The evening protest will include speakers with analysis of the day’s and week’s events. There will be a march – no matter how many streets the city tries to close off.

“We will assert our First Amendment rights,” say protest organizers.

The coalition demands are as follows: -- Convict Derek Chauvin and his co-killers of the highest possible charges and give them the longest possible sentence. -- Justice for George Floyd and all stolen lives – convict all killer cops. -- MN legislature must pass the nine police reform bills. And the people need community control of the police (CPAC). -- Drop the charges against the summer protesters, the November MN-646 and the recent Brooklyn Center arrestees. -- End Operation Safety Net! The crimes committed against our people by these goon squads have gone too far. They must be stopped.

Groups supporting the protest include: Anti-War Committee, Bikers Riding Against Police Brutality (BRAPB), Black Lives Matter MN, CAIR-MN, Climate Justice Committee, Communities United Against Police Brutality, Families Supporting Families Against Police Violence, Freedom Road Socialist Organization – Twin Cities, Good Trouble for Justice, Locks for Loved Ones, MN Immigrant Rights Action Committee, MN Uprising Arrestee Support, MN Workers United, MN Youth for Justice, NAACP – Minneapolis, National Alliance Against Racist & Political Repression, Native Lives Matter, On Site Public Media, Racial Justice Network, Student Movement Activists at South High (SMASH), Students for Democratic Society at UMN, Twin Cities Coalition 4 Justice 4 Jamar, Women Against Military Madness (WAMM).

#MinneapolisMN #PeoplesStruggles #PoliceBrutality #Trial #GeorgeFloyd #DerekChauvin #Chauvin

Jess Sundin, of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, condemned the verdict, stating, “Everyone who cares about justice should be angry about what is happening here in Detroit. We need to continue our support for Rasmea. We will continue to stand with her.”

#DetroitMI #Palestine #Israel #Trial #PoliticalRepression #RasmeaOdeh #case #MI

Rasmea’s supporters packed the courtroom in anticipation of her taking the stand, but the day began first with the continued testimony and cross examination of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Agent Douglas Scott Pierce. Under cross by defense attorney Jim Fennerty, Pierce revealed that in a previous case, he had testified that the questions on the naturalization forms can be “confusing,” especially for those who do not have fluency in the English language, and also acknowledged that older forms previously asked specifically about crimes, arrests, imprisonment, etc., “inside or outside the United States.”

This helped set the stage for Rasmea’s argument that she had always believed that the questions she is accused of answering falsely were asking about her time in the U.S., not Palestine. After additional testimony from Jennifer Williams, the immigration officer who actually interviewed Rasmea back in 2004, and from a fingerprint expert, the prosecution rested its case.

Lead defense attorney Michael Deutsch then called University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC) professor Nadine Naber as his first witness. Naber, who is a leading scholar on Arab women and women of color in general, first met Rasmea back in 2006, and testified to their work together, describing how Rasmea’s organizing has changed the lives of hundreds of Arab immigrant women by creating a space for them to face the collective challenges they experience. Her testimony spoke to the character of Rasmea as a truthful person and mentor for her community.

Before Rasmea was called as the next witness, Judge Drain excused the jury to advise her and Deutsch on his previous rulings, reinforcing his restrictions on her testimony. He told them that she would not be able to speak about Israeli torture, stating that he did not want to “retry the case” of 1969. Rasmea responded firmly, “It’s my life, I have a right to talk about the things that happened to me!” Judge Drain refused to accede, restating that testimony referring to torture or her forced confession was inadmissible, and that if she violated his orders there would be consequences.

Nonetheless, Rasmea delivered heartfelt testimony that left the entire courtroom, as well as the overflow courtroom where dozens more were seated, in tears. She recounted her life story, one filled with tragedy and resilience, beginning with the Nakba, the “Catastrophe,” what Palestinians call the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, when 750,000 Palestinians were

driven out of their homes. Rasmea and her family also lost their land and home in 1948, and were forced to live as refugees in a tent before making their way to Ramallah, where they lived at the time of the 1967 Israeli war and occupation of the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza.

Then Rasmea told the jury about the Israeli raid on her home in 1969, when she was arrested along with her father and sisters. More than 500 Palestinians were swept up in mass arrests by Israel at the same time, and she broke down in tears when she recalled how the events of that night traumatized her sister to the point of an early death.

