Tales from the frontline in Iraq - interview with ex Marine

international | anti-war / imperialism | news report

Friday November 18, 2005 15:54

by Interview - WSM - Workers Solidarity

BAD THINGS HAPPEN

James Massey is a tall well built man, aged 34. At the age of 19 he joined the US Marines. In Iraq he saw his first combat. He has left the army and has written an account of his experiences entitled "Kill, Kill, Kill". He visited Dublin to give evidence at the trial of the Pitstop Ploughshares and during this time Dermot Screenan interviewed him. An extract of the interview will be published in Workers Solidarity 89 - the full text is below.

The interview took place at five thirty on a dark dank wet November evening whilst commuters crawled down the quays in their cars. It was Jimmy's final night in Dublin before he flew back to the USA.

Q1: What was the moment of realisation for you ? That moment, if you use a religious analogy, the Saul on the road to Damascus moment when you know that you were in a situation which was wrong. What was that moment for you ?

JM: I call it becoming indifferent. I became indifferent to the Marine Corps. when I was recruiting duties, because I was having first hand knowledge of economic conscripts. Economic Conscripts, well in America we have no free health care, no retirement system, our social security system; you can barely feed yourself, the jobs in factories have gone overseas to China, South America, Mexico, so young men and women are going into the military for economic reasons. They care going in for health care or retirement benefits.

Q2: How was this recruitment carried out ? How were the poor youth targeted in this recruitment?

JM: Just like you see in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 - the scenario with the Marin Recruiters, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I was up in the Appalachian mountains of western North Carolina, a very poor rural area, all the factories have shut down, so there are no economic sources for the young people when they graduate.

Q3: What was the turning point for you in a combat situation?

JM: It was when we started killing innocent civilians. Ehh we killed over thirty of them in a three month time period when I was there, in a clear violation of the Geneva conventions.

Q4: How long were you in Iraq before this type of situation started to happen?

JM: It started to happen around April 2003. We had already been in Iraq for a little over a month.

Q5: Can you take me through one of those situations?

JM: A red KIA; the car manufacturer, came speeding towards our checkpoint. We were given intelligence, basically that the average Iraqi was a terrorist so we were given 'carte blanches' to shoot first and ask questions later. This particular day the KIA sped towards our checkpoint, we gave a hand signal telling the vehicle to stop. The vehicle did not stop. We discharged our weapons into the vehicle; there were four occupants, total, three were hit. The driver was unscathed.

We immediately went over to the vehicle, started pulling documents out, searched the vehicle for weapons, ya'know anything that could link them to any type of terrorist activity. Meanwhile the driver of the vehicle was going around asking my marines why were they shot, they weren't terrorists, they were speaking plain English, they were dressed in western clothes, they looked like college students.

So, em, ultimately what happened was the driver confronted me and he said 'Why did you kill my brother?" And that is when I found out that one of the occupants was the drivers brother. So eh, that was when I opened my eyes and realised what we were doing and what the consequences...
And not only was I feeling guilty but other members of my platoon were just as guilty.

Q6: Was there any questioning of these orders, you mentioned the 'Carte Balance' order to shoot first and ask questions later, was there any questioning of these orders, or was there a feeling that this was coming from the top down, and nobody better question that authority?

JM: What happened is: Once you instill fear into a marine and you tell him that insurgents and terrorists are loading down police cars and ambulances with explosives and sending them at Marine Corps checkpoints, then that sort of thing escalates. At that point when you have that fear it's easier to pull the trigger.

And when you have intelligence reports like that, that are painted, ya'know it leads to bad situations, it actually escalates the violence.

Q7: And would you say that there is a feeling amongst the troops that they are what you might call 'trigger happy' and jumpy and that this leads to these situations a lot and that many of them aren't even reported?

JM: Yeah, yeah, yeah, when the incidences happen, the US Marine Corps said they were going to conduct investigations into it, and I later found out that they quickly ruled them out as insurgents. So, ya'know, early on I felt like there was a cover up.

Q8: Would you say that there is not a lot of media there on the ground, that they are bunkered down in their hotels or embedded in with the troops and only go out on very organised trips?
So that there is no media there to cover those type of situations! Is that true to say or is that an exaggeration ?

JM: No. The reporters.... If I'm a professional soldier and you're attached to my platoon or my battalion, ultimately you are going to rely on the marines to protect you, so it becomes almost like this lob-sided investigative journalism, so

Interviewer interjects with: "There's a dependency in the relationship there."

