynasty could agree with him.

in 1994 Negroponte was signalled out by the Honduran People's own Human Rights Comission for the role he had played in systematically hiding human rights abuses.

So. This man has history.
And that history is hiding
thousands of dissappearances
thousands of deaths
thousands of torture victims
in the name of the Free World
which now reigns in Iraq.
People like

*Saul Godinez, primary school teacher and union activist left this world for God knows where the 22nd of de july 1982;

*Eduardo Lanza, medical student and secretary general of the Federation of University Students on Honduras who never came home the 1st of August 1982.

*German Perez Aleman, leader of the airport workers union, who wandered off and didn't come back the 18th of August 1982.

*Hector Hernandez, president of the textile wokers union, kidnapped on Christmas Eve 1982.

They never ever came back.
That is why they are called "disappeared".
Honduras is now one of the main destinations for students of European forensic anthropology. Every year young Europeans go and brush away the dirt from the hundreds of un-named, un-marked mass graves which were opened, and maintained by John D NegroPonte and his masters in the name of a Sovreign and Free Honduras.

If you remember, it was Negroponte who suggested that Geurnica be covered during the preparations for the war on Iraq in early 2003. Something that caused a global outcry.

by Saddamfan Thu Jul 01, 2004 13:02

Realase him at once.So Iraq can go back to its just,peaceful and kindly rule under father Saddam.

by iosaf Thu Jul 01, 2004 13:22

Ni saddam ni Bush ni Guerra.
= no saddam no Bushiiis no War.

Thing is we aren't going to hear the half of it.
He's going to be killed and limed in time for the 2004 US presidential elections.

sin é.
Negroponte is not innocent either-
But I get the feeling he is as untouchable as the Bushiiis. They got certificates from the Nazis.

by again and again Thu Jul 01, 2004 19:24

"You can't try me, I'm the president"

How often, in how man countries has executive power been a shield to hide behind?

Iraq. I'm president Hussein. I can gas who I want, I'm above the law.

USA. I'm president Bush/Clinton/ Bush Sr /Reagan etc. I can bomb who I want... it's not MURDER it's just FOREIGN POLICY.

Russia, China, half of Africa.. it goes on, and so many people think the government has this right...

Even in little ol' Ireland. If you try to apply the law to the powerful, the courts will dismiss it as political or shriek at the prospect of interfering with 'executive power'.

Who cares what happens to the ordinary people trying to feed and raise their families?
'They' won't allow a situation where the powerful are held accountable to the masses.
Deposed leaders are only accountable to those who defeat them.
The rest of us get to watch as scumbag Hussein is tried by the puppet government of the scumbags who helped keep him in power, and who killed so many Iraqis and stole their oil.

In Nuremberg in 1945, the Germans were told that they were on trial, not because they lost the war, but because they started it... They faced punishment for crimes, some of which both sides had committed.
There was never a trial over the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki though.

victims of the victors don't count...

by Niall Thu Jul 01, 2004 19:58

If you defend the beast called Saddam, who is an incarnation of the devil, you have no credibility or morality; never mind what others may or may not have done.

by justice at last Thu Jul 01, 2004 20:33

As widely reported today it is great to see Saddam Hussein finally brought before a court to answer for his crimes. Finally all the innocent Iraqis who suffered under his regieme will have their justice after 35 years of his tyrannical rule.

by enraptured - (i want to build an aircraft carrier from empty water bottles) Thu Jul 01, 2004 20:46

Why not send a pound of flseh around all the friendly supportive nations so that they might display them on the gates of their parliaments and the peoples and princes alike of this world know-
Justice is served.

by - Thu Jul 01, 2004 20:59

· Suppressing Kurdish and Shia uprisings, 1991
· Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, 1987-88
· Gassing Kurdish villagers in Halabja, 1988
· Killing political activists over 30 years
· Killing religious figures, 1974
· Killing thousands of the Kurdish Barzani clan, 1983

Please take Note of the absence of Iran.
Please take Note of the absence of Israel.

This is a "Kurdish" crime list.

by Dynamo Thu Jul 01, 2004 21:07

It's what we said all along. Bush is the real criminal, he's the one who should be in the dock. Saddam is the lawful President of Iraq, the war was illegal and Bush should be tryed for War Crimes.

by Martha Kearney Thu Jul 01, 2004 21:27

The war was illegal and Saddam is the rightful President. This trial is a sham. Bush is the real criminal.

by an archist iosaf Thu Jul 01, 2004 23:04

But neither regime of either Saddam or Bush was legitimate, since both were based on coercion, military force and flaunting international law and convention.
Saddam is guilty.
Bush is guilty.
We have no court to try either. All courts in Iraq are and were by the token you present illegitimate. Of course the trial is a show. That's what modern War is at the Western receiving end. It's top TV and media. See you're reading this and spending money on it. & Don't go worrying your little head about whether he'll spurt or not when they get to chopping of his head.
But _do_ note that he doesn't appear to be a show trial sort of candidate in the Gulag model, and it to such models I presume a western commentator would be referring. US show trials are much more fun than the Soviet ones.
He has not recognised the court. So what? Have you ever tried "not recognising the court"? It doesn't really change anything.
-Do you have anything to say?
-I don't recognise the court.
-Oh well that's that then, sin é. You're free to go, sorry about all the nasty authoritiarian hassle.
doesn't happen. Oh no. So the went on to the Second Question-
-Who are you?
- I'm Saddam Hussein the President of Iraq.
- are you really(?), that's very interesting. Ok we'll take a little adjournment now to change our desert boots and floss our teeth.