Although Rasmea was barred from testifying about the torture, she did tell the court that she spent 45 days in an interrogation center. Prosecutor Jonathan Tukel objected, and Judge Drain sustained the objection, reprimanding her. Deutsch then asked her if she was convicted, and Rasmea answered, “They convicted me falsely.” Again, the government objected and again the judge sustained the objection.

Later, Deutsch asked, “Did you try to escape?” in reference to one of Israel’s charges that the government has highlighted in this case. Rasmea answered boldly, “Of course, any political prisoner [would] try to escape!” While supporters in the overflow courtroom applauded this answer, the main courtroom heard another objection from Tukel. The judge sided with the government once more, and struck the political prisoner reference from the record.

The testimony continued with Rasmea describing her immigration to the United States, where she moved to care for her ailing father. When asked about the 1994 application for permanent residency filed in Jordan, she explained that all the answers on that form came from her brother. From the U.S., he had sent her a sample form, and she was to copy what he had written on the sample. “I couldn’t read [English], and I trust my brother. I didn’t read anything, I just copied [what] my brother said.”

When Deutsch asked about her responses on the 2004 application for naturalization, and why she had responded “NO” to questions about whether she had been arrested, convicted or imprisoned, she explained that these questions followed directly three previous ones that asked explicitly about the U.S. “When I continued, my understanding was [that these questions

were also] about the U.S., so I continued to say no.”

Deutsch later asked what she would have done if she had understood that the questions were intended to address imprisonment outside the U.S. as well. She answered, “If I knew it was about Israel, I would have said... It’s not a secret that I’ve been in jail. Even the embassy knows.” The U.S. embassy in Israel had become involved in the initial arrests because her father was a U.S. citizen at the time.

Rasmea will continue her testimony tomorrow, and after cross-examination by the government, both sides will make their closing arguments. The jury is not expected to begin deliberation until Monday, which is the earliest a verdict is expected.

Some 70 supporters were in the courtrooms today. Inspired by Rasmea’s incredible testimony, many are rearranging their plans to stay for Friday, and into Monday. Organizers in Detroit are scrambling to ensure housing and transportation for those who are extending their stay, and to prepare for the additional people arriving each day to join the fight for justice for Rasmea.

#DetroitMI #Palestine #Israel #Trial #PoliticalRepression #RasmeaOdeh #Michigan #case #Defense #Justice4Rasmea

Detroit, MI – Rasmea Odeh’s supporters were in high anticipation as they waited on line for Judge Drain’s court room to open this morning, Nov. 6. Everyone expected the high point of the trial to be when Rasmea Odeh took the stand to testify in her own defense.

Michael Deutsch, her lead attorney, began by asking her about herself. She told the story of the loss of her family home in Lifta, Palestine, when the Israeli army carried out the massacres known as al Nakba (The Catastrophe). These massacres of tens of thousands caused 700,000 Palestinians to flee their homes. Odeh has spent her life since 1948 as a refugee.

In 1967, her family had survived and she had grown into a young woman, starting college. Then Israel invaded the West Bank, and her family’s life in Ramallah was again turned upside down. Tanks rumbled through the streets of her town. Her sister was paralyzed and eventually died of the shock of the invasion.

In 1969, the Israeli occupation army arrested 500 people in one night after a bomb explosion in Jerusalem. Odeh was one of the victims of that indiscriminate round-up, but the military singled her out for horrible treatment: brutal torture and rape in order to force her to sign a false confession. Judge Drain censored her remarks any time she came close to talking about the treatment she suffered. When she said, “They convicted me falsely,” prosecutor Jonathan Tukel objected and wanted the sentence struck. The judge displayed a phony impartiality when he told Tukel he would let the sentence remain in the record, except for the word “falsely.”

In the overflow room, her supporters were brought to cheers when Deutsch asked her if she tried to escape. Odeh responded, “Yes, any political prisoner tries to escape.” The federal security in the room threatened to have all her supporters removed from the building if that happened again.

Prosecution case suffers blow

Deutsch brought the story up to date, questioning Odeh about her emigration to the U.S. The prosecution has focused on answers she gave in her immigration documents to questions about having been charged, tried and imprisoned. On Wednesday and again today, Nov. 6, the government had presented witnesses from the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. They claimed she lied on her initial application for a visa.

