The lawyer for Saddam Hussein must have quite a sense of humor. He complained in an interview with CNN,
“I ask everybody, please: Can this man be charged, so we can all get on with it?” Di Stefano told CNN Wednesday. “Iraq can move on. Saddam Hussein can move on … It is possible for decisions to be made, and those need to be made sooner rather than later.”
In what way is Saddam going to “move on”? Is he going to just get on with his life? Go into peaceful retirement? Start a talk show? Write his memoirs?
P.S. Interesting updates on goings on in Iraq from Mohammed at Iraq the Model.
Gee, Tom…maybe Saddam’s lawyer meant nothing more than Saddam could “get on” with his trial, sort of an appeal to due process. We apparently have all this damning evidence against him. He’s been held in our custody for a few years now. How about a trial? That may be helpful in showing a fledgling democracy how the rule of law should work, as opposed to those dictatorships that apply indefinite detention without trial.
Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if we had a few more of our politicians on the docket…
RL
Most of our ex-presidents should serve a third term.
Ross
Maybe that’s what the lawyer meant, but still, it’s kind of a funny way to describe what is almost certainly going to be Hussein’s only way to “move on,” which is at the end of a rope. Anyway, it’s an IRaqi decision, not an American one, consiering that he will be put on trial by Iraqis, not by Americans.
Perhaps Saddam hopes to return to the writing of his life-and-individual affirming novels.
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/487.cfm#down
Sad Damn! says:
>
I think this is a very naive view.
RL
RL —
Could you please repost your response to Mr. Damn!? It wasn’t reprinted.
I agree that it would be best if they were to get on with it; I don’t understand why they’ve waited so long as it is, but then, if you want to get off on the right foot and establish the rule of law, maybe it matters to get it right. I suspect that we know the most likely outcome, since Saddam is unlikely to be found innocent of all of the various charges of starting the war with Iran, murdering his opponents, etc., etc.; it’s the process that has to be gotten right.
TGP
Incidentally, the judge in the picture (photographed from behind), has already ‘moved on’: he was assassinated last year.
Tom requests I repost the claim of Mr. Damn’s that I thought naive. Mr. Damn’s post is quite short, so hopefully anyone interested has already figured matters out, but for the record it was:
“it’s an Iraqi decision, not an American one, considering that he will be put on trial by Iraqis, not by Americans.”
The American military, and through them the American embassy, no doubt carries decisive weight on matters such as this. If George Bush doesn’t want Saddam tried before mid-term US elections, for example, he won’t be tried before mid-term elections. It is naive to think otherwise.
RL
PS: The irony in Tom’s latest comment, which I’m sure is not lost on him: he indicates he, too, wishes they would move faster, but that it’s important to get the rule of law right. Yet, of course, one aspect of the rule of law is speedy trials, so people don’t rot in detention for years without their guilt being determined in a court of law.
Thanks to Mr. Saddamned for that. I thought that that was the case, but wasn’t sure. Was he the one whose identity was deliberately revealed by the inimitably loathesome Robert Fisk?
Regarding Ross’s post, there’s surely a tension between the two. On the one hand, a speedy trial is an important element in a legal system. On the other, getting the evidence and the procedures right takes time, especially in a high profile case such as this, one for which one should be especially careful to avoid the appearance of a vengeful show trial. It seems that this is a matter of finding the right balance.
As to who’s in charge, I’m sure that there are issues of “influence” stake, but it’s worth noting that some of the most bitter critics of the administration’s policies are now complaining that political events in Baghdad are no longer under Washington’s control. I thought that that was part of a reasonable strategy of disengagement.
Tom, I was rather taken aback by your reference to “the inimitably loathesome Robert Fisk.” Is this phrase just a response to his identification of the judge or do you have other things in mind?
I would suppose that some U.S. and European officals might be uninterested in having Saddam testify publicly, since he might well have plenty of dirt on them…Rumsfeld’s meetings with Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, Halliburton’s alleged attempts to circumvent the Iraq sanctions, and corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program for starters.
On a different note, the attorney’s comment sounds absurd to us but is nevertheless appropriate. What should he have said, “let’s get on with the trial over with so my client can be convicted and shot?” His job is to advocate his client’s position, which in this case is that he’s innocent.
Earlier I merely thought that Fisk was an idiot on the basis of the article (http://www.counterpunch.org/fiskbeaten.html ) in which he defended his own savage beating. But when he deliberately revealed the identity of an Iraqi judge, in the full knowledge that it could lead to his death, I realized that he is evil.
I must say, Tom, that Mark Brady took the words out of my mouth. I don’t know how much of Fisk you’ve read, beyond the two opinion pieces you reference, but he’s a journalist with decades of experience in the middle east and an excellent understanding of Middle East history in the 20th century. His history of Lebanon, Pity The Nation, is judicious and well written, and I commend it highly.
Ross Levatter
Ross — I wouldn’t have to read beyond those pieces to know that he’s a despicable man. Defending your own savage beating is idiotic and deliberately revealing the identity of a judge before whom a tyrant has been brought, in the full knowledge that it could very well get him killed…..well, what can one call that? Bad reporting? Or deliberate facilitation of the murder of a judge?