JM: Right. In Vietnam where you had true investigative journalism going on, ultimately it was the investigative journalism in Vietnam that brought the war to the end. Ya'know when they photographed the General shooting the prisoner, when you see the picture of the little girl running down the road with napalm, that's bringing the vivid realities home. The American people are not seeing the vivid realities of war. I don't know if they're censored or if they are scared.

Q9: I wanted to ask about the average age of the soldiers out there? Is is 19 or 20?

JM: I was the oldest. I was older than my Lieutenant.

Q10: Is there greater questioning going as as to why if your a kid from the Applacian mountains why are you in the middle east deposing a dictator ? Is there a question about why is it always US troops for the last fifty years fighting wars further and further away from home!

JM: I feel generally since the Summer, in America, since Cindy Sheehan, that the peace movement has come on leaps and bounds. I feel the information and stories are beginning to seep out to the general public. It took two years for the US to come out and admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction. So it's just time, everything's based on time but unfortunately while we are waiting for the truth, there are Iraqi's that are dying as well as US and British troops that are dying, continually, everyday.

The peace movement got a shot of adrenalin over the summer, so hopefully we can keep the momentum going, keep the pressure on the Bush Administration to tell the truth to the American people.

Q11: Is there any questioning / discussions going on with the troops like 'what the hell are we doing over here?"

JM: You know when you are in combat the only thing that you think about is about keeping the marine to your left and to your right alive, keeping yourself alive, you don't have time to think about politics. You're constantly tired, you're going out on patrol, you just don't have time. Generally what you do is try and make it home. 365 days that you're over there, you expect the American people or the American Government to answer the questions of why you're there. Ultimately when you are there, you're mind is on the mission.

Q12: After being in the army for so long and experiencing this war, what kind of person are you now after this, what's taken up your life since you are no longer a military man?

JM: It's been a difficult road. I mean I continue to ask questions, that's why I'm here. To expose the violations of the Geneva conventions that I saw, to expose them to the Irish population. To allow them to make up their minds on what they feel is war crimes or a fog off war. Ya'know it's so easy to just say things are collateral damage or a fog of war, where it effects the overall mission is your version of collateral damage or your version of fog of war, is as ultimately impacting the Iraqi people or is possibly escalating violence, that's what happened.

If you read a passage in the Koran, there is a passage in the Koran that states - when your enemies come to you, you treat them with dignity - so the Iraqi's were giving us the benefit of the doubt. They were expecting massive amounts of humanitarian aids, humanitarian support which we did not provide. With that the Iraqi's are saying 'What are you doing here? What are you doing in my Country?' So they make up their own minds, they say well they went to the oil fields first; before they came to us and asked us how we were going. So obviously they care more about the oil.
So it's like this big vicious cycle, ya'know that happens and when you combine that with Muslim ideology and Muslim culture, theory, it just doesn't fit. Western mentality does not fit eastern cultures, you have bad things that happen. I feel like the Iraqi's will continue to fight till we're gone, or till they feel they've been vindicated for the deaths that have happened.

How do you tell a 25 year old man who's just witnessed his brother being murdered at a checkpoint; how do you tell this young man not to become an insurgent? That is the question. I'd like to ask that to George Bush.

--

Interview with James Massey (ex-Marine) for Workers Solidarity
St. Paul's Centre - 2nd November 2005

save preference

Comments (10 of 10)

cur chuige nua

by Duine

Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:22

Is dona liom scéal an mhuirshaighdiúra seo.

Tá cur chuige nua de dhith aghaidh a thabhairt ar an éagóir!

I don't agree with Massey's conclusions but I think what he is doing is valuable.

by Righteous pragmatist

Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:28

Since the Second World War the "West" has lived in a protective bubble free from the violence and conflict that is endemic in the rest of the world - true there has been incidents of political violence and criminality - but largely compared to the rest of the world especially Africa and the Middle East -America and Western Europe is idylically peaceful.

One could draw a parallel to the relative peace that existed in Europe post Napoleon until the late 19th century and early to mid 20th century dominated by imperial conquest followed by two world wars. In that violent period generations of young men grew up taking it for granted that there would be wars in their lifetime involving mass casualties and huge societal dislocation and economic disaster.