Odeh delivered a blow to that allegation when she revealed that her brother in the U.S. had written the answers out for her to copy for that form, and had filled out some of the form himself. She said, “My English was terrible. I couldn’t read any of it. I copied from the form filled out by my brother.” Soon afterwards, Judge Drain called a recess, and said the questioning would continue in the morning.

When her supporters gathered across the street from the courthouse, their spirits were high. They departed, preparing for Friday, Nov. 7 when Odeh will complete her testimony and then face the cross examination by the prosecution. The tension will be even higher Nov. 7, when this political trial, masquerading as a criminal trial, continues.

#DetroitMI #Palestine #Israel #Trial #PoliticalRepression #RasmeaOdeh #Michigan #case

Detroit, MI – Judge Gershwin Drain oversaw jury selection today in the case of Rasmea Odeh. Odeh is on trial in Detroit for failing to disclose in her application for citizenship that she was tortured by the Israeli military in 1969 until she confessed to a crime she didn’t commit. Over 90 people filled the overflow room set up for her supporters to watch on close circuit television.

In a series of decisions in recent weeks, Judge Drain created a situation where Odeh is unable to get a fair trial. He refused to allow evidence of her torture to be presented to the jury, but at the same time, agreed that the jury would be told that she is ‘guilty’ of that crime.

During the questioning of potential jurors, Drain repeatedly declared to them, “The evidence will show she was convicted of a bombing 45 years ago.” And further, “Would it affect you if you knew that two people died and there were multiple people injured?” After each time he repeated this, prospective jurors would declare that their minds were made up by this information. Drain had convinced them that Rasmea was a criminal. For almost an hour, more had to be brought from the pool, only to be released again when they fell for his description.

Finally, a kitchen worker in the jury pool confronted the judge after hearing multiple times about the supposed crime committed 45 years ago. He said, “I’m confused about why you keep mentioning the conviction from back then?” The judge reiterated his point, and the man replied, “What exactly is she being charged with? Why do you keep bringing this up?”

Drain also clumsily asked those in the jury box, “Do you have any biases against Palestinians or Muslims?” “Everyone has the capacity to lie? Do you find Palestinians or Muslims to be more likely to lie?”

George Khoury, a veteran activist from the Detroit area, commented, “Not once did he ask if they had a bias against Israelis. It was their military court that convicted her. It was them who tortured her.”

When a Muslim woman in the jury seats raised her hand and asked, “What if I have a bias in favor of Muslims?,” the crowd in the overflow room burst into laughter and then applause in response.

Jess Sundin of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression said, “Rasmea is being railroaded in this trial. You have to call if a railroad when a judge agrees with prosecutors to uphold the decision of an Israeli military court, which violates international law; a judge who accepts a conviction based on a confession extracted through torture; and also refuses to allow any evidence of the torture she endured.”

The Rasmea Defense Committee led a march of supporters through downtown Detroit after court recessed. In a cold rain, there were determined faces all around. Frank Chapman of the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression urged people on. “We can’t trust in politicians or judges. Organized mass struggle is the only way justice is won.”

#DetroitMI #Palestine #Israel #Trial #PoliticalRepression #RasmeaOdeh #Michigan #ArabActionNetwork #case

Many crimes against Iraq have been justified by the demonization of Saddam Hussein. Invasion was justified by claims that he possessed ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ had ties to al-Qaeda, and posed a threat to the territorial United States.

The claims turned out to be lies. There were no ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or programs to develop them. There were no ties to al-Qaeda. He did not threaten U.S. territory.

Those who still support the occupation now say it was justified because Saddam Hussein was a ‘brutal dictator.’ One of the main complaints against him is that ‘he killed the Kurds.’ The usual reference is the Anfal campaign of the Iraqi army from Feb. 23, 1988 to Sept. 6, 1988. It is claimed that Anfal was a campaign of genocide. It can now be said that the ‘Anfal genocide’ never happened. It is another lie.

Ironically it is the second of the illegal U.S.-run ‘trials’ of Mr. Hussein in Baghdad that allows this conclusion. The facts and circumstances of the ‘trial’ can be analyzed without any concession to the legitimacy of the ‘court.’ Nor, since it is illegal, is there any reason to wait for the ‘court’s’ findings before reaching one’s own conclusions. Applicable principles of international law are presented in Appendix A.

