Can Saddam get a fair trial - and does it matter? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ubertuber · 09-22-2006, 09:05 PM

NY Times article about the replacement of the Chief Judge in Saddam Hussein's trial:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

September 21, 2006
On First Day, New Judge Throws Hussein Out of Court, to Lawyers’ Dismay
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 — One day after the judge in Saddam Hussein’s genocide trial was fired over accusations that he was biased in favor of the former dictator, the judge who replaced him threw Mr. Hussein out of the courtroom on Wednesday and declared, “I decide whether I want to listen to you!”

The new judge, Muhammad al-Uraibi, was clearly determined to show he would not tolerate outbursts by Mr. Hussein, in which he has denounced the American occupation and threatened witnesses.

In protest, Mr. Hussein’s lawyers withdrew from the case on Wednesday. One lawyer, Wadood Fawzi, attacked the “flagrant interference of the executive authorities to guide the path of this trial.” He demanded guarantees that his client’s rights would be protected. In the current phase of the trial, Mr. Hussein stands accused of genocide in the killing of more than 50,000 Kurds during a military campaign in 1988.

On Tuesday night, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki fired the previous judge, Abdullah al-Amiri. Mr. Maliki’s aides cited the judge’s comments in court last week in which he assured Mr. Hussein, “You are not a dictator.”

Aides to Mr. Maliki have said that Judge Amiri showed a clear bias against the prosecution and that his comments last week had insulted and enraged many Iraqis. But international human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice, said the firing undermined the credibility of the court and might send a message to other judges that displeasing the government may lead to dismissal.

Wednesday brought a new wrinkle in the controversy. The statute allowing tribunal judges to be removed requires that the Presidency Council, composed of President Jalal Talabani and two vice presidents, approve the action, but that has not yet happened, according to an American close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Judge Amiri voluntarily decided to step aside, and he “decided not to come today,” the official said during a briefing with reporters on Wednesday night.

Judge Uraibi, a Shiite Arab, is believed to be from Amara, in southeastern Iraq, and has served as a judge before, the American official said.

After the lawyers withdrew Wednesday, Judge Uraibi motioned for new defense counsel to step forward, prompting Mr. Hussein to rise to criticize the judge from the dock.

“I tell you to listen to my opinion,” he demanded.

Judge Uraibi replied: “Sit down. Sit down. I am the presiding judge, and I decide whether I want to listen to you!” The judge then ordered him removed.

In response, Mr. Hussein shouted, “Yes, yes,” and he told the judge that he knew his father had been “an agent in the security forces.” Gesturing to his abdomen, Mr. Hussein said he knew that the judge’s father had once had hernia surgery.

As Mr. Hussein was led away, the judge disputed what he said about his father: “I challenge you in front of the public. Get him out!”

Human rights groups are questioning whether tribunal judges will be kept in check because they fear that if they are removed, they might lose their security protection.

The American official said he could not comment on whether Judge Amiri would lose any security protection. But he said it was “highly premature” to suggest that the tribunal’s impartiality had been harmed by the removal of the judge.

Qais Mizher and Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi contributed reporting.

I've quoted and linked a recent NY Times article about the replacement of the Chief Judge in Saddam Hussein's trial. The whole thing is worth reading, but I've bolded the two paragraphs that got me thinking about this thread. In my opinion, Mr. Amiri was out of line not just for his perspective, but for opining from the bench. However, I don't entertain any illusions - if the judge had shouted Hussein down and told him he absolutely was a dictator, I doubt there would have been an outcry, and I doubt even more that he'd have been replaced. I'm particularly disturbed that there seems to have been a procedural error in the replacement - that authorities couldn't even manage to follow the rules in such an important case. Perhaps I'm only now catching on to the obvious, but is it even possible that the powers that be would allow this trial to proceed in such a way that a not-guilty verdict could even be conceivable?

Here I'm quoting and linking a prior NY Times article - not the whole thing, since much of it is similar. I'm putting in the parts that differ substantially and add to the conversation. Note that I believe there is a typo and the Hussein referred to should actually read as Bassam al-Husseini, who is an aide to Prime Minister Maliki:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

The firing was condemned by human rights advocates as improper political interference by Mr. Maliki’s government, which is dominated by Shiites and Kurds persecuted during Mr. Hussein’s rule. Human Rights Watch said the firing “sends a chilling message to all judges: toe the line or risk removal.”

“The government is taking into regard the feelings of the Iraqi people,” Mr. Hussein said. “When the judge told Saddam, ‘You are not a dictator,’ he hurt the feelings of the Iraqi people.”

“There was pressure from the Iraqi people and people in Kurdistan because their feelings were hurt,” he said, adding that the prime minister has the authority to remove judges from the tribunal. “The government had to respond to this pressure.”

But international human rights groups said the firing undermines the tribunal’s credibility and could influence other judges to favor the prosecution. They also questioned whether the tribunal’s procedures for handling allegations of judicial bias and misconduct were followed.

“This shows the court is not immune from political interference and may be open to being manipulated by public opinion or politicians,” said Hanny Megally, director of the Middle East and North Africa program for the International Center for Transitional Justice, which is an observer in the tribunal.

Is this not a problem? It isn't that I think that Hussein is plausibly not-guilty, but I had imagined that it would be of vital importance to ensure a strictly legitimate judicial process in such a hugh profile case. Or is it that it is not even possible to provide a fair trial in such a case? This is hardly the first irregularity in this trial. Between the killings and kidnappings of the legal staff involved, this judge got off relatively easy. The NY Times summarized the problems encountered so far in Saddam's trial:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

September 20, 2006
A Look at Problems in Saddam Trials
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:44 p.m. ET

Some of the problems that have plagued the Iraqi courts trying Saddam Hussein:

-- Oct. 19, 2005: Saddam and seven others go on trial for the killings of Shiite Muslims in Dujail in 1982. Saddam challenges the legitimacy of the court.

