Friday, October 28, 2005

Iraqi ministry accused of assassinating defence lawyer in Hussein trial

The interior ministry of the pro-US government in Iraq is being directly accused of carrying out the murder of Sadoun Antar Nudsaif al-Janabi, a key defence lawyer in the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven others that began on October 19.



Janabi was seized from his office late in the evening on October 20 by as many as 10 men. Witnesses claim they were wearing police uniforms. Several hours later, Janabi’s body was found on the street near Baghdad’s Fardous Mosque. He had been killed execution-style with two gunshots to the head.

Hemeid Faraj al-Janabi, the sheik of the Al Janibiyeen tribe to which Janabi belonged, told the Arabic daily Al Hayat on Monday: “We have evidence from the interior ministry that the executors of the operation are from the ministry. They kidnapped Sadoun al-Janabi and took him to one of the ministry’s buildings in the Al Jaderiyah region—which is the house of the one of the daughters of the overthrown president—where they assassinated him.”

Interior Minister Bayan Jabr is a senior leader of the Shiite fundamentalist Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Along with the Da’awa movement of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, SCIRI has worked closely with the US-led occupation forces since the 2003 invasion. Following the election last January, which gave the Shiite parties control of the government, many of SCIRI’s Badr Organisation militiamen have been incorporated into the interior ministry or the new Iraqi army.

There are widespread accusations that the interior ministry and SCIRI, with the complicity of US advisors, are behind a wave of terror being unleashed against people believed to be supportive of the armed anti-occupation resistance or critical of the Baghdad government.

On August 2, a witness identified one of the men who abducted and murdered American journalist Steven Vincent as an interior ministry employee. Vincent had written several exposures of extra-judicial killings by Shiite militias linked to SCIRI.

In July, the British Observer published allegations that the interior ministry was carrying out extra-judicial killings and widespread torture in the prisons under its control.

In June, Knight Ridder correspondent Yasser Salihee was shot dead by a sniper at a US checkpoint just days before a major story he had researched with Tom Lasseter was published. The story documented accounts of killings and torture by the interior ministry police commando unit known as the Wolf Brigade, which was recruited from former members of Hussein’s Iraqi Republican Guard.

In the months since, the bodies of hundreds of Sunni Arabs have been discovered dumped on the side of the road or in rubbish dumps in Baghdad and other cities.

The motive behind Janabi’s killing last week is obvious. It is an attempt to intimidate the legal defence team assembled to represent Hussein and his co-defendants. Janabi was the chief defence lawyer for Awad Hamed al-Bander, the former head judge of the Baathist Revolutionary Court, who is on trial with Hussein.

Richard Dicker, the director of the Human Rights Watch international justice program, declared: “We are gravely concerned that this killing will have a chilling effect on the willingness of competent lawyers to vigorously defend the accused in these cases. Such an outcome will seriously undermine the ability of the court to provide a fair trial.”

Human Rights Watch issued a lengthy criticism of the trial on October 16. It condemned the court’s standards of proof, inadequate protection against self-incrimination, inadequate defence and the requirement that a death penalty sentence be carried out within just 30 days of a final

14 Comments:

Anonymous NYCtexan said...

How come you haven't posted on Volcker's report detailing the UN kickbacks? It is interesting how the two countries benefiting from the oil for food program were also the two countries most opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. What good is the UN if it's international law, the law you regard so highly, is merely determined by the self interests of its members. In the end the US's actions were really no different than those of France of Russia. They (France and Russia) acted in self interest and we (the US) acted in self interest. You should not claim the UN is so great when it in fact is no different than the big bad evil US.