Certain facts are not in dispute. The campaign took place in the late stages of the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqi army fought units of the Iranian army in Northern Iraq. Kurdish guerillas, called peshmerga allied with Iran against the government of their own country. In order to suppress the guerillas the Iraqi government displaced large numbers of Kurdish civilians from border areas.

Press reports say the current charge is genocide during Anfal. By any definition the crime of genocide means the extermination of large numbers of people. At first no definite number of civilian fatalities was given in news reports, but in September the ‘prosecution’ was several times reported to say there were 182,000 deaths.

The ‘trial’ on the Anfal charges began on Aug. 21, 2006. There were 13 sessions of the ‘court’ between that date and Sept. 26, at which time it recessed.

In the press reports studied for this analysis no statement or presentation of methodology was reported. No systematic studies were reported. No sworn affidavits were reported. No expert testimony was reported. Evidence of this kind would have been front-page news. It can be concluded that no such evidence was introduced. See Appendix B for the tabulation of articles.

Instead all testimony was anecdotal. As an example, on Aug. 22, the first day of testimony, a witness named Ali Mustapha Hama was heard. He testified to events in the village of Balisan on April 16, 1987. The BBC reported: “Ali Mustapha Hama said there was greenish smoke, and minutes later, a smell like rotten apples or garlic. He spoke of a newborn infant who was trying to “smell life”, but breathed in the chemicals and died. Many others died too, he added. During cross-examination, defence lawyers asked Mr. Hama how he knew the aircraft were Iraqi, and prompted Hama to say he had helped shelter guerrillas in his village.”

The death of an infant is a very bad thing. Still, the number of fatalities definitely averred by Mr. Hama is one. He also admitted that there was guerilla activity in his village. Genocide is a large-scale crime against civilians, meant to exterminate an ethnic group. Thus Mr. Hama’s testimony did nothing to establish genocide. Another witness heard the same day was not even reported to have made any definite statement of fatalities.

Between Aug. 22 and Sept. 26 the news reports speak of 17 witnesses. Definite statements of fatalities came to a total of 43. Some of the fatalities could have overlapped. No attempt to differentiate between civilian and military casualties was reported.

Of the 15 witnesses, three admitted to having been peshmerga guerillas, whereas genocide is a crime against civilians. One of the three former guerillas, Moussa Abdullah Moussa, now lives in Tennessee. Another witness, Katrin Michael, now lives in Virginia.

One of the witnesses, Mahmoud Hama Aziz, testified on Sept. 9 to seven fatalities at an unstated location in 1987, prior to Anfal. The New York Times reported the next day that evidence bearing on Mr. Aziz’s testimony had been found in a mass grave discovered in 2004, whereas the ‘prosecution’ claims investigations have been going on since 1991 (see Doebbler, below.) The timing of the ‘discovery’ is so convenient as to raise still more doubts.

21 of the 43 fatalities, including the Balisan incident, occurred in 1987, before Anfal. That leaves at most 22 during the Anfal period or at times not stated. The question arises as to what happened to the other 181,978 of the 182,000 claimed victims. At this rate it will take about 689 years to account for the alleged fatalities.

Hence in the first month of proceedings the ‘prosecution’ presented no case at all.

The original trial judge was removed for political reasons on Sept. 20 (see below.) Later sessions descended from farce into chaos. Defense lawyers boycotted the ‘trial’ on orders of Mr. Hussein. Anonymous ‘witnesses’ gave testimony behind a screen; documents were stolen from defense attorney Badia Arif Izzat in the courtroom building, and so forth.

The prosecution has had all the time and opportunity needed to formulate a case. The alleged events occurred 18 years ago. Northern Iraq has been out of Baghdad’s control since 1996, when the Clinton administration unilaterally imposed the ‘no-fly’ zones on Iraq.

Nor has there been any lack of investigative expertise and money. The New York Times reported on July 1, 2004 that, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation is leading the investigation, along with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and agents from the Justice Department.” The New York Times also said on July 20, 2005 that the U.S. had spent more than $35 million on the investigations.

In a case as intensely political as this it must be presumed that at the beginning the ‘prosecution’ will present its case at its strongest. It presented a shambles. Moreover the scale of time and resources behind the ‘prosecution’ removes any argument that a case could be made with more effort. There is only one way that is at all plausible, likely, or straightforward to explain the ‘prosecution’s’ failure to even begin to make any case: there was no ‘Anfal genocide.’

Other circumstances support the same conclusion.

