Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

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….)

pp1

or
cp-store

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

The Saddam Trial

Pulling the Court Strings

by NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ AHMED

At last, the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein, on trial. At first glance, the event seems a landmark symbol of victory for the Iraqi people. But beneath the sense of vindication and hope experienced by countless Iraqis that justice will, finally, be done, there lies a bitter irony.

Which is this: Saddam and his Ba’ath Party were brought to power by the west. Indeed, the west is deeply complicit in the vast majority of the heinous crimes against humanity he perpetrated during his iron fisted rule. We seem to have forgotten that Saddam himself was hired by the Americans in 1963, as confirmed by former Ba’athist leader Hani Fkaiki, when he helped to compile black-lists of Iraqis to be killed in the pursuit of the Ba’athist rise to power. He was one of many exiles working at CIA stations throughout the Middle East. The ensuing bloodbath, orchestrated by the CIA, resulted in the deaths of 5,000 Iraqis, including doctors, teachers, lawyers and professors. Saddam himself participated in the massacres.

After coming to power, Saddam was considered a great friend of the United States in its strategic vision of Middle East "order." A National Security directive issued by President Bush in October 1989 described Saddam as the "West’s policeman in the region." Such statements were backed by consistent and massive financial–and of course military–support to his regime. The problem is that western sponsorship of Saddam meant, inevitably, the sponsorship of his crimes. Take the notorious Anfal campaign in 1988 killing nearly 190,000 Kurds, where Saddam’s forces used mustard gas and nerve agents at Halabja. Approximately 5,000 Kurds died due to the chemical attack, and another 12,000 were seriously injured.

After the massacres, despite urgent concerns raised at government level by the Senate, NGOs and other international observers, the US was granting new licenses for dual-use technology exports–materials that could be used to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons – at a rate more than 50 per cent greater than before Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds. At around the same time, US Customs Service inspectors had "detected a marked increase in the activity levels of Iraq’s procurement networks. These increased levels of activity were particularly noticeable in the areas of missile technology, chemical-biological warfare and fuze technology."

All of this grim history has not been lost on the Americans, who have controlled the trial process from the beginning, and see it as a way of convincing the world of moral and humanitarian principles behind US aims in Iraq. They have ensured that the case against Saddam is limited to his having ordered the killings of approximately 145 people from the Shi’ite town of Dujail in 1982. While certainly a heinious atrocity in itself, it barely scratches the surface of Saddam’s massive record of repression, largely achieved with unwavering green lights from the west. These include crushing the 1991 Shi’ite uprising in southern Iraq, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (remember April Glaspie?), as well as the genocidal Anfal campaign.

Court officials say that the 1982 incident was the easiest and quickest case to put together. Wrong. As Noah Leavitt, a professor of law at Whitman College, observes, the Anfal atrocities are far better known, involving "much larger numbers of victims, more witnesses and more documentation." So why, after two years of waiting around with ample time to construct a powerful case against Saddam for all his crimes, the exclusive focus on one mass killing in 1982?

The answer is simple. It simply would not do for the United States to have the Saddam trial collapse into a gore-filled revelation of precisely how the west connived in Saddam’s rise to power, jockeyed to supply him with financial and military assistance, and actively supported him throughout his blood-soaked career.

Such a spectacle would reveal the ironic fiction that unforunately pervades the entire trial proceedings: the fact that Saddam is now being tried in a court made by the very governments most complicit in his crimes.

So the goal posts have already been fixed. As Amnesty International pointed out, the tribunal’s statute "is not consistent with international law." The problems with due process are so bad, that "trials and further investigations should not proceed" until the concerns raised by independent international legal experts are "adequately addressed." No sign of that so far.

The tribunal was established by the Iraqi interim government under the supervision of US occupation authorities. There is no jury, only five Iraqi judges assisted by American and British advisers, appointed again with US guidance. The rules of evidence and procedure they will use were also formulated under US tutelage. Unbelievably, the case will proceed according to Saddam’s own 1971 criminal law, and judges need only be "satisfied" of the defendant’s guilt–not "satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt." With the death penalty on the table, the possibility remains that Saddam could by tried, convicted and executed solely for his role in a single killing spree in 1982, without any of his other crimes coming under any sort of legal scrutiny.

The presence of the death penalty, of course, raises other pertinent questions. Imagine an unlikely scenario where the United States and Britain were brought into the case as co-defendants for their complicity in the myriad of Saddam’s crimes extending well beyond the 1982 atrocity, both before and after? Would the death penalty still apply?

NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ AHMED is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in London (www.globalresearch.org), and the author of three books including Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq and his latest, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism. He teaches courses in international relations at the School of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies at the University of Sussex.