-- Oct. 20, 2005 -- Defense lawyer Saadoun al-Janabi is abducted and found murdered.

-- Nov. 8, 2005: Defense lawyer Adel al-Zubeidi is killed in a Baghdad ambush and a colleague, Thamir al-Khuzaie, is wounded. Al-Khuzaie flees and asks for asylum in Qatar.

-- Dec. 4. 2005: Court official says one of the five judges has stepped down after learning that one of the defendants may have been involved in his brother's execution.

-- Dec. 5, 2005: Defense lawyers walk out when denied right to challenge court's legitimacy; chief judge then reverses ruling and allows former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark to speak.

-- Dec 21, 2005: Saddam claims Americans beat and ''tortured'' him and other defendants while in detention and prays openly in court despite judge's order for trial to proceed.

-- Jan. 15: Chief judge Rizgar Amin submits resignation after complaints by Shiite politicians that he had failed to maintain control of the court proceedings.

-- June 21: Saddam lawyer Khamis al-Obeidi is abducted and slain.

-- July 7: Saddam and three others refuse food to protest lack of security for lawyers and conduct of the trial.

-- July 23: Saddam is hospitalized on the 17th day of his hunger strike and fed through a tube.

-- July 27: Dujail trial adjourns until Oct. 16, when verdict is expected.

-- Aug. 21: Saddam and seven others go on trial in a new case, for a crackdown against the Kurds in the late 1980s.

-- Sept. 14: Chief Judge Abdullah al-Amiri stuns the court by telling Saddam ''you were not a dictator,'' sparking Kurdish demands he be replaced.

-- Sept. 19: Government announces al-Amiri has been replaced as chief judge by his deputy.

Ustwo · 09-22-2006, 11:31 PM

Don't care.

Next time shoot him in the spider hole and save a lot of time and needless effort. Once you reach the level of dictator, normal laws no longer apply. This should have been set up more like the Neurenberger trials and less like the OJ trial.

I don't understand the concept of a fair trial being so important in a case like this. To me its about justice, not cross examining every witness to a mass execution, or halting the trial because Saddam doesn't eat for few days.

Plaid13 · 09-23-2006, 12:24 AM

Yeah who cares should of shot him in the hole they found him in. If i was the one that found him i would of shot him then said hey look i found his body. Filled the hole with dirt and dropped a headstone with his name on it. Then taken a crap right on the headstone hopefully starting a new tradition.

Dragonlich · 09-23-2006, 01:43 AM

Look, we all know he's guilty, so it's obvious his trial is pretty much useless in proving his guilt. However, we still have to uphold the law, which states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we can't just execute the bastard and get it over with; we first have to prove he's a bastard, and then shoot him.

Ultimately, this trial isn't for us; it's for the Sunni muslims in Iraq (Saddam's tribe), and Muslims worldwide. If they even *think* Saddam's innocent, he'll turn into a martyr for their cause. And that cause, of course, is anti-american, anti-western. If Saddam hadn't been put on trial, he would've been yet another "victim" of Western aggression. If he's proven guilty and executed by the Iraqi people, he's an utter bastard who abused his people in his quest for regional/world domination.

Yes, there are people out there that see this as an American show trial set up to humiliate a Muslim hero for daring to stand up to the West. We have to prove them wrong. Unfortunately, we can only hope they'll accept the results...

Daniel_ · 09-23-2006, 01:51 AM

Hmm.

Let's think about this.

His crime (for which there seems to be a vast amount of evidence) was to ignore decency and the rule of "common law".

So summary execution is his way.

It might be fair to say "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" but I feel that if he's going to be summarily executed for his past, then that makes his executioner as bad as him.

Personally I disagree with the death penalty on philosophical grounds - put simply, if it's wrong for a person to take life, then it has to be wrong for the state to take life.

Either way, giving the man a trial, even if he's a self evident monster, proves to ourselves and the world that we are not arbitrary and monstrous like we accuse him of being.

Sadly, his distortion of the local political scene was so great that it is almost certainly impossible to try him anywhere in the middle east and have it be fair; also having the trial in the west would cause local political problems of the "victor's justice" variety.

The problem with killing him out of hand and using his grave as a latrine is that it makes you look like spiteful conquerors and plays into the hands of the people that say the west only fought in Iraq out of spite and greed.

The British have a long history (centuries) of going to other lands and trying it - we most often came unstuck when we behaved like we had the right to dictate because of self evident natural justice (Cawnpore, Amritsar, American Revolution, etc) and did best when we behaved decently and gave a system of justice based on laws and evidence (our version of common law and jurisprudence forms a large part of the basis of the judicial system in most of the post colonial world, including the US).

So - to answer the OP - I do not believe he can get a fair trial, and I do believe that it matters.

kutulu · 09-23-2006, 02:56 AM

No and No.

highthief · 09-23-2006, 04:55 AM

No, I doubt he can get a completely fair trial, and yes, it does matter - it matters because the party line is that Saddam was out of control and ignored common rules of decency and fairness in governing his people. Now that other people are in charge, in theory, of that poor country, they have a requirement to uphold the new standard, which requires due process for everyone. Just as rulers must be beholding to the law, so must the law be beholding to rulers (or ex-rulers).