The charges are not even clear. None of the cited news reports give more than the word ‘genocide.’ The specification of charges might answer some questions. A moderate effort found a document termed a ‘charging instrument’ for the first ‘trial’ of Mr. Hussein, the Dujail case. It is posted at http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/20060515_indictment_trans_saddam_hussein.pdf. Charges for the Anfal ‘trial’ were not posted at the same site, however. Repeated Internet searches using ‘charging instrument’ and/or other search terms failed to find the corresponding prosecution statement for the Anfal ‘trial.’ Hence the ‘prosecution’ case is not easily available. It is apparent that the Bush administration and the ‘prosecution’ do not want their case to be known to the public.

The most basic and routine of defendant’s rights are violated. Defense attorney Curtis Doebbler writes:

The violations of unfair trial are too numerous to mention here, but include almost every provision in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that could be violated at this juncture of the proceedings. . .

The prosecution alleges to have been collecting evidence since at least 1991 – which, of course, could only be true if it were the United States government doing the collecting – and has at least been doing so since April 2003 when dozens of American lawyers and Iraqis who had not lived in Iraq for years were shuttled in to build a case. The defense lawyers, despite requesting visits with their client since December 2003 when he was detained, have to date not been allowed the confidential visits that are necessary to begin to prepare a defense. No visits were allowed with the most senior lawyers until after the trial had started and at each visit American officials exercise the authority to read any materials brought into the visiting room despite the fact that all meetings remain under close audio and visual surveillance. As if this were not enough, evidence has been withheld from the defense lawyers. They have been denied access to investigative hearings; they have been denied prior notice of witnesses, and they are prevented from even visiting the site of the alleged crime.

From: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/farce-of-law-trial-of-saddam-hussein.php

If any sound ‘prosecution’ case were possible these abuses would be unnecessary.

Mr. Hussein’s defense team has been denied physical security despite repeated requests. During the first ‘trial’ three of his attorneys were murdered. During the current ‘trial’ legal assistant Abdel Monem Yassin Hussein was murdered. He was kidnapped on Aug. 29. His body was found five days later. The murders of defense personnel argue further against the possibility of any ‘prosecution’ case.

The blatantly political nature of the ‘trial’ was exposed again on Sept. 20, when puppet Iraqi ‘prime minister’ Nuri al-Maliki removed judge Abdullah al-Amiri from the case. The reason for this outrageous abuse was reported by the New York Times on Sept. 15 as follows:

“One witness, a Kurdish farmer, testified that in 1988 he had pleaded with Mr. Hussein for the life of his wife and seven young children. He said a furious Mr. Hussein shouted, ‘Shut up and get out.’ In court, Mr. Hussein jumped up to defend himself. ‘Why did he try to see Saddam Hussein?’ he asked the judge, referring to himself in the third person, as is his habit in court. ‘Wasn’t Saddam a dictator and an enemy to the Kurdish people, as they say?’ The judge replied: ‘I will answer you: you are not a dictator. Not a dictator,’ he repeated. ‘You were not a dictator.’ Mr. Hussein, smiling, replied, ‘Thank you.’”

Five days later the judge was removed. If the alleged events of 1988 had really occurred it is extremely unlikely that the puppet ‘government’ would again have discredited itself and the ‘trial’ with this shameless interference.

Even more extraordinarily, an AP report on Aug. 21 said that “the trial does not deal with the most notorious gassing – the March 1988 attack on Halabja that killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds. That incident will be part of a separate investigation by the Iraqi High Tribunal.” The report did not say why Halabja is to be treated separately.

The Halabja incident is the biggest thing in the ‘genocide’ case. The ‘prosecution’ has dismembered its own case. It is trying to carry water by knocking the bottom out of its own bucket. The omission strongly suggests that there is no more to the Halabja story than there is to the ‘Anfal genocide.’

\* \* \*

The most serious doubts arise repeatedly that any valid case against Mr. Hussein can be made. Just as in the notorious ‘Downing Street Memo’ minutes of a July, 2002 meeting of the British cabinet, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

In the United States the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ The defects of the ‘prosecution’s’ case are so great as to constitute overwhelming doubt. There is no reason at all to believe that genocide was committed in the Anfal campaign. Only one conclusion can be drawn: the ‘Anfal genocide’ never happened.