True since 1945 Britain France and America have fought conflicts losing thousands of lives but their homelands were untouched.

Apart from television cinema or photographic journalists Western publics have no concept of the visceral reality of armed conflict - indeed what we do know is sanitised in case "some viewers will find these images disturbing."

Soldiers like nurses, doctors, firemen, policemen, undertakers and gravediggers are the "lucky" few in our society who see the reality of death in all its visceral grisliness.
Digging in many graveyards often involves uncovering the bones of residents to make way for new lodgers.
Nurses and doctors are often up to their elbows in blood, guts, shit and piss.
Firemen recover barbecued and carbonised bodies from the remains of fire ravaged buildings.
Policemen come across murders, suicides, accidents, overdoses and car wrecks.

There is a whole class of people who deal with trauma day in day out about whom we can never fully know despite the best efforts of TV and cheap paperbacks.

But the person who takes and gives death is the soldier - we entrust our freedom and liberty in his or her hands.
Killing is not pretty - it is close up messy and horrifying.

Massey is certainly traumatised and filled with guilt self loathing and revulsion - what do you expect if he and his men killed innocents in the believe that their own lives were in danger.
Terrible things happen in war - think about the Russian soldiers fighting through the ruins of Berlin who were confronted with sight of teenage boys dressed in oversized SS uniforms firing back with rifles they could hardly carry. They were forced to kill them even though perhaps they could have given them a kick up the arse and sent them packing to their mothers - if they had not been carrying guns.

In the book "Thunder Run" as the US armoured columns entered Baghdad tank crews came under heavy fire in the built up downtown area from Iraqi Republican Guard, regular soldiers and feedayn in military uniforms and civilian dress some riding in tanks, armoured personnel carriers, others in vans trucks cars and buses - the whole of the city was alive automatic weapons and rocket launchers. In fear of their lives the US soldiers blasted everything that moved - it was their lives or their enemies.
Bizarrely as this was going on normal civilian traffic arrived up sidestreets and onto the main throughfares. It was impossible to distinguish combatant from non-combatant yet the very real threat of death existed. The Americans blew up everything that got in their path with tank cannons and machine guns.
At one point a figure was seen on a hotel balcony with what seemed to the tank crews like a targeting device mounted on a tripod - the man was blasted with a tank round - later it turned out he was a news cameraman!

Several times after the April 2003 fall of the Saddam regime cars loaded with explosives carrying civilian men women and children rammed checkpoints and exploded killing American troops.
In future vehicles which failed to stop would come under enemy fire.
Several times drivers who had did not understand the soldiers signalling to stop were shot dead just like Massey and his men did.
War is very very real and very very cruel.
It is the horrible price that has been paid by thousands of civilian victims at the hands of Al-Qaida and the die hard Baathist terrorists who disregard the rights of millions of Iraqis who have voted overwhelmingly to live in a free Iraq. America should be proud that 2000 of their servicemen and women have paid the ultimate price for the freedom of their brother human beings

Saddam Hussein killed millions of his own people and now he is on trial and facing execution for his crimes of genocide. When he gassed the Kurds killing or attacked the Shias killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children he did not have the compassion and care or conscience that a man like Massey possesses.

I believe Massey is misguided but if his speech Americans and Europeans face up to the horrific reality of armed conflict then more power to him. It was we who put Saddam in power and it is we who must clean up Iraq and give freedom to its people and the broader Middle East.

Giving this some thought?

by Joe Black - WSM 1st of May (personal capacity)

Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:33

RP " It was we who put Saddam in power and it is we who must clean up Iraq and give freedom to its people and the broader Middle East."

So if I read you right you reckon that because the west put into a regime who liked to use chemical weapons and torture people in underground dungeons then the west should use chemical weapons to keep in power a regime which tortures people in underground dungeons?

Anyone else see the problem here?

Rather it underlines how things have changed in Iraq

by Righteous Pragmatist

Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:36

"So if I read you right you reckon that because the west put into a regime who liked to use chemical weapons and torture people in underground dungeons then the west should use chemical weapons to keep in power a regime which tortures people in underground dungeons?"

When Saddam was in power he employed officers with the title of "official defiler" - they were employed to extract confessions from traitors(anyone who even spoke ill of Saddam) by raping them, their wives or husabands or their children in front of them. This practice often occured at Abua Graib where electrocution, immersion in acid and scourging were also used.
Torturers were given medals and rewarded by Saddam who like to watch the videotapes.

