[mojo2]

Before we get to trial coverage and commentary here's a little background info, served here as a reminder.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pa...?itemNo=215930

Thomas von der Osten-Sacken: "The most regressive and dangerous elements in the Arab and Islamic world depend on Saddam Hussein."

Last update - 01:44 04/10/2002

Interview / Vicious circles closing in

By Micha Odenheimer

A journalist, human rights activist and intellectual, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken is considered one of Germany's leading authorities on human rights in Iraq. He began traveling to Iraq in 1991, when he spent eight months doing humanitarian work in the southern part of the country just after Saddam Hussein crushed the Shi'ite uprising there. In 1992, Von der Osten-Sacken co-founded an aid and advocacy organization called Wadi, operating in Iraqi Kurdistan - the semi-autonomous safe haven carved out for Kurdish refugees after the Gulf War - and on behalf of Iraqi refugees in Germany. He spends part of each year in Kurdistan where Wadi has founded the first shelter there for women in distress and is also involved in helping the local government reform the prison system that has been left over from Iraqi rule. In Germany, Wadi advises Iraqi opposition groups and works closely with the Coalition for a Democratic Iraq.

Von der Osten-Sacken, 34, publishes articles in German magazines such as Jungle World and Konkret, and has co-edited a book on Iraq called "Saddam's Last Battle?", which is due to be published next month. He is one of the relatively few contemporary German writers and thinkers on the left who consider themselves pro-Israel and have developed a left-wing critique of the anti-globalization left in today's Europe. Along with his other activities, he is conducting research for his doctoral thesis on German-language Zionist newspapers in the 1930s for the German literature department at the University of Frankfurt.

This interview was conducted with him earlier this week.



When did you first realize that the Iraqi regime was not just another Middle East dictatorship?

Von der Osten-Sacken: "When I first came to Iraq, I very quickly realized that I could not compare the situation there to other Middle Eastern countries I had been in, like Syria, Jordan or Egypt. This country was hell. We were the only Europeans in a city called Amara in the Shi'ite area of southern Iraq near Basra, and we arrived just a few weeks after the uprising had been crushed. There was a belt of tanks around the city. The majority of buildings were burned out. There was no food in the market. There was also a terrible degree of malnourishment there.

"People in Iraq won't talk freely, because they are terrified that their friends are working for one of Saddam's nine horrible security services. Because of this atmosphere, it took us three or four months to learn some details about the uprising. The Iraqis made people lie down in the streets and then buried them alive under asphalt. They killed everyone who looked a little religious, because this was a Shi'ite area. It was forbidden to take the corpses from the street. All in all, 60,000 or 70,000 people were killed in this area in 1991.

"The first thing that was done after the uprising was crushed was to repaint the pictures of Saddam Hussein. People had riddled them with bullets. Not one had been left. We were shocked at how neglected the south was, with open sewage systems, even though it is rich in oil. Saddam said before smashing the uprising that these Shi'ites were dirty people, not really Iraqis. We left there in October '91 when we felt we could not continue our work without unintentionally helping the government."

What was the atmosphere like in Baghdad then?

"Baghdad was 300 kilometers away, and we went quite often - for a good dinner, to have a meeting with another organization or even to make a phone call to Germany. The fear in Iraq, a BBC reporter said recently, is so palpable you can eat it. It's really indescribable. Syria is a dictatorship, but the fear and control in Iraq reaches into your living room. If there is no picture of Saddam Hussein in your living room, you might be arrested. There is no privacy. The Iraqi government considers everything political. In Syria, as long as you are not a member of the opposition, you can relax. You know you will not be harmed. But in Iraq, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you may be arrested, tortured, killed."

"When I was in southern Iraq in '91, we had a lot of conversations with a very nice, very sophisticated doctor. One day, he was watching television and the Iraqi army was being praised for having won the second part of the Gulf War [after the initial U.S. attack aimed at driving Iraq out of Kuwait]. The doctor just said, `Well, it is a strange victory if daily children are dying of hunger.' That was enough. Someone heard him. He was taken, tortured for three weeks and brought back a broken person. Letting one sentence slip is cause enough for a person to vanish into an Iraqi prison or even to be killed."

You have said that estimates are that Saddam has killed approximately one million of his own citizens since 1979.

"Yes, that would include Kurds, Shi'ites, Christians and Sunnis. There were two huge massacres. There was the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurds at the end of the 1980s when 4,000 villages were destroyed, and about 100,000 to 150,000 persons were killed, some with poison gas. Up to a million people were sent into internal exile. The other big massacre was in the south in the 1990s, where the regime has killed about 300,000 Shi'ites in the last 10 years. In addition, there have been enormous massacres against communists over the past two decades.