\* \* \*

In all of the years of its war with Iraq, U.S. imperialism has had only one significant political success: the demonization of Saddam Hussein. The ‘brutal, corrupt dictator’ line is heard across the political spectrum. Investigation would seem unnecessary.

One result is that to a great degree antiwar opinion sees the war in Iraq as no more than a war for oil. It is insufficient to stop without looking at Iraq, but that is what almost always happens.

Firstly, the oil already belongs to Iraq. From its side the war has always been a war for sovereignty, i.e., its rights of national self-determination. Since occupation it has also become a war for independence.

‘War for oil’ also raises further questions. There are many ways to get oil. War is the worst way to get it. The question is why U.S. imperialism has resorted to war. There are many countries that have oil. The United Arab Emirates has almost as much oil as Iraq but nothing is ever heard about it. The question is why Iraq is different.

Again the answer is that modern pre-occupation Iraq always fully asserted its rights of sovereignty. The war is Iraq is an unjust war for oil versus a just war for sovereignty and independence.

The highest questions of any war are questions of historical content and direction, questions of just and unjust causes. Antiwar opinion is most of the time not even aware of these questions. More than anything else it is the demonization of Saddam Hussein that denies the masses a full understanding of the war.

The revolutionary significance of Iraq’s great struggle disappears. The linkage of the struggle in Iraq to that of Palestine disappears. Too often the need to support the just and heroic Iraqi resistance becomes lost; too often the necessity to immediately demand unconditional withdrawal of all foreign forces as objectively the only way to end the war becomes lost.

Very little about Iraq and nothing at all about Saddam Hussein should ever be accepted on the basis of authority. There are no such authorities in the U.S. government. There are no such authorities in the U.S. media. There are no such academic authorities. There are no such authorities in the antiwar movement. Throw away all ‘authoritative’ ideas about Saddam Hussein!

There are only determinations: sound methods, sound concepts, facts and logic, history. On method one can, for instance, look at the Iraqi side directly. Daily accounts of resistance activities are posted in English at http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?header=res1&mod=gis&rep=rep.

Political statements of the Iraqi Baath Arab Socialist Party and pre-occupation speeches of President Saddam Hussein are posted at http://www.al-moharer.net/qiwa_shabiya/qiwa.html.

The war will end and can only end in the defeat of imperialism and its expulsion from the Persian Gulf. The people of Iraq are stronger than imperialism.

-- October 2006

Appendix A: The ‘trial’ Violates International Law

1. The invasion of Iraq is a violation of international law.

Excerpt from ‘A Farce of Law: The Trial of Saddam Hussein’ by Curtis F. Doebbler

The glaring illegalities of the current process begin with illegal origins. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is widely understood to be illegal. On 5 March 2003, three of the five members of UN Security Council and Germany, which was then a non-permanent member, unambiguously declared that a US-led invasion without further Security Council authorization would violate international law. On 16 September 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated what was by then obvious to almost every international lawyer, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is illegal. In fact, this is a textbook case of illegal aggression in violation of the prohibition of the use of force by one country against another found in article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and under customary international law.

The Nuremberg Tribunal described such illegal aggression as ‘essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/farce-of-law-trial-of-saddam-hussein.php

Curtis Doebbler is an American member of Saddam Hussein’s legal defense team and a professor of law at An-Najah National University on the Palestinian West Bank

2. The ‘trial’ of Saddam Hussein violates provisions of international law to which the United States is signatory.

Excerpts from ‘Iraq and the Laws of War’ by Professor Francis A. Boyle

On 19 March 2003 President Bush Jr. commenced his criminal war against Iraq by ordering a so-called decapitation strike against the President of Iraq in violation of a 48-hour ultimatum he had given publicly to the Iraqi President and his sons to leave the country. This duplicitous behavior violated the customary international laws of war set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities to which the United States is still a contracting party, as evidenced by paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

. . .

This brings the analysis to the so-called Constitution of Iraq that was allegedly drafted by the puppet Interim Government of Iraq under the impetus of the United States government. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare flatly prohibits the change in a basic law such as a state’s Constitution during the course of a belligerent occupation: ‘The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.’ This exact same prohibition has been expressly incorporated in haec verba into paragraph 363 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956).

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-boyle221205.htm

Francis A. Boyle is Professor of Law at the University of Illinois.

Appendix B: Tabulation of News Reports

#Iraq #Analysis #Trial #Anfal #SaddamHussein #MiddleEast

Fight Back News Service is circulating the following statement by the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). We translated the statement and edited it for readability.