Contrast the threatment of Garner and England and dozens of others convicted of abusing detainees ( by making them masturbate or pose in sexual positions or wear women's panties on their heads or frightened them with barking dogs totally disgraceful but harmless by comparison with "official defilement") Each has been court martialled and is serving hard time in prison.
At present "rogue" elements of Iraqi security forces have been caught torturing detainees and IMAGINE Sunnis are calling openly for an international tribunal of enquiry (I hope they get it too) unheard of while Saddam was in power!
In the West and now in Iraq there is vocal dissent - in total freedom.
Millions of Iraqis went to the polls in January and October when a new constitution was passed by an overwhelming majority of Iraqis.
In December they will vote in parliamentary elections! Think of that will you?
You know what I think that these "rogues" will be punished too.

I presume you mean by "chemical weapons" the recent article printed by the Guardian that American forces used napalm and white phosphorous against Iraqi insurgents?
Personally I have no problem with the use of white phosphorous and napalm or biological weapons or chemical weapons or nuclear weapons - just as long as they are used against enemy military forces and not in deliberate attacks against civilians.

The whole scare about WMD is not that they exist and could be used in a war but the fact that tyrants and dictators and terrorists like Pres. Gaddaffi of Libya, Pres. Assad of Syria, the Iranian ayatollahs, and Al-Qaida would love to get hold of these weapons and use them against you and me who live in the infidel democratic West.

The West made the mistake of helping Saddam fight Iran during the 1980's and ignore his pschopathic rule.
Hussein was responsible for the mass killing of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Iraqis using conventional bullets - he used chemical weapons in gas attacks against the Kurds and he fired Scuds tipped with conventional explosive at Israel and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
He was the sole world leader who praised the 9/11 attacks.
He harboured Abu Nidal the terrorist hijacker of the Achille Lauro ocean liner responsible for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly Jew pushed wheelchair and all to the sea.
In 1982 Israeli fighters led by their commander Ramon (who died later in the space shuttle Columbia burn up) destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor just as it was about to become active. Saddam hope to process material for a nuclear bomb.
In 1990 Canadian Gerard Bull who Saddam employed to build the famous Supergun capable of firing a nuclear bomb was killed on by Israeli assassins to garantee the project was no more.
Saddam also gave thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for their services against Jewish bus passengers.

Obviously this guy had to go - He had a history of using WMD and he would not have hesitated to used them if he acquired them again before March 2003. And why build a supergun or use inaccurate Scuds if you could use Al-Qaida as your delivery vehicle?He must have destroyed his gas stockpiles after 1991 but he should have given full disclosure to Hans Blix and his team.
But now we know that for sure.

Shannon stopover, photos soldiers mingling etc

by technoratiuser

Sun Nov 20, 2005 00:19

Today though, as I near the terminal exit, I hear the clapping start sporadically then rapidly spread throughout the terminal. Looking over my shoulder I saw every person in the terminal on their feet applauding. My eyes misted over as our contingent made our way out of the terminal and back towards harms way, thankful for the hospitality of the Emerald Isle.
http://iraq.billhobbs.com/2005/10/stopover_in_shannon_ireland.html

As far as I know, the public never come into contact with the soldiers that stop over. My flight was delayed by three hours Wednesday, and these guys poured into the Departures lounge, en route from Iraq.
http://flickr.com/photos/thoughtwax/62127698/

Shannon Duty Free
http://gundevil.blogspot.com/2005/10/photos-on-way-back-from-leave.html

Casey, mentioned the stopover in a letter he wrote home but never had the chance to mail.
http://aliveinlimerick.blogspot.com/2005/08/passing-through.html

Huge numbers of US soldiers, in full uniforms, mixed with civilians in the main lounge of Shannon Airport last Saturday.(pic)
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/11/11/government-lies-over-use-of-shannon-exposed/

Why not get off the bandwagon and sing a different song?

by Seán Ryan

Sun Nov 20, 2005 09:45

I'd like to make a comment regarding "Weapons of mass destruction."

I'm sick to death of hearing about WMD's.

The whole debate on the subject, ie. whether peoples should be allowed to possess them etc. is nullified by the Yanks voting themselves to be judge and jury on the topic. I'd like to remind people that the only race on this planet to ever nuke another race, were the Americans, who whilst demonstrating the idea of a nuclear deterrent, nuked two of Japan's cities.