Personally, I think a sort of group-blog^H^H^H^Hradio show with Saddam, Rush Limbaugh and Rvd. Sharpton would be great entertainment.
“Live…Direct from New York…Wingnutcentralreport!bringingyouthelatestnewsandcommentary” cue music…
I don’t want to get into a brawl, intellectual or otherwise, over this, but I have now read the Counterpunch article and I am less inclined than Tom is to think this piece is obvious evidence of idiocy on the part of journalist Robert Fisk.
First of all, Fisk did not “defend” his own beating. He fought back, and successfully, against a mob that attacked him.
But, unlike most Americans, he was able, intellectually, to put the attack in context. He has covered the plight of middle east natives for several decades. At the time he was attacked, he notes, many Afghans had just lost loved ones to bombs dropped by American B-52s flying safely overhead, out of retaliatory reach.
Fisk recognized these people to be poor and uneducated, understood their thirst for revenge against powerful outside forces that bombed them with impunity, understood they were not sophisticated enough to distinguish Irishman journalist from American. His piece doesn’t read to me like a justification, but rather an understanding of what could so easily transform a crowd into a mob.
Tom, I know you appreciate, from your world travels, the importance of local knowledge and being “on the scene”. Fisk has reported on the scene from the Middle East for many decades. He is an important source,in my mind much more trustworthy, than Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. as to what really is going on there.
“Was he the one whose identity was deliberately revealed by the inimitably loathesome Robert Fisk?”
Yes. The judge was courageous, young, married, father of young children. But Mr Fisk attached more importance to Mr Fisk’s chance at a scoop.
Well, one last note about Mr. Fisk. I’ve not found anyone who would defend his deliberate revelation of the identity of a judge in a country where to be so identified is to be marked for death. That is evil. Now back to idiotic. Mr. Fisk, although a talented writer (let’s set aside his lack of understanding of the English subjunctive), lacks the ability to distinguish between an explanation and a justification. To say “If I was an Afghan refugee in Kila Abdullah, I would have done just what they did. I would have attacked Robert Fisk. Or any other Westerner I could find” is to fuse the two; it’s not merely saying that he knows why they did it, but that he identifies with their act. In so doing, he took no pains to explain that they were ignorant that he was not in fact Mr. Bush, which would be a kind of explanation such that, were one ignorant in the same way, one would make the same mistake. No, he left it at the borderline between two claims, an explanation and a justification, and his identification with the actions of those who beat him is far more than a mere explanation of how ignorance led to violence. It is a justification. He deserved to be beaten. As does every other person who is a “Westerner.” That is idiotic.
Fisk’s article entitled “US military tried to censor coverage of Saddam hearing” may be read at:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles407.htm
There Fisk writes: “Video showed the face – and audiotape revealed the voice – of Judge Raid Juhi, whose name was widely reported in the Arab press yesterday.”
In response to criticism for publishing Robert Fisk’s article that revealed the identity of the judge, Simon Kelner, editor of The Independent, defended his decision, saying: “This was not a British court, it was an Iraqi court. We don’t want to compromise the judge’s safety but the cameras showed side views of him and he was instantly recognised by many Iraqis.” See an article in London’s evening newspaper, The Standard, available at: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/11733556?source=Evening+Standard
One last comment for me as well. This has gone on too long.
Tom and I continue to disagree; perhaps because I’ve read more Fisk, perhaps not.
It is understandable that Fisk, who has lived in and covered the Middle East for several decades, might in part identify with as well as merely understand those who attacked him. But clearly his actions indicate he did not condone the attack or think it justified. Were that the case, he would not have fought back (as he did, successfully, and even without Krav Maga training…really quite remarkable).
As for defending his outing of the judge in the Saddam Hussein trial, Tom is right that no one has attempted to justify it; certainly not I. I do note, though, that that claim, on this blog, has never been linked to a column of Fisk’s I could read. The hundreds of deaths in Iraq merely since Tom’s return–accounting for population differences, more people have been killed in Iraq since Tom’s return than died in 9/11–clearly indicate that being outed by Fisk is not a necessary condition for the killing of innocents in Iraq, but of course this in no way justifies the action attributed to him. If anyone can provide a link, it would be appreciated.
RL
It seems while I was composing my last post, Mr. Mark Brady came though with my request. It seems to me–does Tom agree?–this puts the matter in a very different light.
RL
Robert Fisk wrote two articles that were dated respectively July 2 and July 3, 2004. I have already provided the link to the second article. The first article entitled “Confused? Shadow of his old self? Hardly” may be found at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/fisk07022004.html
I don’t find Mr. Brady’s, as I did not those of Mr. Kelner, to change my evaluation of Mr. Fisk at all. The claim that it was an Iraqi court vs. a British court is irrelevant. I made a point of not taking photos of Iraqis I met or identifying them by name in any public forum because I did not want them to be murdered. Mr. Fisk had a different agenda.