Willravel · 09-23-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

No, I doubt he can get a completely fair trial, and yes, it does matter - it matters because the party line is that Saddam was out of control and ignored common rules of decency and fairness in governing his people. Now that other people are in charge, in theory, of that poor country, they have a requirement to uphold the new standard, which requires due process for everyone. Just as rulers must be beholding to the law, so must the law be beholding to rulers (or ex-rulers).

BAM. Very well put.

roachboy · 09-23-2006, 08:05 AM

strange.....i would not have expected anyone to support the notion of a show trial. or summary execution. i guess the problem with stalin's usage of both was the fact that stalin was doing it. summary execution and/or show trials are in themselves ok, then. anyone care to explain to me how summary execution or a show trial are in fact ok? what purpose either would serve politically (not to mention legally and ethically) that anyone in their right mind would endorse?

this is the conclusion the conservative responses above would lead to: if you are going to defend either summary execution of a show trial, then defend it. don't dance about by frothing over saddam hussein--the issue is no whether you like him or not--no-one really cares about that--go ahead and defend summary execution and/or a show trial....i'd like to see it.

Infinite_Loser · 09-23-2006, 08:43 AM

No, he won't get a fair trial and yes, it should matter. The only thing Saddam is guilty of is not cooperating with the United States and its allies.

Iraq was better off with Saddam as dictator than it is currently.

Ustwo · 09-23-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

No, he won't get a fair trial and yes, it should matter. The only thing Saddam is guilty of is not cooperating with the United States and its allies.

Iraq was better off with Saddam as dictator than it is currently.

Well that and mass murder, torture, the usual dictator stuff. The point is for the Iraqi people to put him on trial for crimes against them not the United States, the problem is treating it like an episode of Mattlock, when it should be a straight forward warcrimes trial.

aberkok · 09-23-2006, 12:16 PM

I don't think it's possible for him to get a fair trial, but of course it matters.

Anyone fit to even use the word "justice" should know that it's not something you can pick and choose where to apply it. It applies no less for Saddam Hussein than for anyone else, even if he is an evil man.

In Plato's Crito, Socrates makes this argument for why even he should be subject to a trial when he has the option of escaping:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates (Plato)

SOCRATES: But if this is true, what is the application? In leaving the prison against the will of the Athenians, do I wrong any? or rather do I not wrong those whom I ought least to wrong? Do I not desert the principles which were acknowledged by us to be just? What do you say?

CRITO: I cannot tell, Socrates, for I do not know.

SOCRATES: Then consider the matter in this way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me: "Tell us, Socrates," they say; "what are you about? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us- the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out; and we might reply, "Yes; but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?

CRITO: Very good, Socrates.

SOCRATES: "And was that our agreement with you?" the law would say, "or were you to abide by the sentence of the State?" And if I were to express astonishment at their saying this, the law would probably add: "Answer, Socrates, instead of opening your eyes: you are in the habit of asking and answering questions. Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage?" None, I should reply. "Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic?" Right, I should reply. "Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other evil at his hands?- you would not say this? And because we think right to destroy you, do you think that you have any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far as in you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence; and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him; or he must change their view of what is just: and if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country." What answer shall we make to this, Crito? Do the laws speak truly, or do they not?

CRITO: I think that they do.

In a nutshell -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

If one has the ability to choose whether to obey a law, then he is destroying the power of the law. Destroying law is unjust, for men require a community and a community requires law.

filtherton · 09-23-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well that and mass murder, torture, the usual dictator stuff. The point is for the Iraqi people to put him on trial for crimes against them not the United States, the problem is treating it like an episode of Mattlock, when it should be a straight forward warcrimes trial.

Many of our allies in the war on terror are dictators and do dictator things like saddam. The difference between them and saddam is that they are cooperating with us. Besides, i was under the impression that you support mass murder and torture provided it is being done to people you don't like.

Willravel · 09-23-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well that and mass murder, torture, the usual dictator stuff.

WHOA WHOA WHOA, you yourself condone torture. That should be removed from your list immediatally, lest you be a hypocrite. As for the mass murder, Bush 1 supported Saddam until during the attack on the Kurds. We sold him the very weapons used on the Kurds, of course.

Saddam is an evil man, and a massive tool. He deserves to be brought to justice, and those he wronged deserve justice.

Infinite_Loser · 09-23-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Many of our allies in the war on terror are dictators and do dictator things like saddam. The difference between them and saddam is that they are cooperating with us. Besides, i was under the impression that you support mass murder and torture provided it is being done to people you don't like.

I was about to type something along the same lines, but you said it better than I could have. If Saddam was cooperative with the United States, he wouldn't be on trial right now.

Ch'i · 09-23-2006, 02:19 PM

It's interesting to see how many people (Plaid13, UsTwo) believe we should have shot him on sight , and give him an unfair trial.

So much for not sinking to his level.

Ustwo · 09-23-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

It's interesting to see how many people (Plaid13, UsTwo) believe we should have shot him on sight , and give him an unfair trial.

So much for not sinking to his level.

Justice is important, the vehicle to reach it is not important.

Its not sinking to his level and suggesting it is, is hyperbole.

Many a innocent man has been convicted by a fair trial, and many a guilty has gone free, in Saddam's case what is the point of going through a legal exercise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

WHOA WHOA WHOA, you yourself condone torture. That should be removed from your list immediatally, lest you be a hypocrite.

Motive is important, as well as method. Torture is a vague term. None of the US methods leave you scarred, maimed, etc. Motive wise, its the difference between having someones wife tortured as an object lesson like Saddam would do, or torturing a terrorist for information of their target.

Quote:

As for the mass murder, Bush 1 supported Saddam until during the attack on the Kurds. We sold him the very weapons used on the Kurds, of course.