—-

General Secretary of the PFLP Refuses to Stand Before the Judge and Reaffirms: “It is the occupation that must be put on trial.”

Comrade Ahmad Saadat presented, during the trial that took place, Jan. 14 in Ofar (Occupied Palestine), a political statement in which he reaffirmed his refusal to judge the Palestinian resistance and its combatants and said: “It is the occupation that must be put on trial.”

This trial cannot be separated from the process of the historical struggle in Palestine that continues today between the Zionist Movement and the Palestinian people, a struggle that centers on Palestinian land, history, civilization, culture and identity. Therefore, any attempt to overlook this reality as we deal with the repercussions of the conflict would be an arbitrary attempt against facts and reason. An arbitrary judgment by the arrogant oppressors, those that try to subdue their Palestinian counterparts by using the systems of occupation that control the land in said conflict.

And if the function of any judicial apparatus is to obtain justice, then any honest, legal and ethical practice should allow arbitration by an independent authority and by laws that concur with international legality. And, international legality and its legislative organism [the United Nations], along with the whole of resolutions adopted by that body, did not legalize your occupation; it pressed to put an end to its status and to eliminate its consequences. Also, when it recognized Israel as a state, the introduction of the resolution of recognition established, as a condition, the return of the Palestinian refugees that were forced into exile. To this day, this condition has not been fulfilled; in addition, the conventions passed by the UN endorse the right of our people to resist the occupation, as a means to obtain national independence and to practice its right to self-determination.

As for your judicial apparatus, which is where this court comes from: it is one of the instruments of the occupation whose function is to give the cover of legal legitimacy to the crimes of the occupation, in addition to consecrating its systems and allowing the imposition of these systems on our people through force.

This judicial apparatus also supports the administration of this occupation – which is the worst form of state-organized terrorism – as if you were in a permanent state of self-defense. The legitimate resistance of our people is seen as if it were terrorism that must be combated and liquidated and judgment is placed upon those that practice or support it. And in the face of this contradiction between two logics, there would have to be a conviction.

I do not find myself obligated to submit to you the pages of international law nor those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to describe the situation, since a witness already exists among you, one who is a leader of the Labor Party that founded your state and who has already served as witness many years ago. This leader described the exceptional international laws legislated by the British occupation in 1945 as “worse than Nazi laws” and added: “It is true that the Nazis have committed crimes; nonetheless, they did not come to legislate for these crimes.” Seeing as your court, like the list of accusations, is based on said laws and places the occupation and the particular accusers as the issuers of the conviction, perhaps indeed this is not a conviction?

Based on what has already been said, I consider your judgment against the combatants of our people as a crime and as a prolongation of the further crimes committed against the sons and daughters of our people, including the expropriation of their lands, the confiscation of their freedom and the assassinations of their children, women, elderly and political leadership.

Also crimes are the judgments against their fighters and leaders, like the assassinations of Abu Ali Mustafa, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and Yasser Arafat; and the detentions of ministers and legislators democratically chosen in elections legitimized by the international community, which had praised their transparency, honesty and freedom and which were approved, at that time, by your government. The crimes referred to continue to be committed, and it is for that reason that we urge the sponsor of international legality to stop them, to place the occupation and its leaders in front of an international court of justice as ‘criminals of war.’

But most importantly, and which is even worse, the conduct of your successive governments continues to insist on practicing a failed logic in order to impose a solution, instead of looking for a political resolution, based on international legality, of a chronic conflict that has lasted for over a century. This way would open up a democratic, civilized, and humane path toward an end to the conflict.

The Israeli leadership is based on the exploitation of the imbalance of international forces favorable to Israeli military interests, so that Israel continually resorts to the language of arrogance and pride as a way to try to eliminate a conflict that gains vitality at the base of objective historic realities.

And so, this leadership has tried to hijack any attempt or movement to resolve the conflict peacefully and through political means, demonstrating its predisposition to reject any initiative toward building a balanced political project that reflects international resolutions. In this way, the French-Spanish-Italian initiative to facilitate an international conference was rejected even before any attempts to delimit its functions. This policy may correspond to the interests of this or that North American leadership or administration, but it does not serve the slogans that the Israeli leadership tries to sell to the Jewish population of Palestine and to the peoples of the world, with reference to the theme of security and the fight against terrorism. Because security can never be obtained in an area where there is a conflict between the military machinery and brutality of an occupying force and the people whose land is occupied. .

