Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Making America Safer… for Iraq Fighters
When the U.S. invasion of Iraq began, the new Homeland Security Department immediately raised the terrorism alert level to Orange because of intelligence suggesting that Iraq could be preparing acts of terrorism in response to the attack.
In fact, under international law, if Iraq were to attack the U.S. with teams of sappers, blowing up bridges, tunnels, TV stations, power plants, factories or refineries (all legitimate wartime targets), if the attackers were to wear military uniforms identifying them as Iraqi soldiers legal scholars say they would not be terrorists at all, but rather soldiers engaged in acts of war.
The penalty, should such attackers be later apprehended, would be a prisoner of war camp for the duration of the conflict, after which time they’d be repatriated.
"It’s a disturbing thought," says George Fletcher, a professor of jurisprudence and a specialist in the law of war at Columbia University. "Iraq, under the rules of war, has a clear right of self-defense which would permit it to blow up things in the U.S.," he says.
Nor would Iraq have to declare war against the U.S. for its agents in the U.S. to acquire military standing, according to Fletcher, because Iraq was attacked first by the U.S. "I think under the circumstances, they could certainly claim the right of self-defense," he said.
According to Fletcher, the key to establishing whether an attack by Iraqi agents in the U.S. was an act of terror or an act of war would be whether those agents were identifiable as Iraqi military personnel or not. "If they were dressed as civilians, then they would be considered to be unlawful combatants," he says, "and they would not come under the terms of the Geneva Convention. But if they wore their uniforms and were captured, they’d have to be considered prisoners of war.
This raises serious questions about the Bush Administration’s claim to Americans that it was going to war against Iraq to protect Americans from terrorism.
By attacking Iraq, Washington has not only given Iraq a motive to counterattack in the U.S., it has made it possible for those Iraqis who are willing to fight for their country here in America to do so with much less risk. Assuming they were to opt for something other than a suicide bombing, Iraqi agents could at least contemplate being free before long even if they were captured, since the rules of war require that POWs be treated humanely, and that they be released at the end of a war.
That’s a lot better treatment than what is in store for captured terrorists, who would likely face the death penalty.
Iraq has already said that in retaliation for the U.S. invasion, it will strike back at America. The longer the war lasts without a clear and decisive resolution, the likelier it is that Baghdad will make good on that threat. If it does, the U.S. may have little alternative but to add the perpetrators of any attack, should they be captured, to its growing list of captured soldiers in Iraq.
Of course, the Bush administration hasn’t shown much regard for international law, so it’s possible they’d ignore the fact that Iraqi fighters in the U.S. fall under Geneva Convention rules. It might just treat them like Al Qaeda suspects. That course of action, however, would put all American POWs in Iraq and other future conflicts at grave risk.
Meanwhile, even if Iraq never succeeds in opening up a front in the domestic U.S., or against American government, military or business assets overseas, Americans should be prepared for some ugly scenes. Fletcher notes that those Americans who are fighting in Iraq as special forces or as CIA operatives–that is, if they are undercover and not in uniforms that clearly identify them as American soldiers–do not have the protection of the Geneva Convention themselves, and could be treated themselves as unlawful combatants–which could mean torture or execution.
Is everyone feeling safer now?
Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A collection of Lindorff’s stories can be found here: http://www.nwuphilly.org/dave.html
William S. Lind
The Pitfalls of War Planning
Latinos on the Frontlines, Again
Paul de Rooij
From Baghdad: "I Am His Mother"
Operation Embedded Folly
Labor’s War at Home
Israeli Dreams of Iraqi Oil
The Vietnam Connection
The Graveyard at Baghdad’s North Gate
War Web Log 04/01
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!