"The estimate of one million killed only includes civilians. A million Iraqi soldiers were killed in the Iran-Iraq war. A half-million Iraqis died of hunger or disease because of sanctions on Iraq, and more were killed in the Gulf War. Some 1.5 to two million people have been internally displaced, and 4.5 million Iraqi refugees are scattered across the globe. Ten percent of the Iraqi population has been killed or deported during the rule of Saddam Hussein. That is the essence of his regime. It is not an accident. It is systematic."

What is the ideology behind Saddam Hussein's regime?

"The Ba'ath ideology mixes pan-Arabism with admiration of Mussolini and Hitler, some ideas of state socialism and the notion of an Arab supremacy which will be realized after the Arabs have liberated themselves from foreign - that means mainly Jewish - influence and British and American imperialism. Ba'athism is strongly anti-communist and anti-imperialist, and it is anti- Semitic from its beginning. Everything in Iraq is explained through this huge conspiracy theory against the Arabs, in general, and Iraq, in particular. Iraq is thought to be the greatest Arab nation and the natural leader of Arab unity."

So Iraq sees itself as the center of the Arab world?

"Yes, the leader of Arab unity. Saddam Hussein dreams of ruling a united Arab nation that would become a superpower confronting East and West. Iraqi children are taught in kindergarten that they have to be strong Arab fighters."

Is Iraqi Ba'athism Islamist?

"Pan-Arabism has always said that Mohammed is the forefather of pan-Arabism and that Islam was spoiled when it crossed the borders of the Arab world to Iran and Turkey. The task now is to `re-animate' the real Islam that was taught by Mohammed as an Arab ideology. Especially during the Iran-Iraq war, when Iraq had to face the Iranian revolution, they loaded their own ideology with Islamic content. The Iranians and the Zionists, they said, are part of a 2,000-year-old plot to smash Iraq and divide the Arabs. `We are fighting for the real Islam' the regime said, not the kind of spoiled Islam that Iran represents. I think it was a mistake for the Americans to believe, as they did, that Iraq was a stronghold against Islam."

Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda and Iraq have cooperated?

"Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden share the same enemies, the same conspiracy theories. They share the claim that they are fighting in the name of the Arab masses. Both these men grew up in the same poisoned climate of Arab dictatorships. Their ideologies are quite close, even if Saddam is not an Islamist. And since he has been supporting many terror organizations, I would not be surprised if there are close ties on the ground between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"I think that Osama bin Laden is trying to walk in the footsteps of Saddam Hussein. At the same time, Saddam Hussein in the 1990s was trying to strengthen the ties between Iraq and the Islamic movements. He put `Allah Akhbar' [`God is great'] into the flag of Iraq and also financed different Islamic groups in Palestine and other places in the Arab world. There is a terrorist education center in Baghdad called Salmanpak and according to the Iraqi opposition, in the mid-'90s, terrorists from other countries were being trained there in such skills as how to hijack planes and use chemical weapons. They may be cooperating and even if they are not, these are two trees growing in the same soil."

So you would not agree with the idea that the war on Iraq is a distraction from the war against terror that President George Bush has proclaimed.

"American policy in Iraq is a series of huge mistakes. Firstly, it was a mistake to support that horrible regime in the 1980s knowing, for example, about the massacres against the Kurds. Secondly, it was a huge mistake not to let the Iraqi people topple Saddam in '91. The Americans feared democracy in the Middle East, they feared the breakup of Iraq because it would strengthen Iran, so they allowed Saddam to crush the uprising.

"With regimes like the Iraqi one, there will be no peace in the Middle East. You cannot contain a regime like Saddam Hussein's. That was a mistake of the West. So the question is: Is America ready to face up to the mistakes it made in '91 and in the '80s? Are the Americans ready to support democracy? Because people like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden grew out of the Middle East. They are not products of Afghanistan."

What kind of influence does Saddam have in the Arab street, and what kind of affect could it have to topple him?

"The most regressive and dangerous elements in the Arab and Islamic world depend on Saddam Hussein. Really toppling Saddam Hussein means uprooting the Ba'ath regime, with the help of the Iraqi people. This would give the final blow to pan-Arabism in the Middle East. Syria and a lot of very radical factions in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and the Gulf states would be affected. These factions look up to Saddam Hussein as a pan-Arabist, anti-imperialist hero - although he is anti-imperialist in the tradition of the Nazis, not the left. Also, Saddam is financing organizations like the Arab Liberation Front in Palestine, which is a Ba'ath organization. He is paying the families of suicide attackers. He is directly and indirectly responsible for a lot of terrorism in the Middle East."