Security cannot be achieved if not through peace based on an objective look at the realities of the conflict, and this peace then begins to put an end to the occupation and to recognize the national rights of an occupied people. It begins with respect for international law, and not through treating the occupation as if it were above the law, reverting to the logic of arrogance and pride, represented by the quote: That what Mussolini thinks, is truth,” which fosters the cycle of conflict. Your government will be responsible for the lives of the people that will waste away and for the loss of personal, social, and economic stability on both sides of the conflict. This reality should compel the Jews in Palestine and the peoples of the world that aspire to promote justice and peace, to understand the causes and impulses of this policy.

We understand, with certainty, that the reasons for the policy of occupation are not based on political ignorance, or on fear of the future, or to preserve the security of the Jews (like some suggest).

What moves the policies of your government is the purpose decided for Israel by imperialism. This purpose converts the slogans raised by the Israeli leadership for the Jewish masses into deceitful slogans, and chooses as its logic, not just the justification for crimes of the occupation, but also the policy of racial discrimination practiced against the masses of our people in the parts of Palestine occupied in 1948. This discrimination is a characteristic that, given their distinct cultures, does not exclude the Oriental Jewish community or the Jewish immigrants originating from Africa and Ethiopia especially.

The top of the political pyramid in Israel was always occupied by those in favor of the interests of a handful of local and international Zionist capitalists, allied with the imperialist monopoly companies of the world that today manage and guide the policies of the U.S. and Israel. The peace, security, democracy and welfare for the Jews in Palestine, besides being already exhausted slogans, are no more than ingredients for the imposition of the U.S. imperialist project in the ‘Greater’ or the ‘New’ Middle East, as Shimon Peres calls it. The members of the extremes of international imperialist globalization, with the U.S. as their head, now do not even deny this or try to cover it up.

Based on all that I have said, and in defense of the justice of our cause and in defense of the legitimate struggle of our people against the occupation, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of your court or to legitimize your occupation or to stand before either of these. Because what you call a list of accusations and ‘security infractions’ are in reality my patriotic duties, “whether they were effective or not,” and would have to be framed within the context of the general duty of resistance against occupation.

At the same time, and as the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, I would like to reaffirm my pride in belonging to the Palestinian Revolutionary Movement and to the extensions of this movement in the regional, national and international planes that form the components of the international movement against the imperialist system of globalization. This is the leading framework of the peoples of the world and their oppressed social classes that struggle for freedom, democracy, socialism, global progress, the just distribution of wealth, equality among peoples and peace – rejecting repression and the concept of imperialist freedom based on plunder, injustice and racial discrimination. This movement supports the construction of a global, humanist and progressive culture and civilization in order to return to man his humanity and to open up to him the path toward free development.

I am proud to be a combatant fighting to end the Israeli occupation, to achieve national independence, to guarantee the Return of our people and to build the necessary mechanisms that drive a democratic solution to the conflict in Palestine. A solution capable of obtaining a permanent peace for all the population of Palestine, be they Arab or non-Arab. A solution capable of achieving historical reconciliation, equality and impartiality, as much in duties as in rights, within the framework of one single democratic state sustained by a system that detests all forms of discrimination based on religion, nationalism, ethnicity, social class or sexual orientation.

To close, it may be that this court would not wish to listen to this position; it may consider this position as being outside the framework of its functions; to maintain a theory within a certain narrow perspective. However, my position is pressured with logic, the fundamentals of the conflict and its objective causes; as the simple solution is that which deals with the causes, rather than the results. And before this fundamental counter-position, I would like to end my statement by saying the following: This is your court and you possess the force to celebrate the trial and convict me on the basis of your lists of accusations, the public one and the secret one, and you can dictate a sentence prepared by the political and security apparatuses that are behind this trial. But I too possess a will obtained from the justice of our cause and the determination of our people to reject any decision from this ‘kangaroo court,’ and to preserve a logical and cohesive balance, and to continue my determination to resist your occupation alongside the sons and daughters of our people, in spite of the limited space that you impose on my already-limited movements as a ‘prisoner for freedom!’

PFLP Office of Information.

01.14.2007

#Palestine #PopularFrontForTheLiberationOfPalestine #AhmadSaadat #Statement #Trial #MiddleEast