October 28, 2005 7:20 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

The reason I have not reported is

(a) over 2000 companies are invovled spanning every country including your own

(b) the report states clearly that the companies themselves probably didnt know and it was a few rogue elements within the companies that did this

(c) the largest oil smuggling took place with US government approval (the article you first commented about on my site)

(d) Kofi Anan accepts that the UN needs reform as does the world , only six weeks ago this subject was the top agenda at the new york summit , the problem is that the world can not agree on what the reform should be ,

Europe and asia etc want a few safety checks put in place to prevent fruad , only the US wants whole sale reform that is not required

(e) i personally find the whole oil for food scandle to be a diversion , my view is (along with (france/russia/china) other perminant members of the UN security council , is that the real crime is that the US and UK refused to lift the sanctions that brought about the need for "oil for food"

many people (including me) believe that the sanctions on Iraq (due to WMD he did not have) killed (murderded ?) upto 1 million Iraqi's

Of course a few companies taking back handers is a bad thing , and yes they should be punished

but comparing a bit of fraud to the knowing destruction of upto a million people through the forced veto of a UN rule that the world wished to overturn is nothing more then a simple distraction tactic

so i agree the UN needs reform , but a body that thinks for the whole word instead of just a single nation is a good thing

it is not perfect , but it is not the UN that prevented medicine and food from children based on a lie

why does the death of (upto) a million create so little response from you

but a few dollars in someones pocket does ?

how strange

October 28, 2005 7:49 pm  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

i dont care about the money. i just care that the money was a cause for countries to block the united states and great britian from removing sadam. if a man goes to jail for a crime and is not able to feed his wife and child at home should he be let out of jail. no. if the government provides income to the family and the mother spends the money on drugs should the government let the man out of jail bacause the child is starving. no. i think in most cases the government would be justified in going in and taking responsibility for the child. so, you could just as easily say that France, Russia, and who ever else oppoesed taking action against Iraq were responsible for starving the people of iraq. efforts were made to provide food for the iraqis while the sanctions were in place. also at some point, it becomes the responsibility of the people of a county to hold their own leader or leaders accountable for their actions.

October 28, 2005 8:14 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

France germany russia did feel resposnible but they could not stop it

eleven times they asked us to remove sanctions and we refused
and therefore veto'd the request

but yes they are also responsible for accepting the original ressolution in 1991 that said "if any single member of the council says saddam is still guilty then the sanctions stay in place" <-- paraphrase

so yes we are all guilty

I see the point your making

but saddam was not under sanctions for any of his (non arguable) evil crimes

he was under sanctions for harbouring WMD

he did not have any WMD

so the sanctions were an error that we refused to accept

If the reasons for the sanctions were correct then i would agree with every word

they were not ,

and you seem to imply that beacuse saddam did not have WMD it was the responsibilty of his people to hold him acountable for the weapons he did not have ?

is that right ?

you mean just like we told the shia to do after gulf war 1 , when we abandoned them to slaughter ?

saddam is guilty of many crimes , that does not mean his people should suffer for a crime he did not comit

it does not mean that as saddam is a bad guy anyway it does not matter that the sanctions were wrong and that people die

if we had listened to the world then the people of iraq would not have to rise up agaisnt him as the food and medicince would have been there

there is much to blame saddamn for , but the deaths created by sanctions are our doing and our doing alone

as i say , i agree that the Oil for food scandle is serious

but it really doesnt compare to the crimes we commited agaisnt the people of Iraq

October 28, 2005 8:40 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

oh and PS , if you want to know why the US government is so angry with the UN all the time i think you will find your answer not in the crimes of the UN

but in the anger of the US administration to the 'honesty' of the UN with comments like this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

the US will not stand to be told off , so it wants to bite back

October 28, 2005 8:46 pm  
Blogger G_in_AL said...

H, you've become a political parrot. You will readily accept that the US does everything for money and greed, but then quickly find reasons to excuse EU member, Russia, and China.

I also note you explicit lack of blam on your own nation, but your overwhelming acceptance of the US as the premier criminal in the world.

I have also noticed your extreme lack of reporting anything on Iran and their nuclear ambitions as of late.... could this be due to the increasingly hostile rhetoric comming out of Tehran now?

H, you and I have gone back and forth quite a bit, but as events in the geopolitical world unfold, I feel that I am beginning to be vindicated on many issues. Iran and Iraq happen to two of them.

If France and Russia wouldn't have vetoed the resolution for war, then Iraq would have been UN sanctioned. That would remove what your primary reasoning for disagreeing with it is.

If France and Russia wouldnt have been so deeply corrupted with Saddam's Iraq, they wouldnt have vetoed.

With China on record originally as "abstaining" from it, that means the primary roadblock to UN approved invasion of Iraq was done by the two countries that had the most to loose financially.

Also note, that Iran, whom China and Ruissa are now supporting, has stepped up to a level of violent intent rehtoric that would virtually constitute war would they speak like that to any other nation.

I think you have been stretching out too thin on some of these issues to try and prove politcal points.

October 28, 2005 10:59 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

G you said "H, you've become a political parrot. You will readily accept that the US does everything for money and greed, but then quickly find reasons to excuse EU member, Russia, and China"



I do not excuse anyone G , I do bring the other side of the story

the items i try to bring to my site are the other side of the argument

there is no shortage of american news chanels putting out the version of world events that we see every day

all we get is speeches from bush or blair saying the usual sound bites about why we are in Iraq and how we have killed this terrorist or that .

democracy and freedom depend on freedom to find the whole story , I do not claim that what i write on my site is correct and what you write on yours is not

I merely claim that this is the other side of the argument to the one we all see everyday

I am not just some (jump on the bandw wagon) antiwar type G.

There are plenty of people like yourself to attack the wrongs of the UN or russia or germany , syria , iran

how many places do you see where the other side of the story is told


for i can find thousands of sites that tell the same story , the UN is bad , anyone that questions america is supporting the terrorists etc , where as the other side of the story is harder to find

How many sites can you find that defend everything Israel does ?

and how many that defend the palastinians ?


The reason is not because one side is right and the other wrong , it is due to our natural position in the west to support israel , and defend everything our leaders tell us as being true

you said "If France and Russia wouldn't have vetoed the resolution for war, then Iraq would have been UN sanctioned. That would remove what your primary reasoning for disagreeing with it is."

not so G , my primary reason for disagreeing with the war is that i think it was wrong , i thought it was wrong even before it went to the UN , from the very moment the subject was mentioned (after 9/11) i thought it was wrong

i still do


you said "I have also noticed your extreme lack of reporting anything on Iran and their nuclear ambitions as of late.... could this be due to the increasingly hostile rhetoric comming out of Tehran now? "

to be honest i am disgusted by what Iran has just said , it is impossible to defend , i really feel that it was very niave , he was playing to the home crowd and did not click that the whole world would pick up this stuff

today he has said it again

I genuinly believe (looking at the middle east since 1900) that you can not get what you want by force , and that all the sabre rattling (as prooved by Iraq) just make things worse


so another way must be found , i look at those options , though i do not claim the answers are easy

you said "I also note you explicit lack of blam on your own nation,"


I am disgusted with my own nation , the difference is that at least 80 to 90 % of us think that Invading Iraq was wrong , that it was done for the wrong reasons .

Before the war even started , over 1 million marched in london agaisnt the war , this might not seem alot until you realise that there is only 58 million of us , when you rule out those that could not go , were to old or to young etc then we are genuinly looking at the majority (by far) of the country that were agaisnt the war.

In the main the american people supported the war , and many are yet to be convinced of its error ,and are still desperately seeking evidence of links to al-qaeda , weapons sneaked to syria , the smoking gun they all thought was there

The british know that our government took us for a ride and important lessons have been learnt , we loved TB when he came to power , we just mock him now

In a two party state there is little you can do , like you both parties backed the US plan for war so there was nothing we could do

and the UK is always a loyal friend to the US and will not pull out until (and get the UN in) until you guys accept the mistake

so there is much to do in convincing those of your fellow countrymen that can be convinced to support the movement away from the US led war on terror

to a more universal world wide effort to pacify the terrorist threat (yes sometimes by using force)

I feel that the US has lost all credibility at the moment , and everything they touch makes things worse and the world less safe

so they need to get someone in the white house with a more global perspective and a listining as well as a leading mentality

thats why i go on the offensive so often agaisnt your country , you are the key to world security and peace , you are the superpower and i genuinly think your making a mess of it

i worry for my family with the way the world is going , we need the US back in the good book of world countries and not acting like a cowboy

the actions of the US will decide the future for us and our children , and right now those actions make me frightened and angry

I do not think that america is the major criminal of the wolrd , the actions of 9/11 hit you like a bolt , it is natural for a nation to lash out when that happens . I do focus on the crimes you comit as you guys should know better

if the russians or the saudis or syrians torture people and use depleted uranium , deny entire cities food and water etc then we expect it , we expect you to behave better

the problem is that it is the US that is doing it, when the world super power starts to behave so badly it makes us all worried and it sets the acceptable standard , the US torture people so why can you be angry that the eygptians do the same

I am stunned and shocked that the worlds leading power can behave this way , i am not suprised that other countries do



I want all torture to end , and that means setting an example ,

you said "If France and Russia wouldnt have been so deeply corrupted with Saddam's Iraq, they wouldnt have vetoed."

yes the would G , the invasion of Iraq was not argued agaisnt due to everyone being in bed with saddam , it was wrong , pure and simple , Iraq was in his box , the world said "sanctions were working" i go one stage further and say "sanctions were not needed"

why did we need to attack Iraq then , that day ,in march 2003 , what was the urgency ?

The UN inspectors said that they needed a few more weeks to confirm what it has taken over 2000 american lives to find out , but you would not wait

all the world asked was that you wait for the facts , you refused and now you blame france and russia and china ,

the war was wrong G , regardless of oil for food , regardless of deals here there or anywhere , saddam did not have WMD , he was not buidling nukes

we had no authority to invade


the other security council members vetoed as they genuinly thought it was wrong G . George bush ignored them as he genuinly beleive he was right

I do agree that Irans actions are sickining , but hasnt Israel already said they will attack |Iran within twelve months , is that not also a decleration of war ?

October 29, 2005 2:26 am  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

h - of course france and russia wanted the sanctions removed. both countries would benifit from this. look at russia's relationship with iran. russia doens't care about the consquences of it sale of nuclear tecchnology to iran. if the sanctions were lifted from iraq, russia would have another client.

the main reason for the sanctions was to prevent sadam from being able to build or maintain an army. am i wrong in this assumption? you dont seem to acknowledge this?

g - I like your posts. I think I see you on dailydissent also. those blogs are too fun.

October 29, 2005 3:02 am  
Blogger _H_ said...

NYC

you said "the main reason for the sanctions was to prevent sadam from being able to build or maintain an army. am i wrong in this assumption? "

yes you are wrong , the sanctions were in place as we believed saddam had Weapons of mass destruction

there is no UN resolution that required saddam not to build an army etc

the sanctions were purely in place as we thought he had illigel weapons

he did not

I really dont disagree with either of you that france and russia had motive (all countries do)

my point is that the sanctions were for something that did not exist

so whatever the motives of france and russia they were correct to try to lift the sanctions

eg

If i put you in jail for murder and people start to claim you are not guilty (in this case correctly) should i re-open the trial or leave you to rot in jail

the UK and US made the choice to ingore the questions other countries asked

as i said in my first reply , i do not just dismiss the oil for food scandle , it is a crime , those connected should be punished etc

my view is that it is not the greater crime , and the greater crime does not even get a look in

October 29, 2005 4:32 pm  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

i dont think that the us or the uk were wrong in their support for the use of sanctions to prevent sadam from building weapons of mass distruction. even if they did not have weapons or were not close to having weapons, sanctions to prevent them from ever building these weapons could be justified by iraq's history as an agressor in the region. two times iraq had attacked neighbors. there was reason to beleieve that had iraq gotten weapons of mass distruction, sadam would have used the weapons in an offensive rather than defensive manner.

after iraq's invasion of kuwait, should nothing have been done to punish iraq?

October 30, 2005 7:27 pm  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

(continuation of post above) should nothing have been done to punish iraq and to prevent sadam the means for another war against one of his neighbors?

October 30, 2005 7:29 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

Od course he should have been punished (but not the people of iraq who actually suffered), you still miss my point

saddam did have a weapons program in 1991 , nobodt denies that

the whole world (france russia china etc) all agreed , thats why the sanctions were put in place

the sanctions should have stayed in place until saddam complied

he did , he said he did , but we didnt beleive him

upto one million died , way to go in punishing saddam

we didnt punish saddam

we punished woman and children and the ederly

it wasn;t to prevent him getting a nuke , it was beacuse we thought he already had one

in 1991 the CIA said that saddam was ten years away from a bomb

after the invasion on 2003 the cia said saddam was ten years away from the bomb

so how much work do you think had been going on ?

not a personal comment to you NYC but in general i am finding the feeble attempts by people to justify the war bordering on pathetic

it was a mistake , it was illigal , the quicker we all accept that the quicker we can start to put it right

but we best be quick before someone on the right discovers that saddam once used a spoon that had been made by the same company that Osama gets his spoons from

then we will all be doomed

October 30, 2005 7:38 pm  
Anonymous NYCtexan said...

Well then in your view, the United Nations should have just gone to Iraq and arrested or fined sadam to punish him and not his people. That is a great idea.

You don’t need to explain to me that the reasons given for the war don’t make sense. I think that they could be debated either way. Honestly though, myself and many other conservatives never really cared if Sadam had harbored terrorist or had nukes. Instead, we were more interested in our ability to quickly act to preempt a future attack or quickly act in response to a future attack (the 9/11 report reports this as one of the big problems the US faced in regards to Afghanistan). We now have a much greater ability to do either of these when the time comes. In addition to this, future leaders of nations that threaten the US or our allies must deal with the idea that their actions could land them in a similar situation as sadam. Finally, I know that I am naive in my hopes that iraq could actually become some sort of democracy in the middle of the middle east, but no one has yet offered a better solution to attacking the root of the problem in the middle east.

i also acknowledge that our presence in the middle east is a rallying point for anti-american hatred throughout the region as well as a rallying point for recruitment of future terrorists. i feel that we are at least making an effort to spark change in the middle east, and also i feel that our response to 9/11 has been rather restrained. i expect that it is only a matter of time before we are hit again (whether we are in iraq or not), and i fear that our response will not be as restrained.

October 31, 2005 6:05 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

NYC

you said "Well then in your view, the United Nations should have just gone to Iraq and arrested or fined sadam to punish him and not his people"

yes i do , however only once the UN had finished its inspections and prooven the existence of weapons etc

you said "we were more interested in our ability to quickly act to preempt a future attack "

one of the most honest statements i have heard for some time

and i feel that this is 'one' of the main reasons iraq was attacked

to show the american people and the world that you had not been hurt and that you still had awsome miltary might

I disagree with doing such a thing but i respect why the US needed to do that

i agree with everything else you wrote NYC ,(see we get there in the end )

especially the fact that carrying along this road will ensure that you will be attacked again

and next time you will kick out even harder then this

world stabilty is on the line here and where i imagine we disagree is on how the US can reduce that risk and how by setting the moral hih ground , sticking to international law and working with the world that the danger to us all will go down

I dont think the US would hesitate to use a Nuke again if it felt the need , i dont doubt the terrorists would do the same (if they got one)

scary times

I am not anti republican btw , i feel that regean and bush snr would have handled this crisis much much better

my fear and concern and anger is directed at this particular group of neocons who i believe have taken the US too far to the right

I would have no problems with a center right america

this is something most people miss with my posts , they assume i am just anti republican

it is not the republican party that is the danger to the world

just this bunch that have the reigns now

October 31, 2005 6:28 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home