What is his relationship with Yasser Arafat and the PLO?

"Part of the Palestinian establishment has very close ties to Iraq since 1991 when the Palestinians decided to support Saddam, which was a huge mistake. This includes some quite influential figures within the security apparatus of Yasser Arafat and the PLO. There is a struggle within the Palestinian establishment right now over whether these elements should be isolated. I think that certain people like Abu Mazen and some of the security forces who were trained by the CIA are struggling against others who have very close ties to Baghdad, and who still want to join Iraq in the next battle with terrorist attacks, or worse - with chemical or biological attacks on Israel or somewhere else in the world. That, I think, would be another terrible mistake for the Palestinians to make."

What will have to be done, the day after Saddam is gone, to make the distinction between merely switching Iraqi regimes and starting something completely new and democratic?

"In 1991, the Americans feared the results of a public uprising. They hoped to find someone within the military who could topple Saddam Hussein and rule Iraq with some cosmetic changes, but with the same security apparatus. This hope proved a failure because for 25 years, Saddam has been trying to get rid of anyone that might pose a threat to him. Every influential general has been killed. Yearly cleansing campaigns are carried out against high-ranking members of the Ba'ath Party so that no one can threaten the position of his family, which is more or less ruling Iraq. The hawks in the U.S., people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or Richard Perle, analyzed the situation and realized that they cannot just change someone at the top. It is not like a South American dictatorship. If they really want change, they have to create a new Iraq.

"Iraq is so ruthless and cruel against any opposition that people cannot rise up without an outside trigger. But the moment a possibility is created, the vast majority of the Iraqi people will rise up. They will uproot the Ba'ath Party and even take personal revenge on the ruling regime; you won't have any Ba'ath Party anymore. So you really have to think about what to do afterward. The only alternative is creating a democracy, which is a real experiment because nothing like this exists in the region. Iraq considers itself an Arab country, but actually contains nearly all the different minority and ethnic groups of the Middle East.

"So, if it is really done with heart, it is the first step to creating a new Middle East. A democracy in the region will very much affect other countries. It is a huge challenge and experiment. The question is: Do the Americans know what they are going to do there? Because Turkey, Iran and Europe will all try to impose their own policy. Iraq is an oil-rich country and you don't know if this great game will not lead to catastrophe."

Does Iraq have a national identity that could come together as a democracy? Or are these fears that the Shi'ites and Kurds will split off legitimate?

"Iraq is very unique in the Arab world. First of all, you already have a very long tradition of opposition to the central regime. And you have a tradition of a national identity. Even the Kurds in Iraq never wanted to split off, unlike their brethren in Turkey. They want a federal Iraq with strong Kurdish autonomy. I don't think the Shi'ites want to split off. Usually the minority is the one that wants to split off. The Shi'ite are the majority in Iraq. What they want is more influence in Baghdad. From my experience from living there, I don't think the Shi'ites are attracted by the mullah regime of Iran. You also have a strong leftist tradition, mainly in places like Basra and Amara, and Iraq has one of the oldest and strongest communist parties in the Middle East. This tradition has been strongly repressed by the Ba'ath Party, but it still exists.

"I think the Kurdish autonomy is a positive example for Iraq. Kurdistan has horrible conditions. It's not recognized internationally. It is more or less under double embargo: the international sanctions against Iraq and some internal sanctions from the central government. Turkey, Iran and Syria are all trying to destabilize the Kurds. But even under these dire circumstances, the Kurds have been able to build up what is not really a democracy, but a place which is, except for Israel, the most liberal and free in the Middle East. There are a lot of newspapers, freedom of speech, up to a limit - you are not allowed to insult the Kurdish political leaders - but in comparison with central Iraq, you can really call it paradise. And there is to a certain extent democracy. If the Kurds are able to do it, why shouldn't the Iraqis, with assistance from abroad?"

[mojo2]

Hussein's trial rivets Iraqis
Victims, supporters tune in to historic televised proceeding
Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, October 20, 2005

[QUOTE] (...)
Aside from the ex-leader's appearance in a heavily guarded courtroom, little occurred beyond his not-guilty plea. The court recessed until Nov. 28 -- half of the three months that the defense requested -- on the grounds that his lawyers needed more time to prepare their cases for Hussein and his seven co-defendants.

All eight are charged in connection with the killings of more than 140 people and the arrests of more than 1,500 others in retaliation for an assassination attempt against the then-president in Dujail on July 8, 1982.