Every arab nation and about every politician left and right wanted to give Saddam a chance, the arabs insisted he would not be a problem. We worked with him until his true nature was known. I'm sorry we didn't have psychic powers.

Quote:

Saddam is an evil man, and a massive tool. He deserves to be brought to justice, and those he wronged deserve justice.

And justice has nothing to do with the method of his trial. I think a fair trial is to sooth western sensabilities, and has nothing to do with reality.

dlish · 09-23-2006, 03:50 PM

i dont really care if he was or wasnt a dictator/mass murderer. i dont really care if your mcveigh, or that wacko at waco, or hitler, stalin, mao, tamer, genghis you name them or any number of nutjobs out there...

if you cant give them a fair trial, you place yourself in a predicament where history will look back and you and ridicule you for the rule of law that you speak of and the hypocrisy that you act out.

read my signature... |
|
\/

dc_dux · 09-23-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Justice is important, the vehicle to reach it is not important......n Saddam's case what is the point of going through a legal exercise?

What's the point? How about the Iraq Constitution?

Isnt that what this war is all about?

Quote:

Article 19:

First: The judiciary is independent and no power is above the judiciary except the law.

Second: There is no crime or punishment except by a stipulation. The punishment shall only be for an act that the law considers a crime when perpetrated. A harsher sentence than the applicable sentence at the time of the offense may not be imposed.

Third: Litigation shall be a safeguarded and guaranteed right for all.

Fourth: The right to a defense shall be sacred and guaranteed in all phases of investigation and trial.

Fifth: The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial. The accused may not be tried on the same crime for a second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced.

Sixth: Every person has the right to be treated with justice in judicial and administrative proceedings........

He should even have the right to call Rummy as a character witness...:

and testify as to US (tacit) past support:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

But we can't allow that, can we?

highthief · 09-23-2006, 05:05 PM

Well said, dc. Unless, those who are voting for summary execution w/out trial believe the Iraqi constitution is less valid a constitiution than, say, that of the U.S. I cannot see how one can support ignoring such law.

Ustwo · 09-23-2006, 06:18 PM

Oh how damning!

You can tell Clinton is 'feeling his pain'.

Carter meets a kindred spirt!

I love how the left clings to the image of Rummy and Saddam like it means something deep. Well Carter and Castro most likely does, but lets not be stupid.

Oh and one for the few of you who know your history....

Lets see who gets this one...

"Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has met Mr Kim, said that the North Korean leader was very well informed and "was not delusional"." - Thank god they didn't touch!

ugh oh I don't like where this is going. She is past child bearing years I hope.

Oh shit they touched!!! You know what this means, the democrats can't do anything with North Korea because of that touch!

HOLY SHIT even republicans are not immune to the 'touch'

One of those men killed over 10 million of his own people, guess which one!

Ugh a threeway from hell, and guess who is the bottom!

I asked the countries first neo-con about this and all he had to say about it was ...

"Thank goodness photolithography was too slow to take handshake shots in my day!"

Willravel · 09-23-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh how damning!

Because the meaning behind this picture was obviously too complex for people to understand, dc was kind enough to post a link. I suggest that everyone check out the link, as it explains the situation shown in the picture.

Ustwo · 09-23-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Because the meaning behind this picture was obviously too complex for people to understand, dc was kind enough to post a link. I suggest that everyone check out the link, as it explains the situation shown in the picture.

We supported Iraq against Iran yes, shocking after the whole 'hostage' thing.

I read the entire section on Rumsfield and the only 'crime' seems to be we didn't condem the use of Chemical weapons in 1983 on his first trip there and the US waited until 1984 to do so.

In the early 80's Iraq was seen as a potential ally against Iran, and we supported one group of assholes against another. Once the level of assholishness was determined that cooperation ceased.

dc_dux · 09-23-2006, 08:12 PM

Was Reagan arming Iran at the same time as buddying up to Saddam?

Quote:

The evidence is now persuasive that George H.W. Bush participated in negotiations with Iran’s radical regime in 1980, behind President Jimmy Carter’s back, with the goal of arranging for 52 American hostages to be released after Bush and Ronald Reagan were sworn in as Vice President and President, respectively.

In exchange, the Republicans agreed to let Iran obtain U.S.-manufactured military supplies through Israel. The Iranians kept their word, releasing the hostages immediately upon Reagan’s swearing-in on Jan. 20, 1981.

Over the next few years, the Republican-Israel-Iran weapons pipeline operated mostly in secret, only exploding into public view with the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986. Even then, the Reagan-Bush team was able to limit congressional and other investigations, keeping the full history – and the 1980 chapter – hidden from the American people.

Upon taking office on Jan. 20, 2001, George W. Bush walled up the history even more by issuing an executive order blocking the scheduled declassification of records from the Reagan-Bush years. After 9/11, the younger George Bush added more bricks to the wall by giving Presidents, Vice Presidents and their heirs power over releasing documents.

But that history is vital today.

First, the American people should know the real history of U.S.-Iran relations before the Bush administration launches another preemptive war in the Middle East. Second, the degree to which Iranian officials are willing to negotiate with their U.S. counterparts – and fulfill their side of the bargain – bears on the feasibility of talks now.

Indeed, the only rationale for hiding the historical record is that it would embarrass the Bush Family and possibly complicate George W. Bush’s decision to attack Iran regardless of what the American people might want.

*snip*

The false history surrounding the Iranian hostage crisis also has led to the mistaken conclusion that it was only the specter of Ronald Reagan’s tough-guy image that made Iran buckle in January 1981 and that, therefore, the Iranians respect only force.