This will run for weeks.

doesn't change a thing, he's still guilty.
Will this help him feel it? Shall this assist him make proper redress or compensation or atonement? I for one doubt it. (that was a very supercilious note to end on eh?)

by merrovinginvanjan iosaf Thu Jul 01, 2004 23:12

The Hussein defence team of 22 lawyers who are grouped around the remaining members of the Hussein family who are alive in Amman in Jordan have announced their project to paralyse the trial.

And yes, of course they are meeting with opposition, and lurky threats and ahem, they've asked Quai d'Orsay to put them under the brolly francais.

As I said this will run for weeks.

by - Fri Jul 02, 2004 11:59

Says it all.

by John Kelly Fri Jul 02, 2004 17:03

Saddam should be released and reinstated as President and Bush should be put on trial for war crimes. The Iraq war was illegal and Bush is the criminal.

by Ciaran Doyle Fri Jul 02, 2004 22:04 ciarandoyle16 at hotmail dot com

Funny seeing a large amount of lefties actually supporting Saddam and calling for his release. I'm actually sickened to the core at those whoever posted up those comments, Saddam murdered 1.5million over his 30 year reign, use chemical weapons on his own people, oppressed ethnic minorities such as the Kurds, also hung several of the few Jews in Baghdad when he came to power at first, and to top it off invaded two countries. No matter what your opinions on the war are, it simple Saddam was a brutal dictator. while Bush believes in freedom and democracy.

by ipsiphi Sat Jul 03, 2004 00:08

since the 90s have been associated with the Kurdish cause. And as such were first amonst westerners in highlight the tyranny of Saddam whilst he was still the chosen regional henchman entrusted with holding together such a fractitous state.

It is quite likely that now many of those who accused us of supporting Saddam simply for opposing the War will comment, troll, et cetera et cetera...

anyway. It's going to be along voyage for Hussein. His sons have started as well.
Iraqis are beginning their journey as well.
aren't they? Oh yes. they are. Negroponte has arrived. He specialises in painful and secret transition. The Iraqis will have the option of mortgage and luxury good insurance within a generation. Aren't they licking their lips?

Now is properly the time for "lefties" of the "international" kind, to offer their sovreign comrades all the support they need to like "go with it" and get out of "catch XXIII" where they have been some year and a half.
For let nobody forget they are going to have elections. Before the Irish get the chance to boot or reboot Bertie Ahern. The Left of that type, did previously offer all such support, but it was "premature". Many intiatives (in my opinion) were "premature". The War is now over. The War is over because Saddam Hussein is on Iraqi TV again. Not because Bsuh said so, not because Bremner left. No. Put Hussein on local TV again, and the war is over.
Now go back through the archive, and find the "post war enthusiasm buzz". And use it.-

Iraq will take her Seat at the U.N. again.
And someday Negroponte will leave, and et cetera... Someday it will "just so". Help 'em make that day.

by Anthony Sat Jul 03, 2004 02:20

Ciaran, the calls for Saddam's re-instatement as President are - in all likelihood - trolls. Whether they're right-wing trolls trying to discredit Indymedia or bored time-wasters just trying to get a rise out of people, I don't know. Lefties - well, the libertarian left at the very least - believe in genuine freedom and democracy (unlike George Bush) and could have nothing but contempt for murderous dictators such as Saddam and his ilk.

by R. Isible Sun Jul 04, 2004 04:21

QUOTE: ". No matter what your opinions on the war are, it simple Saddam was a brutal dictator. while Bush believes in freedom and democracy."

Yeah, and that's why Bush Snr. and Donald Rumsfeld support Saddam Hussein morally and militarily in the 80's and it's why G.W.Bush is supporting the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Haitii. Yeah, freedom and democracy. Thanks for that insight Ciaron.

As regards the "lefties" supporting Saddam I don't believe it. No one left wing of my acquaintance supports him. They're quite clear in seeing him as a murderous tool of the USA.

Now, do YOU condemn Bush Snr. and Rumsfeld and the CIA for creating Saddam Hussein? And do you condemn the US support of the murdering terrorists that have seized support of Haiti?

by Sandra P Tue Jul 06, 2004 03:07

That's why I marched with 100,000 others to prevent his overthrow. This war was illegal and Saddam remains the sovereign leader of Iraq.

Whatever crimes he may have committed they were done on the orders of the USAwho armed and supported him for decades. The issue is that this war was illegal and the occupation is illegal and the kangaroo court is illegal. Saddam is the President of Iraq and he should be reinstated.

by BS Spotter Tue Jul 06, 2004 03:21

'Sandra' is just another shit-stirring agent provocateur, or a journalist too lazy too lazy to research and write a real story, and looking for a usable quote. Troll away someplace else, 'Sandra'.

by someone - none Wed Jan 25, 2006 22:55 donthaveone at yahoo dot com in the us 19785555555

hey if you support him why dont you leave the country then, because no one like a trader!You should be exiled from the country!!