America on Trial in Iraq
Vol: 50 Issue: 28 Monday, November 28, 2005
America on Trial in Iraq
The trial of Saddam Hussein resumed after a five-week recess granted to give Saddam’s lawyers a chance to prepare his defense. When the trial reconvened, sitting at the defense table were Saddam’s lawyers, former Qatari Justice Minister Najib al-Nueimi and the newest member of the defense team, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark.
Saddam is charged with crimes against humanity. Iraqi prosecutors decided to begin with the 1982 killing of 140 Shi’ites rounded up and murdered at Saddam’s personal direction following an assassination attempt against him.
Neither Clark nor al-Nueimi has been officially recognized by the court as legal counsel. U.S. and Iraqi officials said Saddam’s chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, did not officially request permission for any foreign attorneys to attend the trial.
Iraqi law permits foreign lawyers to act as advisers but requires that those arguing cases in court must be members of the local bar association.
Clark, who served as attorney general under President Johnson, wrote last month that Saddam’s rights had been systematically violated since his December 2003 capture, including his right “to a lawyer of his own choosing.”
Clark and others say a fair trial is impossible in Iraq because of the insurgency and because, they argue, the country is effectively under foreign military occupation. U.S. and Iraqi officials insist the trial will conform to international standards.
Clark, who never met a dictator he didn’t like, said he intends to challenge the court’s legal status. Clark plans to argue, if permitted, that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq and imposed a new government on the Iraqis. Therefore, Clark hopes to argue, the court is really just an illegal American construct imposed under occupation and therefore has no jurisdiction.
Clark has a long history of anti-American activism. Clark served as US Attorney General until January 20, 1969. In 1972, he visited the Communist government of North Vietnam while the war was ongoing and American forces were still on the battlefield.
Clark made the trip on behalf of the Stockholm-based International Commission for Inquiry, a Communist peace front. He was taken on a guided tour and denounced the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam.
He also visited American POWs held by Hanoi, falsely declaring that they were in good health and their conditions could not be better. Such visits by American figures gave the communists the confidence to continue in the face of defeats on the battlefield.
Clark was an outspoken opponent of the Reagan administration’s support for the anti-Communist Nicaraguan contras. (Despite strong liberal opposition, led in the Senate by John Kerry and in the press by Clark, that policy resulted in the defeat of the Communist Sandinista, free elections, and the end of Nicaraguan communism.)
Clark was legal advisor to the Advisory Board of NORML (National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws), Branch Davidian David Koresh, antiwar activist Phillip Berrigan, Crimes of America conference in Teheran in 1980, and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader of the Rwandan genocide.
He also defended PLO leaders in a lawsuit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair bound elderly tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists in 1986 and Slobodon Milosevic, the Butcher of Belgrade.
Clark is affiliated with VoteToImpeach, an organization advocating the impeachment of President George W. Bush. He has been an opponent of both Gulf Wars.
Clark is also the founder of the International Action Center, which has much overlapping membership with the openly communist Workers’ World Party. (Although in origin a Trotskyite group, the WWP describes itself as Marxist-Leninist.)
Clark and the IAC helped found the protest organization ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).
Clark’s ANSWER fronts for the WWP, formed in the late 1950’s for the purpose of supporting even the most dictatorial regimes, provided their mission was to undermine the United States and its allies. It split from its parent Socialist Worker’s Party over the WWP’s support for the 1956 Soviet crushing of the Hungarian anti-Soviet revolution.
The WWP went on to back the Chinese government and its tanks against the dissidents in Tiananmen Square, tout the virtue of the North Korean regime and openly state its support for dictators like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.
Among ANSWER’s more prominent members is British parliamentarian and Oil-For-Food beneficiary George Galloway, who was a recent speaker at one of Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar rallies.
In watching portions of the opening moments of Saddam’s trial, I was impressed with just how fair the judge was. Especially when one considers the fate meted out to Romania’s Nicolae Ceaucescu and his wife when his regime fell in 1989.
(After a ten minute trial before a revolutionary court, they were machine-gunned in a garden behind the court).
Clark likes to style himself as anti-war, but his record is one of consistent support FOR war, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansing to the Taliban and now, Saddam Hussein. Clark is decidedly pro-war, as long as it is against the United States.
His hypocrisy is breath-taking, but not as breath-taking as the list of useful idiots who are too propaganda-blind to see it for themselves. Clark enjoys wide support among liberal senators, not the least of whom is John Kerry,.
Following the 2002 elections in which the GOP enlarged its majority in both Houses of Congress, Clark sent a message of support to a meeting of the Committee in Support of the Arab Cause taking place in Madrid to discuss the upcoming US invasion of Iraq.
Before continuing, allow me to call your attention to the fact the United States was, at that time, preparing for war with a declared enemy regime of the United States. Addressing a conference composed of America’s enemies at a meeting intending to oppose American objectives, a former Attorney General of the United States wrote;
“Eleven days ago, on Nov. 5, the U.S. elections showed that most people in the United States saw no choice worth voting for. It showed that incumbency and wealth-especially wealth which wants war–decide who wins. The will of the people was nowhere to be seen. The United States is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy. The people don’t rule in the United States.”
Message to the Arab world from a top former US official: “America IS the great Satan. Its much vaunted democracy is a sham. America only wants to steal wealth. America should be opposed.”
Clark openly called for the people of the world to oppose the US government, telling the Committee in Support of the Arab Cause (CSAC) that the US elections’ “show without any doubts that the U.S. government has set its course for war and that only the people of the world, and especially those of the United States, can stop this war and must stop this war.”