What about the chemicals and the biologicals?

There's never been a UN inspector in any American Biological Warfare, or Chemical Warfare installation.

I'm tired of the constant whine, "We need to find these WMD's."

I'm tired of the fear.

I'm tired of my government acting as enablers for the American war machine.

I'm tired of a useless health service, no transport service. I'm tired of listening to politicians waffle on and on about America and and Global Terrorism. Their opinions are meaningless, and more so because they fail constantly to either recognise or fix our own indigenous problems.

But most of all.

I tire of hypocrissy.

I am sickened by the idea that a man, who openly admits to dishonouring the Geneva conventions, may become rich for publishing his memoirs of the defilement.

I don't care what charities or organisations are lined up to benefit from this either, if any.

I'd like to point out once again, that the Geneva conventions address themselves to the behaviours of individuals as well as the behaviour of nations.

I'm astonished that a war criminal can be interviewed, and that during the course of the interview the war criminal admits that he is a war criminal, and still no question as to whether this war criminal will be handing himself over to the Hague. After all this particular war criminal is now flying an anti-war flag. Think of the good he'd do his cause if he handed himself over to the Hague and demanded justice.

Don't get me wrong. If I was in a war zone, and in Jimmy's boots, I'd have hosed that speeding car too. I'd still be guilty of war crimes, but with extenuating circumstances.

So unless you want to remain a hypocrite Jimmy, give yourself over to justice. Maybe then your opinion and your honour may have some value.

Sláinte,
Seán Ryan

Fear

by righteous pragmatist

Mon Nov 21, 2005 14:40

"I'm tired of the fear."

Of course you are. Your not alone.
America does not want to possess WMD for its own defence -it does not want to have a vast army and waste billions of dollars a year on maintaining it - War is a waste when you consider where that money could be otherwise spent.

But

While other nations such as Iran try to obtain nuclear weapons and show every intention of using them the need to deter them with WMD.

But Iran does not seem to be getting the message.

There is an invisible line - if Iran crosses it then war as horrible as it is will be inevitable.

If we back off and allow rogue states the space to develope new weapons and further their aggressive plans - our fears will grow not lessen.

I personally am less afraid of Saddam than I was before - once was a dictator with huge oil wealth at his disposal with which to finance WMD and international terrorists - now he is on trial and facing execution.

If we act similarly against Iran then we will not have to fear the ayatollahs as much as we do now.

RH not right as usual

by SH

Mon Nov 21, 2005 15:04

"America does not want to possess WMD for its own defence -it does not want to have a vast army and waste billions of dollars a year on maintaining it - War is a waste when you consider where that money could be otherwise spent."

This is a complete pile of nonsense. You are ignoring the vested interests that exist in the armanents industry in the US. A huge transfer of wealth takes place in the US from the state to the armanents industry. This is not for the benefit of the american people, it is for the benefit of the wealthy in america who own shares in these industries and indeed have a very powerful lobby in the government circles. All one would have to do is take a look at Newt Gingrich and how his "constituents" managed to benefit.

"While other nations such as Iran try to obtain nuclear weapons and show every intention of using them the need to deter them with WMD."

This is a fallacy along the lines of Sadam having WMD. The reality is that Iran has huge oil reserves and that sets the mouths drooling of the US elite. It has nothing to do with WMD as Israel have WMD given by the US against non proliferation treaties.

"But Iran does not seem to be getting the message. There is an invisible line - if Iran crosses it then war as horrible as it is will be inevitable."

You seem to be forgetting that the ayatollah came to power in Iran because of the US. The US upheld a brutal dictator in the Shah. The US should have long learned that interfering in other countries affairs does not lead to a "friendly government".

"If we back off and allow rogue states the space to develope new weapons and further their aggressive plans - our fears will grow not lessen."

The US is the only government in the world to be found guilty of terrorism at the world court. It is the US that is the rogue state and it is the US that is increasing fears and agression across the world. The US is not a benevolent "police" state. It is a brutal superpower intent on controlling as much resources and as much influence across the world as possible. It has done this by overthrowing democratically elected governments, by terrorism, assasinations and by rigging elections.

"I personally am less afraid of Saddam than I was before - once was a dictator with huge oil wealth at his disposal with which to finance WMD and international terrorists - now he is on trial and facing execution.
If we act similarly against Iran then we will not have to fear the ayatollahs as much as we do now."