The hostage release on Reagan’s Inauguration Day bathed the new President in an aura of heroism as a leader so feared by America’s enemies that they scrambled to avoid angering him. It was viewed as a case study of how U.S. toughness could restore the proper international order.

That night, as fireworks lit the skies of Washington, the celebration was not only for a new President and for the freed hostages, but for a new era in which American power would no longer be mocked. That momentum continues to this day in George W. Bush’s “preemptive” wars and the imperial boasts about a “New American Century.”

However, the reality of that day 25 years ago now appears to have been quite different than was understood at the time. What’s now known about the Iranian hostage crisis suggests that the “coincidence” of the Reagan Inauguration and the Hostage Release was not a case of frightened Iranians cowering before a U.S. President who might just nuke Tehran.

The evidence indicates that it was a prearranged deal between the Republicans and the Iranians. The Republicans got the hostages and the political bounce; Iran’s Islamic fundamentalists got a secret supply of weapons and various other payoffs.

Though the full history remains a state secret, it now appears Republicans did contact Iran’s mullahs during the 1980 campaign; a hostage agreement was reached; and a clandestine flow of U.S. weapons soon followed.

In effect, while Americans thought they were witnessing one reality – the cinematic heroism of Ronald Reagan backing down Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – another truth existed beneath the surface, one so troubling that the Reagan-Bush political apparatus has made keeping the secret a top priority for a quarter century.

The American people must never be allowed to think that the Reagan-Bush era began with collusion between Republican operatives and Islamic terrorists, an act that many might view as treason.

A part of those secret dealings between Iran and the Republicans surfaced in the Iran-Contra Affair in 1986, when the public learned that the Reagan-Bush administration had sold arms to Iran for its help in freeing U.S. hostages then held in Lebanon.

After first denying these facts, the White House acknowledged the existence of the arms deals in 1985 and 1986 but managed to block investigators from looking back before 1984, when the official histories assert that the Iran initiative began.

During the 1987 congressional hearings on Iran-Contra, Republicans – behind the hardnosed leadership of Rep. Dick Cheney – fought to protect the White House, while Democrats, led by the accommodating Rep. Lee Hamilton, had no stomach for a constitutional crisis.

The result was a truncated investigation that laid much of the blame on supposedly rogue operatives, such as Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North.

Many American editors quickly grew bored with the complex Iran-Contra tale, but a few reporters kept searching for its origins. The trail kept receding in time, back to the Republican-Iranian relationship forged in the heat of the 1980 presidential campaign.

Besides the few journalists, some U.S. government officials reached the same conclusion. For instance, Nicholas Veliotes, Reagan’s assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, traced the “germs” of the Iran-Contra scandal to the 1980 campaign.

In a PBS interview, Veliotes said he first discovered the secret arms pipeline to Iran when an Israeli weapons flight was shot down over the Soviet Union on July 18, 1981, after straying off course on its third mission to deliver U.S. military supplies from Israel to Iran via Larnaca, Cyprus.

“We received a press report from Tass [the official Soviet news agency] that an Argentinian plane had crashed,” Veliotes said. “According to the documents … this was chartered by Israel and it was carrying American military equipment to Iran. …And it was clear to me after my conversations with people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment.

“Now this was not a covert operation in the classic sense, for which probably you could get a legal justification for it. As it stood, I believe it was the initiative of a few people [who] gave the Israelis the go-ahead. The net result was a violation of American law.”

The reason that the Israeli flights violated U.S. law was that no formal notification had been given to Congress about the transshipment of U.S. military equipment as required by the Arms Export Control Act – a foreshadowing of George W. Bush’s decision two decades later to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In checking out the Israeli flight, Veliotes came to believe that the Reagan-Bush camp’s dealings with Iran dated back to before the 1980 election.

*snip*

With the Republican defenses falling apart and with many documents from the Reagan-Bush years scheduled for release in 2001, the opportunity to finally learn the truth about the pivotal election of 1980 loomed.

But George W. Bush..... on his first day in office, his counsel Alberto Gonzales drafted an executive order for Bush that postponed release of the Reagan-Bush records.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush approved another secrecy order that put the records beyond the public’s reach indefinitely, passing down control of many documents to a President’s or a Vice President’s descendants.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2006/092006.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In the early 80's Iraq was seen as a potential ally against Iran, and we supported one group of assholes against another. Once the level of assholishness was determined that cooperation ceased.

The cooperation ceased?

Surely, if you are old enough to remember Carter, you must remember the BNL/BCCI bank scandal...aka Iraqqate...that continued through the Bush Sr. years:

Quote:

The Reagan/Bush administration had spent a good portion of its first term in office secretly selling arms to Iran in an abortive attempt to get our hostages in Lebanon released and a more successful program to fund a rogue Contra supply network. The nation would not loam much about that until well into their second term.

Meanwhile war had broken out between Iran and Iraq and by 1984 Iran was licking Iraq. The administration had to figure out how to balance the fight so that neither side could actually win. But they could hardly go to Congress for funding to aid Iraq since then they might have to explain why Iran was so well equipped.

So the administration again chose the now familiar covert route. They had already gotten Congress to remove Iraq from the list of countries harboring terrorists, clearing the way for non-military trade. All Iraq needed now was funding.The administration decided to supply the funding via two federal loan-guarantee pre-grams administered by two executive branch departments, Agriculture and Commerce, and overseen by the State
Department.