Speaking of American conduct of the first Gulf War, Clark told the CSAC; “It was slaughter. Under international law, you don’t slaughter with impunity. It is a war crime. It is a crime against humanity.”
He said of the current administration; “Lately, the second President Bush has said he doesn’t want war, the choice is up to Saddam Hussein. This is the same as a robber demanding all your money saying “I don’t want to shoot you, the choice is yours.”
He exhorted the CSAC to “persevere beyond January 18-19, 2003 until the power of the people forces the U.S. government to end its policies of militarism and economic exploitation of the poor at home and abroad.”
Message: “America is a thief preparing to steal Arab lands. America should be opposed.”
He called on the Arabs to “liberate the United States from repression,” a textbook example of sedition as defined by the United States Code. “Don’t we know,” asked Clark, “we’ve got 2 million people in prison? Don’t we know we execute more than one person a week in this country? Let’s liberate the United States of America!”
Clark’s ANSWER is supported by the unofficial media arm of the DNC, Moveon.org. Does any of this sound a bit disturbing to you?
Does it sound like treason? Not to the brainwashed Useful Idiot Brigade members like Cindy Sheehan and her supporters. They are convinced they are anti-warriors. How can one be simultaneously anti-war and pro-Saddam?
They are not merely deluded, one could argue that they are STRONGLY deluded — but they’ve managed to convince a significant minority of Americans of their treasonous and double-minded self-delusion that being pro-Saddam is the semantic equivalent of being an anti-war American ‘patriot’.
They are intoxicated with the heady drug of self-righteousness. Most of them are convinced that the Bush administration is worse than Saddam’s government, despite the evidence that Saddam’s regime made Hitler’s look like a benevolent dictatorship by comparison.
So they have no problem with repeating accusations invented by Moveon.org and Ramsey Clark to the effect that the administration lied to make a case for war against Saddam Hussein in order to steal oil wealth.
They continue to make false accusations, despite the growing mountain of evidence that al-Qaeda was in collusion with Saddam’s regime. That there was ‘no evidence’ found of WMD in Iraq, which is manifestly untrue. There were no actual stockpiles of WMD found — a different matter entirely.
It is nothing short of incredible to me that the antiwarriors seem to have no natural affection for their own country at all. It is all being showered on whoever is most at odds with America.
They have nothing but contempt for conservatives of all stripes, saving their greatest venom for the ‘Christian far right’ which they claim is composed of greedy, self-righteous white men bent on oppressing those who disagree with them.
During the Tribulation, the United States of America is notably absent from the Scripture’s record. However, I believe that the United States IS represented in Scripture for the last days – just not during the Tribulation.
Just as Israel is the exemplar of Judaism in the last days references, I believe the United States represents the Church in the last days of the Church Age, just before the Rapture.
Paul wrote, “This know also, that in the LAST DAYS, perilous times shall come.” The world ‘perilous’ is translated from the Greek, “chalepos” which means, ‘harsh, fierce or savage’.
Jesus begins His Discourse on the last days by warning of ‘wars and rumors of wars’ before saying, ‘let not your heart be troubled, for the end is not yet.’
America fought two world wars, but has not faced an existential threat since 1948. The period running from 1948 to 1990 was known to history as the ‘Cold War’ — the ultimate ‘rumor’ of war. But the end was not yet.
Paul notes in 2nd Thessalonians 5:3, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the hot topic in American politics was what to do with the ‘peace dividend’. The Soviet Union was no more. Israel and the Palestinians signed a peace deal. Peace and safety seemed to be breaking out all over the place.
Until September 11, when ‘sudden destruction’ visited America and plunged her into a third world war.
The conduct of that war is opposed by the liberal left to the degree that they have consciously swung their allegiance over to the enemy because they blindly oppose the policies of their elected government, which they say is blinded by Christian conservative ideals and not representative of secular America.
Paul described the prevailing worldview of the last days during those perilous times, saying, “Men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.”
The antiwarriors self-righteously claim they were denied the power they coveted in the 2000 Election. It hurt their pride. Among the platforms embraced by the conservative voters in 2000 were family values, ‘faith-based initiatives’, the role of religion in public life, restrictions on abortion, a strong foreign policy and personal responsibility.
The Left rejected each issue on principle and narrowly lost at the polls. It has since mounted a concerted effort to accomplish by legislative fiat what it failed to accomplish at the polls.
This all sounds harsh and partisan at first glance. But allow your mind to drift back to the campaign and post election rhetoric. Who was saying what?
(Now we rejoin Paul’s outline of the last days of the Church . . . already in progress.)
“Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof . . .”
And finally, the direct Scriptural command, “From such, turn away.” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)
I got an email from someone over the weekend complaining that I ‘defend’ George Bush too much and suggesting my time would be better served preaching the Gospel at a soup kitchen. This still astonishes me.
If there are two versions of an event, only one of them can be true. If the true version favors George Bush, nobody seems to notice that there is ANOTHER version — they see only a ‘defense’ of George Bush.
The fact that somebody HAS to be lying (for their to be two versions in the first place) is irrelevant, unless, of course, the perceived liar is a member of the Bush administration.
It is the mission of the Omega Letter to provide its subscribers with the evidence that these are the last days foretold by Bible prophets, to the exclusion of any other generation to come.
Simply quoting the relevant Scriptures doesn’t do the job. Demonstrating where those relevant Scriptures play a role in the life of the last-days Church does.
When Jesus was asked what would be the signs that would herald His soon return, the first words out of His mouth were these:
“Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:4)