Among Hussein's lawyers are his oldest daughter, Raghad, who now lives in Jordan; former U.S. Attorney General Ramsay Clark; former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Aysha Moammar Khadafy, daughter of the Libyan leader.

During the three-hour court session, the defiant Hussein, at times argumentative, at times jovial, lectured the chief judge, declaring that he remained president of Iraq and that the proceedings were enemy-inspired and had no legitimacy.

"Who are you? What are you?" he demanded, looking the judge in the eye. "I don't acknowledge this court."

The five-judge panel overseeing the trial is headed by Rizgar Mohammed Amin, an ethnic Kurd from the northern city of Sulaymaniya. Amin, who is virtually unknown to Iraqis, calmly fenced with his antagonist, calling him "Mr. Saddam," and telling him "there is no room for this kind of talk in the court."

(...)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGREFB7U51.DTL

[Stunt]

Yea, he said "Who Are You? What are you?" in the Court because he had no government when he ruled his Country, he killed 112 men just because he wanted too. He never had a court with Justices and all. That's why he is so confused. But I say:

"SCREW SADDAM HUSSEIN"

I originally thought they should just sentence him to death. But they have to give him a fair trial or else thats Un-Constitutional, because then it would just be like the old Iraq, which is them just killing people for no reason. I'm sure he will come out guilty though!

[Weyland-Yutani]

I don't really know. All I know there is no justice in the world. Not for Saddam Hussein, not for me. Not for you.

I think a trial against Saddam Hussein is a farce, just like the whole Iraq mess. It is all a farce. A sad farce where people die, but a farce non-the-less. One man's president-for-life is another's dictator. One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

Pick a side, stick with it and go. Won't change anything. This stuff isn't important.

cheers

W-Y

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I don't really know. All I know there is no justice in the world. Not for Saddam Hussein, not for me. Not for you.

I think a trial against Saddam Hussein is a farce, just like the whole Iraq mess. It is all a farce. A sad farce where people die, but a farce non-the-less. One man's president-for-life is another's dictator. One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

Pick a side, stick with it and go. Won't change anything. This stuff isn't important.

cheers

W-Y

Bingo. It's just a relay. Saddam passes the baton or the US forceably take the baton -same crap.

Same torture. Same Abu Ghraib. Same dead Iraqis.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by segovius

Bingo. It's just a relay. Saddam passes the baton or the US forceably take the baton -same crap.

Same torture. Same Abu Ghraib. Same dead Iraqis.

Just remember that our POV is very cynical. Be carful there friend. Stare into the abyss long enough and the abyss will stare back into you. But I do agree with you.



cheers

W-Y

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Just remember that our POV is very cynical. Be carful there friend. Stare into the abyss long enough and the abyss will stare back into you. But I do agree with you.



cheers

W-Y

Well we're all in the abyss now - when we all realize that then we can plan a way out.

May be some time yet.....

[Pendergast]

Unless someone proves that Saddam Hussein is Judas reincarnated, he is guilty, in my eyes, and had no justifications for the abuse of his people.

I also wish that his accomplices from other countries will face the same court and will be constraint to answer for their participation in his deeds.

[segovius]

Breaking News: It seems that Saddam's own DEFENCE LAWYER has been kidnapped and found executed.

Bastards - those damn jihadi Ba'athists.....oh wait........err.......

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by segovius

Breaking News: It seems that Saddam's own DEFENCE LAWYER has been kidnapped and found executed.

Bastards - those damn jihadi Ba'athists.....oh wait........err.......

We have to look at more than just the OBVIOUS suggestion his murder was at the hands of those angry at Saddam or those who are incensed that he would get legal representation.

It is ALSO possible Baathists might have killed him so Saddam can say no good attorney wants to defend Saddam if they risk being murdered.

Or, the defense of Saddam can not go on without this important member of the team.

You'll also note the defense asked for a 3 month delay but only got 1 1/2 months. Bringing on a new attorney might get them the extra time they wanted.

And as far as being ruthless enough to kill an innocent member of your own team for no important reason...

Pfffft! Who do you think we're talking about here???

This is SADDAM!!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Stunt

Yea, he said "Who Are You? What are you?" in the Court because he had no government when he ruled his Country, he killed 112 men just because he wanted too. He never had a court with Justices and all. That's why he is so confused. But I say:

"SCREW SADDAM HUSSEIN"

I originally thought they should just sentence him to death. But they have to give him a fair trial or else thats Un-Constitutional, because then it would just be like the old Iraq, which is them just killing people for no reason. I'm sure he will come out guilty though!