The two loan programs - the Export/Import Bank (Exim) and Commodity Credit
Corporation - could funnel billions of dollars secretly to Iraq by simply authorizing that the bank loans made to Iraq carry a 100 percent U.S. payback guarantee. Of course, the law limited the loan proceeds to specific, non-military uses, such as buying grain from American farmers. But never mind. That little problem could be easily overcome if they used the right bank.

The bank they chose for this specialized operation was the Banco Nazionale del Lavaro (BNL), an Italian-owned bank that just happened to have a branch in Atlanta, Georgia. This was no ordinary bank. BNL also just happened to have former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on its board of advisers, and his consulting firm, Kissinger Associates, represented BNL. At the time the loan program began in 1985 the vice chairman of Kissinger Associates was Larry Eagleburger (now acting Secretary of State) and the KA’s president was Brent Scowcroft (now White House National Security Adviser.)

On the international scene BNL had even more interesting connections. Its wholly owned subsidiary in Zurich, Lavaro Bank, AG, was headed by Dr. Alfred Hartmann, a mysterious Swiss banker who was also a director of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Hartmann also was president of the Swiss Chemical Manufacturer’s Society. Sto-ries in the Swiss press quote Hartmann in 1986 complaining that sales of Swiss chemical producers was way down and that new markets had to be developed.

In 1989 the U.S. Federal Reserve would report that tens of millions of dollars were funneled from BCCI through Lavaro Bank to BNL/Atlanta and then to Iraq at the very time Saddam Hussein was building his chemical warfare capabilities.

With the CCC/Exim loan program in place at BNL/Atlanta, the administration
approved $1 billion a year for five years in CCC and Exim bank loans to Iraq – $5 billion in all. At least $2.6 billion of the money was directly spent on military equipment, particularly on Iraq’s chemicl, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs. What American pain and rice Iraq did buy with the money was more often than not shipped to third countries and bartered for additional military equipment.

http://deepblade.net/journal/Iraqgate_primer.pdf

Dragonlich · 09-23-2006, 10:49 PM

Soooooo... The original question was if Saddam could get a fair trial, and now this thread is degenerating into a "the US was bad too" routine?

Could we please stick to the subject?

Saddam is on trial, for crimes against his own people and the world. The US isn't responsible for those crimes, even IF they supplied the weapons (which they didn't; ironically, Germans build the Iraqi chemical weapons factories). As always, it's still the guy pulling the trigger/giving the orders that is to blame. And that is Saddam.

As for it being possible for him getting a fair trial in Iraq; I'd say he's getting as fair a trial as is possible, given the circumstances. In fact, his trial is more fair than most trials of former dictators.

Ustwo · 09-24-2006, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Soooooo... The original question was if Saddam could get a fair trial, and now this thread is degenerating into a "the US was bad too" routine?

Could we please stick to the subject?

Saddam is on trial, for crimes against his own people and the world. The US isn't responsible for those crimes, even IF they supplied the weapons (which they didn't; ironically, Germans build the Iraqi chemical weapons factories). As always, it's still the guy pulling the trigger/giving the orders that is to blame. And that is Saddam.

As for it being possible for him getting a fair trial in Iraq; I'd say he's getting as fair a trial as is possible, given the circumstances. In fact, his trial is more fair than most trials of former dictators.

Ding Ding, we have a winner!

roachboy · 09-24-2006, 08:11 AM

nice to see the veneer coming off some of the conservatives here, the veneer that enabled them to be confused with people who have any interest in even the most fundamental principles of the united states, which was set up against the arbitrary exercise of power, which countered arbitary power with an insistence of the rule of law. what the ustwo set wants is simple: the summary execution of saddam hussein.

the reason for this:
he is guilty of the crime of opposing the united states.
the public execution of saddam hussein is apparently understood as being something that would legitimate american actions---when any idiot knows that an arbitrary execution of the leader the charges against whom center on the arbitrary use of power would function to delegitimate american actions in a context where further delegitimation seems close of impossible.

such an execution would be the perfect mirror of american politics conservative style--lots of empty talk about demoracy floating around a fundamental lack of respect for the rule of law.

but it's worse than this:

a fair trial would also be a problem for the americans because it would expose directly american complicity in hussein's coming to power, remaining in power, and carrying out the human rights abuses that he is on trial for having committed.

so obviously a show trial is a better option tactically, but raises the other problems outlined above at the very least.

and so even here you have a microcosm of the world engineered for itself by the bush people: unnecessary, illegitiamte policy/actions complicated by incompetence and self-deception resulting in the creation of no-win situations for the americans.

meanwhile, this entire scenario grinds the discourse of democracy to powder, reducing it to the official language of arbitrary rule american-style.

what a fine situation.

dc_dux · 09-24-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

..... a fair trial would also be a problem for the americans because it would expose directly american complicity in hussein's coming to power, remaining in power, and carrying out the human rights abuses that he is on trial for having committed.

Ding Ding, we have a winner!

Ustwo · 09-24-2006, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

a fair trial would also be a problem for the americans because it would expose directly american complicity in hussein's coming to power, remaining in power, and carrying out the human rights abuses that he is on trial for having committed.

Yes of course its the US's fault (and not any other European nation, or Islamic power who supported and helped him) that he turned into a mass murderer.

Oddly in the war I don't recall us getting shot at with American weapons. Lots of French, Russian, and Chinese, and I'm pretty sure it was the Germans who built the underground bunkers (not sure, don't wanna google, it was a European power) but yes is the US who did it all.