Whereas Simon Kelner sought to defend his decision to publish Robert Fisk’s article, I sought to provide the evidence on which readers could make up their minds.
Tom writes: “The claim that it was an Iraqi court vs. a British court is irrelevant.”
I assume Kelner is referring to the fact that in some trials in Northern Ireland the identity of the judge is kept secret and it’s a breach of law to publish his identity. Having explained that The Independent is not breaking the law, he proceeds to explain that Robert Fisk’s article did not “compromise the judge’s safety [because] the cameras showed side views of him and he was instantly recognised by many Iraqis.”
When Tom posted his original remarks about Robert Fisk, it occurred to me that other people must have known the identity of the judge–and that is confirmed by Fisk in his second story: “Video showed the face–and audiotape revealed the voice–of Judge Raid Juhi, whose name was widely reported in the Arab press yesterday.”
Tom seeks to make Fisk morally responsible for his death–“the inimitably loathesome Robert Fisk,” “a despicable man,” “evil,” “deliberate facilitation of the murder of a judge,” and Mr. Fisk’s “different agenda” that wanted the judge “to be murdered”–and I really don’t see that.
Let’s agree to differ–and now leave it to readers to make up their own mind on this issue.
Let’s just leave it at this. A decent man would not have revealed the judge’s identity. When I travel in certain places, I am very careful not to reveal the identity of the people with whom I meet, for the simple reason that I don’t want to increase their likelihood of being targeted. Mr. Brady writes as if Fisk would be culpable only if it were shown that he had been the hit man. The world is full of cases in which we can increase or decrease risk; it’s not a binary world in which probability is either zero or one. Nothing was gained by revealing the judge’s name and it increased his vulnerability, merely for a little scoop. It may not have been illegal under British law, but it is is truly loathesome, nonetheless. I trust that I will never be dependent upon Mr. Brady’s cavalier attitude toward endangerment of the lives of others.
“Mr. Brady writes as if Fisk would be culpable only if it were shown that he had been the hit man.”
I questioned your assertion that Robert Fisk deliberately facilitated the murder of a judge and that he had a “different agenda” that wanted the judge “to be murdered.”
“I trust that I will never be dependent upon Mr. Brady’s cavalier attitude toward endangerment of the lives of others.”
I sought to establish exactly what Robert Fisk had or had not done. And nothing I said indicated that I have a “cavalier attitude toward endangerment of the lives of others.” If it can be shown that Fisk increased the chances of the judge being assassinated, that’s one thing. However, I can’t imagine that those who killed the judge read his name in The Independent published in London rather than learned it on the street or in an Arabic-language newspaper in Iraq.
Mr. Brady insists that it be demonstrated (“shown”) that Mr. Fisk “increased the chances of the judge being assassinated,” but that’s setting the wrong standard. It would be impossible to meet it. Any reasonable person knows that printing the name of a judge in such a case will not diminish the chances of his assassination and may very well endanger him. That some knew the name does not mean that all did; after Mr. Fisk’s actions, more knew it. Any intelligent, reasonable, and non-malicious person would know not to do that. There is no excuse for such behavior. Mr. Fisk’s actions are indefensible.
Tom seems to set the requirements of morality too high.
Imagine you are a reporter on November 21st, 1963. You have heard there are speculations of anticipated attempts on President Kennedy’s life. You mention in your article some details of his anticipated car route through Dealey Plaza the next morning. In so doing, you are aware this route was already common knowledge, though you are also aware that conceivably you may be conveying that information to someone who otherwise wouldn’t have it and who may wish to do the President ill.
Is Tom really saying that such a reporter should be held morally culpable in the assassination of President Kennedy? Even if Lee Harvey Oswald never read the reporter’s article?
By Tom’s standards, one would seem to be able to say relatively little about people in the news if one lives in anything less than a perfectly peaceful world.
RL
I don’t think that the situation Ross describes is anything like that of Mr. Fisk and the court hearing for Saddam Hussein. Everyone — *everyone* — involved knew that the judge would be targeted for death. It was the equivalent of revealing the home address, the normal routine, and the ages, names, and descriptions of the children of an FBI informer against a gang of serial murderers. An effort was made to keep the judge’s identity secret. Mr. Fisk deliberately revealed it, in full knowledge that he was putting him at greater risk.
Mr. Brady brought out the defense that Mr. Fisk’s actions might not be illegal under British law, and he was writing in a British paper (although in the internet age, such distinctions are of little interest); but what British reader really cared about the name of the judge? Why reveal it? Other than to have him killed, which Mr. Fisk knew fully was made more — not less — likely by his actions, there was no reason, especially when one could do what other journalists did and write that the identity of the judge was deliberately concealed.
If someone, someday were to reveal to some of the beheading-minded kidnappers where they could find Mr. Fisk, he’d certainly have no principled grounds for criticizing whoever had revealed the information (which is surely known to some people already, so why not everyone?). Fortunately, it’s hard to imagine that anyone among those who despise him would ever sink to the level at which he operates.