My take on it is that when Saddam was looking at the judge saying, "Who are you? What are you?" it was as an expression of contempt.

"Who do you think you are to judge ME? WTF do you think you are doing to ME? I am the MF PRESIDENT OF THIS WHOLE MF COUNTRY!" That kind of attitude. I doubt he was confused at all.

This thing about their wanting more time to prepare the defense is suspicious to me.

I don't know, but I get a feeling they are stalling for time, waiting for something unknown to us to happen before getting the trial going.

The killing of one of the defense attorneys might be tied to this need for a delay.

I don't like it at all.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by mojo2

This thing about their wanting more time to prepare the defense is suspicious to me.

The defence needed more time because they were not informed beforehand of the charges against Saddam. Even up to the morning of the trial they did not know what they were.

This would be illegal in the UK btw.

This is a Kangaroo Court and a USSR-style show trial. every-one knows the result, everyone has pre-judged guilt, no International Judicial Law is being observed, the US hand-picked the judges and the whole thing is not available to public inspection as it happens.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I don't really know. All I know there is no justice in the world. Not for Saddam Hussein, not for me. Not for you.

I think a trial against Saddam Hussein is a farce, just like the whole Iraq mess. It is all a farce. A sad farce where people die, but a farce non-the-less. One man's president-for-life is another's dictator. One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

Pick a side, stick with it and go. Won't change anything. This stuff isn't important.

cheers

W-Y

Weyland-Yutani, excuse my irreverence but your new sig is very skillfully done and in a way it looks like the emblem on a high quality automobile. (How much oil did you use today?)

However, when you look at it more closely or in a different way, it looks a bit racy or x-rated.

The "W" looks as though it is a man about to 'mount' a woman in the 'traditional' style.

Or it can also be seen as someone wearing a leotard on his/her hands and knees with their head touching the ground and looking through their legs to the person (us) who is looking at he or she.

It is all very confusing but interesting and thought provoking.

Bottom line, I LIKE IT!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by segovius

The defence needed more time because they were not informed beforehand of the charges against Saddam. Even up to the morning of the trial they did not know what they were.

This would be illegal in the UK btw.

This is a Kangaroo Court and a USSR-style show trial. every-one knows the result, everyone has pre-judged guilt, no International Judicial Law is being observed, the US hand-picked the judges and the whole thing is not available to public inspection as it happens.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Ah, then that means we should not expect to see you posting in this thread after today???

After all, it is all pre-determined and something of a sham. Right?

[rambo47]

Saddam was a real bad guy. They're gonna chop his head off when the trial is over, and he deserves it. The Kurds, or what's left of them after sad-ass Saddam's genocide attempts, will be cheering loudly.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by rambo47

Saddam was a real bad guy. They're gonna chop his head off when the trial is over, and he deserves it. The Kurds, or what's left of them after sad-ass Saddam's genocide attempts, will be cheering loudly.

Although I agree Hussein deserves a harsh punishment, I am not sure the Kurds will be out of the woods yet.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by rambo47

Saddam was a real bad guy. They're gonna chop his head off when the trial is over, and he deserves it. The Kurds, or what's left of them after sad-ass Saddam's genocide attempts, will be cheering loudly.

If you are referring to Halabja then there is a large amount of evidence (some from the CIA and State Department) that it was the Iranians that were responsible for the gassings there.

If this evidence is forthcoming and examined in Saddam's trial and the truth found out one way or the other, then all well and good. If not.......well, we have a Show Trial here so it won't be.

The other attempted genocide of the Kurds I can think of is when the US promised the support for the uprising against Saddam and then sat back while he massacred them and did nothing. I shouldn't think this will come out either but if it does then the US promises and subsequent refusal to help should be taken into account.

I am not pro-Saddam. I am pro-justice and rule of law. In fact that's why I'm against Saddam - because he systematically undermined and destroyed it for his own ends. Now he's out of the picture the US is doing exactly the same.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by segovius

If you are referring to Halabja then there is a large amount of evidence (some from the CIA and State Department) that it was the Iranians that were responsible for the gassings there.

Got links?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Got links?

TruthOut publishing a NY Times article.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis.

That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them?

[Weyland-Yutani]

To paraphrase:... " Saddam Hussein is just this guy you know.. "



cheers

W-Y

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by segovius

TruthOut publishing a NY Times article.

Thank you very much. Contrary to the belief of SOME on these pages, I do constantly re-evaluate my beliefs to make sure they reflect the truest truth.

I just made a mental re-arrangement to accommodate this new information.

Thanks, segovius.