Oh noes we would hate to have that exposed.

roachboy · 09-24-2006, 10:19 AM

god you are tedious, ustwo.

do some research----it is easy-----even you can manage it: i have seen evidence of it before, when i suited your political purposes to look.
now it doesnt and so...

but maybe look up the history of the coup that brought hussein to power. maybe look at the american support for the extermination of the iraqi communist party. maybe look at the history of the reagan administration and its relationship with saddam hussein. maybe do some actual research on the character of the international arms trade.

maybe make some vague effort to work out what you are talking about.

it helps. trust me.

Paradise Lost · 09-25-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Saddam is on trial, for crimes against his own people and the world. The US isn't responsible for those crimes, even IF they supplied the weapons (which they didn't; ironically, Germans build the Iraqi chemical weapons factories). As always, it's still the guy pulling the trigger/giving the orders that is to blame. And that is Saddam.

As for it being possible for him getting a fair trial in Iraq; I'd say he's getting as fair a trial as is possible, given the circumstances. In fact, his trial is more fair than most trials of former dictators.

I believe the America is Bad argument would generate from the Trial because of the entailment that we, regardless of whether or not other countries were at stake for keeping him in power/helping him out afterwards (many of whom seem to be our allies from browsing the replies), helped to keep the man in power for a fair period of his reign. More specifically, he's on trial for killings done in 1982, a time at when we (and our allies) were backing him. It's pointless to say that we can't blame ourselves because Saddam is solely responsible. If the United States wasn't supporting him (and why should we have, considering we supported BOTH sides in the Iran-Iraq war) then we should have our best to stop him, yet, we did nothing until he attacked Kuwait. But, it is a fact that we did, and therefore partly responsible, along with our allies. Also, you say the person who gave the orders is responsible, well, I've read that Carter gave some encouragement to Saddam to start his attacks against Iran in the firstplace... well, hot damn. Also, we did supply him with plenty of chemicals for use in weapons.

Now, it's true that this may not have directly led to the things he did inside of his own country, but it's still evidence that we encouraged him to perform equally as devestating acts against those in other countries, specially Iran.

And lastly, from a logical standpoint, just because other dictators didn't receive a fair trial from their respective countries doesn't mean Saddam doesn't deserve one, being that it's a US-led Trial, and we're suppose to be known for fairness to all defendants, regardless of who they are. You say it's fair, many people think differently, I'm glad you were able to state your reasons and clear up why you think otherwise, perhaps changing others opinions to your own. Hopefully I at least cleared up why people are bringing up the 'America is Bad' issue into the argument, if not, then I too have failed in my purpose.

I found a few of possibly thousands of sources on some of my points you may not agree with (such as our giving chemicals).
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...rming_iraq.php
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ra_Affair.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200406011...Imps_73-02.pdf
http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/LicenseMD.html
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

09-22-2006, 11:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Don't care. Next time shoot him in the spider hole and save a lot of time and needless effort. Once you reach the level of dictator, normal laws no longer apply. This should have been set up more like the Neurenberger trials and less like the OJ trial. I don't understand the concept of a fair trial being so important in a case like this. To me its about justice, not cross examining every witness to a mass execution, or halting the trial because Saddam doesn't eat for few days. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-23-2006, 01:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Hmm. Let's think about this. His crime (for which there seems to be a vast amount of evidence) was to ignore decency and the rule of "common law". So summary execution is his way. It might be fair to say "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword" but I feel that if he's going to be summarily executed for his past, then that makes his executioner as bad as him. Personally I disagree with the death penalty on philosophical grounds - put simply, if it's wrong for a person to take life, then it has to be wrong for the state to take life. Either way, giving the man a trial, even if he's a self evident monster, proves to ourselves and the world that we are not arbitrary and monstrous like we accuse him of being. Sadly, his distortion of the local political scene was so great that it is almost certainly impossible to try him anywhere in the middle east and have it be fair; also having the trial in the west would cause local political problems of the "victor's justice" variety. The problem with killing him out of hand and using his grave as a latrine is that it makes you look like spiteful conquerors and plays into the hands of the people that say the west only fought in Iraq out of spite and greed. The British have a long history (centuries) of going to other lands and trying it - we most often came unstuck when we behaved like we had the right to dictate because of self evident natural justice (Cawnpore, Amritsar, American Revolution, etc) and did best when we behaved decently and gave a system of justice based on laws and evidence (our version of common law and jurisprudence forms a large part of the basis of the judicial system in most of the post colonial world, including the US). So - to answer the OP - I do not believe he can get a fair trial, and I do believe that it matters. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝ Last edited by Daniel_; 09-23-2006 at 04:15 AM..

09-23-2006, 04:55 AM	#7 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	No, I doubt he can get a completely fair trial, and yes, it does matter - it matters because the party line is that Saddam was out of control and ignored common rules of decency and fairness in governing his people. Now that other people are in charge, in theory, of that poor country, they have a requirement to uphold the new standard, which requires due process for everyone. Just as rulers must be beholding to the law, so must the law be beholding to rulers (or ex-rulers). __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

09-23-2006, 08:05 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	strange.....i would not have expected anyone to support the notion of a show trial. or summary execution. i guess the problem with stalin's usage of both was the fact that stalin was doing it. summary execution and/or show trials are in themselves ok, then. anyone care to explain to me how summary execution or a show trial are in fact ok? what purpose either would serve politically (not to mention legally and ethically) that anyone in their right mind would endorse? this is the conclusion the conservative responses above would lead to: if you are going to defend either summary execution of a show trial, then defend it. don't dance about by frothing over saddam hussein--the issue is no whether you like him or not--no-one really cares about that--go ahead and defend summary execution and/or a show trial....i'd like to see it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-23-2006, 08:43 AM	#10 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	No, he won't get a fair trial and yes, it should matter. The only thing Saddam is guilty of is not cooperating with the United States and its allies. Iraq was better off with Saddam as dictator than it is currently. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

09-23-2006, 12:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	Yeah who cares should of shot him in the hole they found him in. If i was the one that found him i would of shot him then said hey look i found his body. Filled the hole with dirt and dropped a headstone with his name on it. Then taken a crap right on the headstone hopefully starting a new tradition.