I am sure Saddam had you high on his list of people to deal with. Saddam was a brutal dictator but to honestly think he was a danger to us shows me that you are either an idiot of the highest order or that you are attempting to blur the truth. Perhaps the biggest threat to us in Ireland is people like you attempting to blur the truth and lie. If you have no respect for the truth than you are far more dangerous to us then Saddam or any ayatollah.

Jimmy Massey is trying to make amends

by Justin Morahan - Peace People

Tue Nov 22, 2005 01:43

Change of heart doesn't come instantaneously. There can be stages of reflection, shock, uncertainty, indecision, followed by a definite action that becomes a binding decision. Some may go through these stages in seclusion, others in the full glare of publicity. The fact that one has gone public and published a book, as in the case of Jimmy Massey, doesn't mean that all problems are solved, that life is easy or that one has arrived at one's fullness of truth.

I have met Jimmy and I believe in his honesty in having turned against war. He has shown a great deal of courage in doing so - also in speaking out against a culture that he has rejected for reasons most closely related to what I would call our common humanity. I welcome him gladly into the broader anti-war movement and hope that he gains sympathy and support within it, that he will learn from it as I hope we will learn and gain sympathy and support from his public change of heart and the change of heart of others like him.

So many of us have castigated the actions of Bush and Blair and Co in Iraq and elsewhere - it would be a pity if we were to vent our anger on those who have had the courage to have said No to Bush from within his own indoctrinated ranks. We owe them gratitude for that; and maybe a helping hand over the remaining hurdles they want to cross would be appropriate and appreciated.

Forgiveness alone does not equate with justice.

Wed Nov 23, 2005 06:05

I seem to have stirred some emotion. That can be both good and bad. As can all other actions.

I suggested that the "conversion" of James Massey to the anti-war stance was without merit, not that it wasn't heartfelt or genuine. I have little doubt that James is both honest and genuine in what he preaches. Afterall it is the pro-war position that is impossible to justify, the anti-war position is a simple and logical argument.

As for the sentiment of offering him forgiveness for his crimes against humanity, I'd do it in the blink of an eye, unfortunately I'm not humanity and at best I lie on the very edge of humanity in as far as those who were hurt by James's actions are concerned.

In olden American Indian culture, before the current occupiers massacred them, there was little or no crime. The reason is both very subtle and simple.

Indian society was an all encompassing mechanism. Everybody had a function and a voice. Everybody was family, everyone was important. To be a criminal was to go against this ideal. Public perception and opinion from a strong family like community base means no crime or criminals.

So fair enough, I don't have it in for James, I recognise that he may contribute to something I believe in wholeheartedly, and in a very valuable way. However with reference to my Indian example, if we are to have a just society then forgiveness alone is not enough. Forgiveness and attonement equate towards justice, either on its own, is not enough.

In James's case, I pointed out that there were extenuating circumstances in the example he cited where he and his comrades killed and injured innocents in a speeding car. Yet still a crime has happened, James is obviously not fully accountable for this, whoever issued the orders and left him to fend for himself was more responsible, and so on and on up the line until you arrive at the commander in chief, who bears the ultimate responsibility.

James himself, hinted at this in his interview. Or on the other hand, if this were not what he was getting at, then it cannot be said he is in any real sense part of the anti-war movement.

Allow me to make my original point again. James should hand himself over to the Hague and demand justice. The fact that he was not responsible for what happened will mean that he will have very little to worry about from a personal and punishment point of view, his government on the other hand, the actual warmongers would have lots to worry about. And if the Hague refuses him justice he should try elsewhere. This would be to help the ant-war effort, in that it would either begin the prosecution that Bush so richly deserves, or it would point out who he has bought off. Either way James would help the movement.

I would have suggested that he hand himself over to an Irish court, since we have the legal powers to deal with him, and his government. But this would have been an act of futility, considering he already admitted to being a war criminal in an Irish courthouse, in the Ploughshares miscarriage of justice, where a Bush neophyte, the judge ignored this confession in order to further the insult and harassment offered to the Ploughshares.

Well I hope that this clears up my position on what I had to say about James Massey.

Sláinte,
Seán Ryan.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Tales from the frontline in Iraq - interview with ex Marine

Comments (10 of 10)