Category Archives: Iraq

‘Due Process’ For A Despot

Now that this burlesque of justice is branded ‘made-in-America,’ it’s a Mark of Cain on all of us

Now that we’ve established a constitutional government in Iraq, the rule of law, and a judiciary capable of Nuremberg and Tokyo-type prosecutions, no less, we can sit back and observe the 6th Amendment applied in Baghdad.
Duly, Saddam Hussein is enjoying a “speedy and public trial”—he was brought to trial a mere two years after capture. The trial is public only in the sense that we know it is underway. Paula Zahn is too busy reporting on her latest colonoscopy to dispatch a legal analyst to publicize the proceedings. (Her staff is probably too scared to go, though.) Zahn’s cable cohort, for different reasons, has confined its coverage to bad-mouthing the righteous former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark. These TV titmice believe being on Saddam’s sparse defense team is the same as “supporting” him.
I believe that under American-style justice the accused also has a right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Hussein has only recently been formally charged. As the trial commenced, so Hussein’s attorneys—well, those still alive (two defense lawyers have already been killed, another wounded)—had to request time to study the charges against their clients.
As to Hussein’s right to confront the witnesses against him—would that the Iraqis on the so-called stand were merely swaddled in abayas. Those not too frightened to testify (three men and two women, so far) were hidden behind screens, their voices modulated.
Look, prior to Bush’s invasion, I didn’t give a tinker’s toss what Iraqis did to Saddam. He was their baggage. But now that this burlesque of justice is branded ‘made-in-America,’ it’s a Mark of Cain on all of us
Incidentally, we were told until recently that Saddamites are behind the insurgency. But those behind the slaying of Saddam’s attorneys are probably Shiite—it has even been alleged members of the Iraqi “government” are involved. Yes, this is what chaos looks like. Once a rogue state; Iraq is now a failed one, where any faction that imagines its wishes are being frustrated goes out and kills its foes. Freedom is on the march.

It’s Those Seventy Chippendale Dancers That Await in Hell

Iraq

Driven or exploited? Depending on which story you hear, failed Iraqi suicide bomber Sajida Rishawi is either a pawn of a patriarchal society or a criminal who conned herself into a corner as tight as the corset of explosives she failed to detonate. Books that belabor the “Three P’s”—patriarchy, poverty, and powerlessness—to varying degrees abound. There’s Christoph Reuter’s My Life Is a Weapon: A Modern History of Suicide Bombing, Barbara Victor’s Army of Roses: Inside the World of Palestinian Women Suicide Bombers, and Jessica Stern’s Terror in the Name of God, and more. It’s a growth industry. Murray N. Rothbard got it right in “Hutus vs. Tutsis: “In dealing with crime, he wrote, “liberals are concentrating on the wrong root causes. That is, on ‘poverty’ or ‘child abuse’ instead of a rotten immoral character.

It's Those Seventy Chippendale Dancers That Await in Hell

Iraq

Wordless About The War

Ilana Mercer, Iraq, Islam, War

I attempted to explain to conservative Australian writer, Rob Stove, why, after chronicling the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I’d fallen silent:
When my daughter was seven-years old, her school assigned her the task of describing her parents. On her father, daddy’s darling heaped unrealistic praise (the tables have since turned. Excellent!). For her affection-starved mother, the little lady reserved a matter-of-fact appraisal. “My mother,” she wrote in her girly cursive, “is a quiet woman who speaks mainly when she has something to say.” (Rob’s riposte: “if everyone rationed speech thus, the entire mainstream punditocracy would cease to exist.” Amen.)
Pinpointed by my perceptive chatterbox of a child, this economy explains the lack of gush on Barely a Blog. And it explains why I’ve not written much lately about “Mess-opotamia.” I’ve nothing new to say. Few have. This is not to say there’s no place for repetition. But it’s not my place. I’ve said what I have to say, starting in September 2002. And here .
Fine, I’ll elaborate on a fresh observation Lawrence Auster originated: Bush and his devotees showcase their underlying hate of America by continually comparing the carnage in Iraq to the constitutional cramps of early America. As The Wall Street Journal put it, “There were a few glitches 200 years ago in Philadelphia too.”
Yes, the hoots, hollers, and blasts emanating from members of Iraq’s tribal troika capture to a tee the tone of the debates in, what’s that document called? The Fedayeen Papers?
Jalal (Talabani), Muqtada (al-Sadr), and Muhammad (Bahr al-Ulum) are just like James (Madison), John (Jay), and Alexander (Hamilton). Why didn’t it occur to me? Only a fool would fail to trace the philosophical link between the feuding Mohammedans and the followers of John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu. Mr. Auster is right: what a hateful comparison.
The war is even more hateful. And everything that needs to be said about it has been said—to no avail. Words have failed to bring us closer to a moral reckoning. So watch Do You Ever Wonder What 2000 Looks Like—and weep (link courtesy of antiwar.com).