09-23-2006, 01:43 AM	#4 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Look, we all know he's guilty, so it's obvious his trial is pretty much useless in proving his guilt. However, we still have to uphold the law, which states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, we can't just execute the bastard and get it over with; we first have to prove he's a bastard, and then shoot him. Ultimately, this trial isn't for us; it's for the Sunni muslims in Iraq (Saddam's tribe), and Muslims worldwide. If they even think Saddam's innocent, he'll turn into a martyr for their cause. And that cause, of course, is anti-american, anti-western. If Saddam hadn't been put on trial, he would've been yet another "victim" of Western aggression. If he's proven guilty and executed by the Iraqi people, he's an utter bastard who abused his people in his quest for regional/world domination. Yes, there are people out there that see this as an American show trial set up to humiliate a Muslim hero for daring to stand up to the West. We have to prove them wrong. Unfortunately, we can only hope they'll accept the results...

09-23-2006, 02:56 AM	#6 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	No and No.

09-23-2006, 02:19 PM	#16 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	It's interesting to see how many people (Plaid13, UsTwo) believe we should have shot him on sight , and give him an unfair trial. So much for not sinking to his level.

09-23-2006, 03:50 PM	#18 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i dont really care if he was or wasnt a dictator/mass murderer. i dont really care if your mcveigh, or that wacko at waco, or hitler, stalin, mao, tamer, genghis you name them or any number of nutjobs out there... if you cant give them a fair trial, you place yourself in a predicament where history will look back and you and ridicule you for the rule of law that you speak of and the hypocrisy that you act out. read my signature... \| \| \/ __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

09-23-2006, 05:05 PM	#20 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Well said, dc. Unless, those who are voting for summary execution w/out trial believe the Iraqi constitution is less valid a constitiution than, say, that of the U.S. I cannot see how one can support ignoring such law. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

09-23-2006, 06:18 PM	#21 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Oh how damning! You can tell Clinton is 'feeling his pain'. Carter meets a kindred spirt! I love how the left clings to the image of Rummy and Saddam like it means something deep. Well Carter and Castro most likely does, but lets not be stupid. Oh and one for the few of you who know your history.... Lets see who gets this one... "Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who has met Mr Kim, said that the North Korean leader was very well informed and "was not delusional"." - Thank god they didn't touch! ugh oh I don't like where this is going. She is past child bearing years I hope. Oh shit they touched!!! You know what this means, the democrats can't do anything with North Korea because of that touch! HOLY SHIT even republicans are not immune to the 'touch' One of those men killed over 10 million of his own people, guess which one! Ugh a threeway from hell, and guess who is the bottom! I asked the countries first neo-con about this and all he had to say about it was ... "Thank goodness photolithography was too slow to take handshake shots in my day!" __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-23-2006, 10:49 PM	#25 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Soooooo... The original question was if Saddam could get a fair trial, and now this thread is degenerating into a "the US was bad too" routine? Could we please stick to the subject? Saddam is on trial, for crimes against his own people and the world. The US isn't responsible for those crimes, even IF they supplied the weapons (which they didn't; ironically, Germans build the Iraqi chemical weapons factories). As always, it's still the guy pulling the trigger/giving the orders that is to blame. And that is Saddam. As for it being possible for him getting a fair trial in Iraq; I'd say he's getting as fair a trial as is possible, given the circumstances. In fact, his trial is more fair than most trials of former dictators.

09-24-2006, 08:11 AM	#27 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice to see the veneer coming off some of the conservatives here, the veneer that enabled them to be confused with people who have any interest in even the most fundamental principles of the united states, which was set up against the arbitrary exercise of power, which countered arbitary power with an insistence of the rule of law. what the ustwo set wants is simple: the summary execution of saddam hussein. the reason for this: he is guilty of the crime of opposing the united states. the public execution of saddam hussein is apparently understood as being something that would legitimate american actions---when any idiot knows that an arbitrary execution of the leader the charges against whom center on the arbitrary use of power would function to delegitimate american actions in a context where further delegitimation seems close of impossible. such an execution would be the perfect mirror of american politics conservative style--lots of empty talk about demoracy floating around a fundamental lack of respect for the rule of law. but it's worse than this: a fair trial would also be a problem for the americans because it would expose directly american complicity in hussein's coming to power, remaining in power, and carrying out the human rights abuses that he is on trial for having committed. so obviously a show trial is a better option tactically, but raises the other problems outlined above at the very least. and so even here you have a microcosm of the world engineered for itself by the bush people: unnecessary, illegitiamte policy/actions complicated by incompetence and self-deception resulting in the creation of no-win situations for the americans. meanwhile, this entire scenario grinds the discourse of democracy to powder, reducing it to the official language of arbitrary rule american-style. what a fine situation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-24-2006, 10:19 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	god you are tedious, ustwo. do some research----it is easy-----even you can manage it: i have seen evidence of it before, when i suited your political purposes to look. now it doesnt and so... but maybe look up the history of the coup that brought hussein to power. maybe look at the american support for the extermination of the iraqi communist party. maybe look at the history of the reagan administration and its relationship with saddam hussein. maybe do some actual research on the character of the international arms trade. maybe make some vague effort to work out what you are talking about. it helps. trust me. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite