New York Times: Report on Brutal Vietnam Campaign Stirs Memories
"For seven months, Tiger Force soldiers moved across the Central Highlands, killing scores of unarmed civilians — in some cases torturing and mutilating them — in a spate of violence never revealed to the American public.
'Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed — their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings."
FULL REPORT

The Toledo Blade reports that first broke the story  ¶ 9:35 AM

  CNN.com - Saddam Hussein 'offered peaceful way of avoiding US invasion'
"Did Iraq make overtures to the U.S. that could have averted war? In the weeks leading up to the U.S. invasion, Saddam Hussein reportedly tried to cut a deal with the White House. A Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, says he was asked to broker that deal, and he says he met separately with Iraqis, once in Baghdad and also with a Pentagon advisor in London."
Transcript of CNN interview  ¶ 10:00 PM

  Saddam Hussein? A story calling for an investigation
Share International news release no. 66, December 2003

In a news release sent to media worldwide on 8 April 2003 we published our information that Saddam Hussein had been injured in the first bombing of Iraq on 20 March 2003 and died two days later from his injuries.
So who has now been captured by American forces?

In our view certainly not Saddam Hussein but an obvious stand-in, of whom we understand there are at least three: two cousins and a close friend all with similar family characteristics. We believe he is the same man — a cousin — seen on Iraqi television on 4 April 2003, who picked up a child and laughed and waved to the crowds. His body language was completely different from that of Saddam Hussein. The end of his nose was much broader than that of Saddam and he had moles on his temple and forehead — identical with the captured person. At that time commentators were perfectly ready to question the identity of the man seen on video. Now everyone seems conveniently to have dropped any enquiry or second thoughts.

The Americans claim that DNA samples taken from the captive relate to that of Saddam Hussein. How do they know? With what are they comparing them? In any case, a cousin would obviously share some of Saddam’s genetic features. From the beginning of the Iraq conflict the proven lies from this US administration, particularly about the weapons of mass destruction, give little confidence that their information should be believed.

We are convinced that eventually the truth will emerge — that this confused man now captured is not Saddam Hussein, but a double who may well have been part of a plot to keep the fact of Saddam’s death from the Iraqi people for as long as possible.   ¶ 9:54 PM

  Scott Ritter reveals how MI6 sold the Iraq war
December 28, 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-944831,00.html
The Sunday Times – Britain: Revealed – how MI6 sold the Iraq war
NICHOLAS RUFFORD

THE Secret Intelligence Service has run an operation to gain public support for sanctions and the use of military force in Iraq. The government yesterday confirmed that MI6 had organised Operation Mass Appeal, a campaign to plant stories in the media about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
The revelation will create embarrassing questions for Tony Blair in the run-up to the publication of the report by Lord Hutton into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, the government weapons expert.
A senior official admitted that MI6 had been at the heart of a campaign launched in the late 1990s to spread information about Saddam’s development of nerve agents and other weapons, but denied that it had planted misinformation. “There were things about Saddam’s regime and his weapons that the public needed to know,” said the official.
The admission followed claims by Scott Ritter, who led 14 inspection missions in Iraq, that MI6 had recruited him in 1997 to help with the propaganda effort. He described meetings where the senior officer and at least two other MI6 staff had discussed ways to manipulate intelligence material.
“The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was,” Ritter said last week.
He said there was evidence that MI6 continued to use similar propaganda tactics up to the invasion of Iraq earlier this year. “Stories ran in the media about secret underground facilities in Iraq and ongoing programmes (to produce weapons of mass destruction),” said Ritter. “They were sourced to western intelligence and all of them were garbage.”
Kelly, himself a former United Nations weapons inspector and colleague of Ritter, might also have been used by MI6 to pass information to the media. “Kelly was a known and government-approved conduit with the media,” said Ritter.
Hutton’s report is expected to deliver a verdict next month on whether intelligence was misused in order to promote the case for going to war. Hutton heard evidence that Kelly was authorised by the Foreign Office to speak to journalists on Iraq. Kelly was in close touch with the “Rockingham cell”, a group of weapons experts that received MI6 intelligence.
Blair justified his backing for sanctions and for the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that intelligence reports showed Saddam was working to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The use of MI6 as a “back channel” for promoting the government’s policies on Iraq was never discovered during the Hutton inquiry and is likely to cause considerable disquiet among MPs.
A key figure in Operation Mass Appeal was Sir Derek Plumbly, then director of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office and now Britain’s ambassador to Egypt. Plumbly worked closely with MI6 to help to promote Britain’s Middle East policy.
The campaign was judged to be having a successful effect on public opinion. MI6 passed on intelligence that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction and rebuilding its arsenal.
Poland, India and South Africa were initially chosen as targets for the campaign because they were non-aligned UN countries not supporting the British and US position on sanctions. At the time, in 1997, Poland was also a member of the UN security council.
Ritter was a willing accomplice to the alleged propaganda effort when first approached by MI6’s station chief in New York. He obtained approval to co-operate from Richard Butler, then executive chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq Disarmament.
Ritter met MI6 to discuss Operation Mass Appeal at a lunch in London in June 1998 at which two men and a woman from MI6 were present. The Sunday Times is prevented by the Official Secrets Act from publishing their names.
Ritter had previously met the MI6 officer at Vauxhall Cross, the service’s London headquarters. He asked Ritter for information on Iraq that could be planted in newspapers in India, Poland and South Africa from where it would “feed back” to Britain and America.
Ritter opposed the Iraq war but this is the first time that he has named members of British intelligence as being involved in a propaganda campaign. He said he had decided to “name names” because he was frustrated at “an official cover-up” and the “misuse of intelligence”.
“What MI6 was determined to do by the selective use of intelligence was to give the impression that Saddam still had WMDs or was making them and thereby legitimise sanctions and military action against Iraq,” he said.
Recent reports suggest America has all but abandoned hopes of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, has resigned earlier than expected, frustrated that his resources have been diverted to tracking down insurgents.
  ¶ 6:13 PM

  FW: [rapprochement] The Logic of Occupation This article has lessons which apply also to the occupation of Iraq.-Karl
Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: ghassan_andoni [mailto:rapprochement@palsolidarity.org]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:46 AM
To: rapprochementpalestine@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [rapprochement] The Logic of Occupation

Dear all, even when written a while ago I find Aron's article as very
insightfull to understand the Palestinia-Israeli crisis
- regards Ghassan Andoni

The Logic of Occupation - Part 1 Violence Breeds Violence

by Aron Trauring

I recently had the honor of being on a speaking panel with Ghassan Andoni,
professor of physics at Birzeit University. Professor Andoni is a key
Palestinian leader of the non-violent resistance movement in Palestine, and
a co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement. Andoni spoke about
the "logic" of occupation in an insightful and extremely coherent way. Two
years into this second Intifada, it's worth reflecting on what occupation
means, both for Israelis and Palestinians.

Andoni began by noting that all colonial occupation has two aspects:
control and expansion. Israeli colonialism is no different. When Israel
conquered the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan in 1967, the Palestinians
moved from the economic sphere of a very backward country, to that of a far
more advanced economy. Consequently the standard of living of Palestinians
rapidly accelerated. In the early years (and even today) Israeli would
point to this as proof that the Palestinians are better off under Israeli
rule and should be grateful they live under Israeli protection. And in
fact, until the outbreak of the first Intifada, resistance by Palestinians
inside Israel (as opposed to the Palestinian diaspora which form the
backbone of the PLO) was minimal. Nonetheless, during this period over
600,000 Palestinian men had been arrested on one pretext or another. That
represent one third of the population, and is the main indicator of
colonial control - restrictions and intimidations even against a "quiet"
population.

The purpose of control is, of course, expansion. The colonial power wants
to own and exploit the occupied land for its own purposes. Of course, all
colonial powers, as they grow more secure in their sense of ownership,
increase their expansion, and thereby began to pressure the local
population. Expansion and exploitation inevitably cross a threshold which
leads to an explosion. This was the first intifada.

Andoni commented that the first intifada was relatively non-violent on the
part of the Palestinians. As someone who served in the Israeli army during
that period, I can attest to the fact that the Intifada mainly expressed
itself through stone throwing, strikes, spray painting nationalistic
slogans on walls and waving the illegal flag of Palestine. The colonialist
response to any sort of resistance is to increase control of the oppressed
population. The argument is that extreme force needs to be applied, since
the native population is losing its fear, and unless a firm hand is shown,
worse violence will follow. This was exactly the Israeli response to the
first Intifada.

The economic and social price paid by Israel, along with American pressure,
led to the Oslo process. Keep in mind that nearly all Israelis did not give
up their colonialist mentality. They still felt that the West Bank is
"ours." Oslo was seen as a tactic, even by the left, of quieting the
restless natives. Only when one understands that, does one understand why
during the years of the Oslo process, Israel significantly increased
control over the Palestinian population as well as significantly increased
expansion. The goal was to limit to the extent possible what was to be
conceded to the natives. Throw them a sop to shut them up, rather than
address the fundamental injustice of the situation.

The result was inevitable. For one thing, the first Intifada raised the
national consciousness of Palestinians, and taught them that resistance can
bring results. For another, the contrast between the hope of Oslo and the
deterioration in their day-to-day lives, as well as the continued Israeli
land grab, all contributed to a rising sense of frustration and alienation
on the part of the Palestinians. It was inevitable that the second Intifada
erupted.

When it started, it had the same characteristics as the first - a popular,
relatively non-violent resistance. This time, however, the Israelis
responded with incredibly brutal force. As a recent report by Amnesty
International notes:

The majority of Palestinian children have been killed in the Occupied
Territories when members of the IDF responded to demonstrations and stone
throwing incidents with unlawful and excessive use of lethal force. Eighty
Palestinian children were killed by the IDF in the first three months of
the intifada alone.

The colonialist says: "See what happens when you try to appease the
natives? You give them a finger and they want the whole arm. We have to
show them who is boss now, before things get worse." At some stage, the
colonialist begins to view the whole indigenous population as an
intractable bunch of savages or "terrorists." The natives are seen as
lacking any moral restraint and therefore no restraint need be shown in
dealing with them.

Of course, the colonialist logic has the reverse effect on the indigenous
population. The violence used against them only increases their will to
resist. One needs to keep in mind that Palestine is an extremely small and
densely populated area. The massive use of force inside heavily civilian
areas led to huge civilian casualties. Andoni pointed out that by bringing
the war to the cities and towns of Palestine, Israel created an atmosphere
where Palestinians felt Israelis needed to pay the same price. Moreover, as
Andoni points out, the victim always believes all his acts are morally
justified, including murder. So after a few months of intense pressure,
particularly after Arik Sharon came into power, the Hamas suicide campaign
began in earnest with popular Palestinian support. From the latter's
perspective, Hamas terrorism is morally equivalent to Israeli state
terrorism.

Further complicating the picture is that Israelis are not only colonialist,
but also view themselves, as Jews, as the world's ultimate victims.
Everything is justified to Jews because of what we suffered in WW II. This
combination of victim-hood with colonial arrogance has given the Israeli
occupation an especially deadly and dangerous nature. An excellent insight
into this mentality can be found in this article by Ran HaCohen (in fact
all his articles are excellent and well worth a read). One quote:

Another soldier opposing refusal explained that even in Gaza, he felt very
clearly that he was defending his parents and girl-friend back home. Saving
one's own family, one's own people, was a moral duty, though some of our
actions were admittedly morally problematic. In fact, the term "moral
dilemmas" was used by every speaker; for some, it's the old Israeli
tradition of "shooting and weeping", where a heart tortured by "moral
dilemmas" clears one's conscience of immoral actions

The logic of occupation, as well as the "shooting and weeping" mentality,
shows up full force in an articlein today's New York Times about the tight
control of Israel over the West Bank town of Nablus. On the one hand, says
the Israeli colonel who is the commander of the infantry brigade that is
now warden of this city of 200,000 Palestinian residents: "They will suffer
until they understand. My job is to stop suicide bombers."

On the other hand he recognizes on some level the problem in his actions:
"When you look at this through Palestinian eyes, you can understand why
they hate us so much." Nonetheless he is willing to delude himself into
thinking, like all colonialists do, that he will eventually be the victor:
"We're in the middle of a hundred-years' war. That's what I tell my
soldiers."

But the article shows the futility of this thinking, by presenting the
Palestinian side:

Ghassan W. Shakah, the city's mayor, is praised by Israeli officials as a
"positive" force. He said he opposed suicide bombing. But he scoffed at the
idea that making life miserable would put a stop to it.

"We have to think about the logic," he said. "The people like me, who are
50 to 60 years old, when you put pressure on them, they use their minds.
But when you put pressure on 17-, 18-year-old boys, you create bitterness
and anger."

"I don't believe this is pressure to calm down," he said. "This is pressure
to build a bomb and commit suicide." That view was echoed by young people
interviewed here today

The article was posted subsequent to a day of extreme violence in Nablus.
Two ten year old Palestinians boys were killed. Their "crime": throwing
stones at Israeli tanks. The same day a young Israeli soldier was killed.
His "crime": believing the lies he was taught - that he is protecting his
homeland. That young soldier is a nephew of a childhood friend. I was heart
broken when I heard the news. But those two 10 year old boys have mothers,
fathers, brothers and sisters as well. Three families destroyed by the
logic of occupation. Again, from the Amnesty report:

Children are increasingly bearing the brunt of this conflict. Both the
Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Palestinian armed groups show an utter
disregard for the lives of children and other civilians, Amnesty
International said today.

Respect for human life must be restored. Only a new mindset among Israelis
and Palestinians can prevent the killing of more children.

The impunity enjoyed by members of the IDF and of Palestinian groups
responsible for killing children has no doubt helped create a situation
where the right to life of children and civilians on the other side has
little or no value.

Enough of unacceptable reasons and excuses. Both the Israeli government and
the Palestinian Authority must act swiftly and firmly to investigate the
killing of each and every child and ensure that all those responsible for
such crimes are brought to justice.

The logic of occupation is actually a form of madness. Violence breeds
violence without end. Andoni and many others on the Palestinian side are
trying to change the equation. They are trying to transform Palestinian
resistance back into a popular uprising. Andoni argues that colonial
oppression only ends when two conditions occur: the price of colonialism
exceeds its benefits. Within the occupying power as well, an anti-colonial
peace movement must grow, which opposes the colonialism on moral and
pragmatic grounds. This is the vanguard that leads the rest of the
population to the inevitable conclusion - its time to withdraw. But to
achieve this, Andoni contends, the price extracted of Israelis need not and
should not be in body bags. Nonetheless there will continue to be those on
the Palestinian side who demand to extract a price in blood. Israelis and
their American Jewish cousins, because of their colonial arrogance and
sense of victim-hood, cling to the logic of occupation and fail to
understand the transformations taking place on the Palestinian side. We do
so at great peril.

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rapprochementpalestine/

  ¶ 3:53 PM

  [ANSWER]: Washington DC Police Spying Operation Exposed From: answer.general@action-mail.org [mailto:answer.general@action-mail.org]

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:38 PM
Subject: [ANSWER]: Police Spying Operation Exposed

POLICE SPYING OPERATION EXPOSED

The lead editorial in the December 17 Washington Post, commenting on a
public D.C. City Council investigation into police spying, brutality and
pre-emptive arrests against demonstrators, is evidence that the national
campaign to defend the First Amendment is effectively striking back at the
war waged today by various law enforcement agencies against dissent in the
United States.

Citing the litigation brought by the Washington D.C.-based Partnership for
Civil Justice (International Action Center, et al., v. The United States, et
al.) the Post Editorial opens with an excerpt from July 10, 2003, ruling by
U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler:

"The District of Colombia, through [assistant police chief Alfred Broadbent]
seems to be admitting that it maintains widespread, extensive spying
operations on the activities and operations of political advocacy
organizations, such as Plaintiffs [International Action Center, et al.], on
the basis of their political philosophies and conduct protected under the
First Amendment. Moreover, Chief Broadbent admitted in his testimony that
such operations are carried on even in the absence of allegations of
criminal activities by the organizations being spied upon." The Post
editorial goes on to cite three other major protest cases being handled by
the Partnership for Civil Justice.

The Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), along with the FBI,
Secret Service and National Park Police, have been the subject of a
broad-based legal and political action campaign to win justice for those who
have been the victims of police misconduct.

The Partnership for Civil Justice (PCJ) has filed four major lawsuits in
Washington DC in the past three years that have uncovered a body of evidence
showing that law enforcement agencies have been engaged in systematic and
coordinated efforts to spy on and disrupt political organizations engaged in
First Amendment protected activities. Evidence obtained in the discovery
phase of litigation also includes police undercover operatives engaged in
violent assaults against peaceful demonstrators protesting against George W.
Bush during the January 20, 2001 Inaugural Parade. (For more information on
the lawsuits go to http://www.justiceonline.org)

In the last few weeks more than 20,000 organizations and individuals have
signed on to a petition opposing the FBI's illegal spying operation against
the U.S. antiwar movement. The FBI operation was revealed in an internal FBI
memorandum, written ten days before the October 25 demonstration in
Washington DC that demanded Bring the Troops Home Now, End the Occupation of
Iraq, that was the subject of a New York Times story on November 23. To see
the petition go http://www.votenowar.org or
http://www.internationalanswer.org

As the spotlight on police and law enforcement misconduct gets brighter as a
result of the litigation and political action campaigns, elected officials
in Washington D.C. have scheduled two days of hearings to scrutinize the
police department in the District of Columbia.

The following is the statement of Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, given on behalf
of the Partnership for Civil Justice and National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense
Committee on December 17, 2003, at the Public Oversight Hearing on Current
Policies and Practices of the MPD Related to Demonstrations, Committee on
the Judiciary, District of Columbia Council.

* * * * * * * * * *

STATEMENT OF MARA VERHEYDEN-HILLIARD On Behalf of the Partnership for Civil
Justice and National Lawyers Guild Mass Defense Committee December 17, 2003
Public Oversight Hearing On Current Policies and Practices of the MPD
Related to Demonstrations Committee on the Judiciary District of Columbia
Council

Litigation by the Partnership for Civil Justice (PCJ) over more than a three
year stretch has uncovered systematic police abuse of demonstrators and
revealed that the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD)
is engaged in an ongoing illegal domestic spying operation on political
activists and that it has used undercover agent provocateurs to commit
felonious assaults against peaceful demonstrators.

Today's hearing will include dramatic video footage of MPD undercover police
officers carrying out violent assaults against protestors at the
Inauguration of George Bush. This footage was obtained by and is in the
possession of the Partnership for Civil Justice, which is litigating on
behalf of activists who were assaulted.

The illegal conduct carried out by the MPD - which was exposed in the
litigation filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National
Lawyers Guild - is just the tip of the iceberg regarding law enforcement's
illegal violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. It is not only the MPD
but the U.S. Secret Service, FBI and National Park Police, in cooperation
and coordination with the MPD, that have waged a war against dissent in
Washington, D.C.

We salute Councilmember Kathy Patterson for holding these hearings. It is
evidence that elected leaders can be responsive to the rising people's
movement in the United States that is using both street demonstrations and
legal action to push back the government to a constitutional line and to
defend free speech rights.

The purpose of the lawsuits is to win justice for those whose rights have
been violated, and it is also to ensure accountability by police and law
enforcement officials. MPD Chief Charles Ramsey, Mayor Anthony Williams and
other officials have made the avoidance of accountability a primary focus of
their conduct after the egregious violations of demonstrators' rights in
episode after episode in the District of Columbia. This is evidenced in
their public conduct as well as when the Chief testified under oath in a
recent deposition conducted by the Partnership for Civil Justice.

The police department and Mayor of Washington have ratified the shocking and
illegal conduct of law enforcement both by word and by deed. They have
repeated their illegal tactics time and time again. It has only been through
the litigation by activists that the truth of these unconstitutional actions
has been brought to light. As we fight for justice in the Courts, we again
thank the Council for providing public forum and for using its authority to
oversee the police department to also seek accountability and change on
behalf of the people of Washington, D.C. and the people of the United States
who come to Washington, D.C. to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The Partnership for Civil Justice's First Amendment litigation on behalf of
demonstrators in Washington DC includes:

Alliance for Global Justice, et al v. District of Columbia, et al -
IMF/World Bank Demonstrations in April 2000 - Includes class action claim
for mass arrest of over 700 lawful protestors in advance of days of
protests, calculated as a preemptive political sweep to take activists off
the streets; the illegal raid, seizure and closure of the convergence
center; confiscation of political literature; brutal beatings of peaceful
activists.

International Action Center, et al v. United States of America, et al -
Counter Inaugural Protests against George W. Bush in January 2001 - Violent
assaults by MPD agents provocateurs; detention of protestors and splintering
of groups and assemblies by the Civil Disturbance Units (CDUs); infiltration
and domestic spying by the MPD posing as activists; joint unconstitutional
action with the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Committee and federal government to
deny access to the parade route.

Bolger, et al v. Ramsey, et al - Antiwar demonstrations in April 2002 -
Arrest based on political ideology, targeting anarchists, or persons
perceived by their manner of dress to be or to associate with anarchists in
the absence of any criminal activity.

Barham, et al v. Ramsey, et al - Anti-war and IMF/World Bank Demonstrations
in September 2002 - Class action certification. Rounding up and jailing over
400 people, including activists, legal observers and passers-by, in advance
of weekend of planned protests against corporate globalization and war
against Iraq that was calculated to take political activists off the streets
and disrupt their ability to assemble and advocate for change in U.S.
policy.

upcoming litigation: April 12, 2003 - police beating of peaceful
demonstrators at anti-war march including the filmed beating of a protester
while held down by police officers.

Partnership for Civil Justice http://www.justiceonline.org

------------------

Send replies to answer@action-mail.org

This is the ANSWER activist announcement list. Anyone can subscribe by
sending any message to To
unsubscribe .

  ¶ 9:03 AM

  FW: Iraqi Resistance Front to be proclaimed soon From: camp@antiimperialista.org [mailto:camp@antiimperialista.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:57 PM
Subject: Iraqi Resistance Front to be proclaimed soon

After the arrest of Saddam resistance will intensify and unite even more,
says Jabbar al Kubaysi

Jabbar al Kubaysi is leader of the Iraqi Patriatic Alliance which strives to
unify the Iraqi resistance movement into a common political National
Resistance and Liberation Front.

Anti-imperialist Camp: How do you comment the arrest of Saddam Hussein?

Jabbar al Kubaysi: It was obvious that Saddam was under the influence of
drugs being given to him in blatant violation of the basic human rights.
According to my information Saddam was caught already two weeks earlier. The
occupants used the time to prepare him und to figure out the media spectacle
we have been fed with. Without the help of Iranian intelligence the arrest
would not have been possible. Often Iranian servicemen appear in Kurdish
uniforms.

AC: The participation of Kurdish Peshmergas at the arrest was astonishing
given the fact that Tikrit is an entirely Arab town?

JK: The Kurdish leadership is in full-fledged alliance with the US occupants
who use them as cheap infantry. If one moves only some dozen kilometres to
the north of Baghdad road blocks are manned with Kurdish soldiers who carry
out the searches while American soldiers command. This is not new but has
been established right with the occupation.

AC: Will the arrest of Saddam Hussein result in a setback for the
resistance?

JK: No, on the contrary already within a few weeks you will see a further
strengthening of the resistance movement. For some Baathists it might be a
temporary disappointment. Although Saddam did not exert any command function
he still represented the one man rule and the dominance of his family clan.
Many party members who until now remained passive for that reason now will
join the resistance. As the fragmentation of the Baath party reached its
final stage, everyone decides upon his own without waiting for the command
chain which anyway was no more operative since the collapse of the regime.

Regarding the Islamic currents, an important pretext not to co-operate with
other resistance forces is gone. Many remembered the rule of Saddam and were
reluctant to collaborate with suspected followers of their former enemy. The
Islamic leaders might continue to employ this argument but now it has
definitively lost any ground. So the different currents of the resistance
will move closer together and thus further gain momentum.

AC: Is it possible that Saddam will capitulate like Abdullah ��calan did?

JK: Definitely no. The pictures the Americans released shown him as a
machine deprived of his will by medication. But whenever he seemed to be in
control of himself he refused co-operation with his torturers.

AC: What you think about the trial the US heralded to set up against Saddam
Hussein?

JK: This is pure propaganda. There is no legal judicial system in Iraq
whatsoever. The occupation is illegal, so are all the judges installed by
Paul Bremer. The people will not respect them. How can a convicted criminal
like the US puppet Ahmed Chalabi who has stolen millions of dollars, pretend
to exert jurisdiction? Ridiculous! Anyway, they will not dare to conduct
even a faked trial without thorough preparations and falsifications which
will require at least a year or so. They fear that Saddam will reveal a lot
of secrets contradicting their propaganda lies.

AC: How did your efforts to form a resistance front evolve?

JK: After months of intensive talks we will be able to proclaim the
resistance front within a few weeks. We are already about to finalise the
programmatic declaration. The main elements will be:
1) The liberation of Iraq from occupation and the complete withdrawal of all
foreign troops even if they might been mandated by the UN.
2) Any Iraqi authority set up by the occupants namely Bremer's so-called
Governing Council is illegitimate, refused and fought against.
3) Collaboration with the occupants will be banned. Policemen and other
people in the service of the occupants will be asked to quit.
4) The Anglo-American aggressors must pay reparation.
5) The resistance front strives to build a democratic government.

AC: What about a democratic and anti-imperialist constituent assembly?

JK: This is still an open matter to be discussed.

AC: Which currents are inside the front?

JK: Beside our "Iraqi Patriotic Alliance" there are different national
democratic forces like for example the Nasserists led by Dr. Omar Nadmi and
Subhi Abdul Hamid, "Iraq our House" of Abdel Latif al Mailmayah or the
"Iraqi Independent Gathering" chaired by Engineer Khaled al Maini. There is
also the "Islamic Committee" directed by Dr. Harith al Aldari. The
negotiations with a break-away group of the Communist Party in the mid 60s
called ICP (Central Command) led by Ibrahim Allawi are close to a positive
result.

AC: What about the group of Muqtada al Sader? Did he capitulate?

JK: No, capitulation is too strong. The tremendous Iranian pressure makes
him hesitate. I do not only speak about the political pressure exerted by
Tehran but also about the direct presence of thousands and thousands of
Iranian agents mainly in the East and the South of the country. We had two
meetings with Muqtada and he claimed that he will resist the occupation
peacefully. That means that he opposes the military resistance. But nobody
can believe that the US can be convinced without armed self-defence. What
does legal means mean in a situation of illegal occupation? Our armed
resistance is entirely legal according to international law and the UN
charter, but also to Islamic law and our national values. We will never
accept to disarm ourselves and to limit us to toothless peaceful action as
Muqtada claims. However, we will go on trying to convince him.

AC: Are there any Shia religious groups inside the front?

JK: No, for the time being there aren't although the group of the deceased
Sheikh al Madani agreed to join. But as their leaders, the two brothers of
the Sheikh, have been arrested by the US occupants their followers hesitate.
Furthermore we have many single religious authorities and sheiks. They have
considerable influence. However, it would be wrong to present them as Shia
religious political groups. Their place is vacant and we will continue our
efforts without waiting for them.

AC: Is the Baath party also inside the front?

JK: There is no official representation of the party as they are all
occupied by hiding themselves. But many members joined the front or support
it.

AC: And Kurdish forces?

JK: What is happening in the Kurdish areas is unbelievable. The
collaboration with the Americans does not only affect the leadership but big
parts of the population as well. This explains why we could not find a
Kurdish force to join the resistance front though we tried. Our doors are
still open.

AC: Many anti-war activists as well as many Arabs set their hope on France
and Germany. Which balance sheet do you draw about their role?

JK: We have to base our liberation struggle entirely upon our people and on
the solidarity of the people's movements in the Arab world and elsewhere.
The European government might have not agreed to the US unilateral
aggression but they are definitely not interested to support our resistance
struggle. Look to Chirac. He officially received Jalal Talabani and Al Hakim
those traitors who co-operate with the occupants. We will never forget that.
No better is Schr��der. He congratulated the US president to the capture of
another president. Why he did not protest against this illegal and criminal
act? Because we are a Third World county refused our right to
self-determination and sovereignty.

AC: What message do you want to send to the anti-war movement?

JK: A few days ago there was the anti-war conference in Cairo against the
occupation. However, the Iraqi speaking there did not fully endorse the
resistance. The very same man had met the Japanese prime minister who is
about to dispatch troops to Iraq. In the meeting he affirmed that those who
killed the two Japanese diplomats would be criminals. This is not
acceptable. All occupation forces and their aides are legitimate targets of
the resistance. In order to save themselves they have to leave our country
otherwise they will be subject to armed attacks. In general the congress
called to let the past behind and start a new period. But how can we forget
the aggression, the invasion and the occupation? All our politics start from
that very fact. I ask the anti-war movement to take sides. Neutrality is not
possible. We will continue fighting until our homeland is liberated. This is
our right and our duty. Those who really are for peace and justice have to
accept our right to self-determination and must support the resistance. All
the others do help in one way or another the imperialist enemy.

AC: And to the Arab people?

JK: We know that the vast majority of the Arab people backs the resistance
in Iraq as well as in Palestine as we are all sons of the same nation. The
resistance will continue to grow and to unify our people. We will fight
together until the invaders have left.

AC: Will you we able to receive an international solidarity delegation in
support of the resistance?

JK: Yes, indeed. We invite all the honest anti-war activists to express
their solidarity. In coming to occupied Iraq they can only choose the
occupants or the resistance. There is no other side.



************************************
Antiimperialist Camp
PF 23, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
camp@antiimperialista.org
www.antiimperialista.org/en
************************************
  ¶ 9:03 AM

  FW: Book: THE ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS From: Tom Cahill [mailto:tcahill@mcn.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: Book: Israeli Holocaust

THE ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS

A chronicle of war-crimes and atrocities against people judged less than
human by the U.S. government and media

By Michael Hoffman and Moshe Lieberman

2002, soft cover, $12.95

This book documents the horrendous atrocities which the Israeli state has
visited upon the Palestinians. The authors bring you a dossier of Israeli
war crimes in Palestine profusely illustrated with harrowing photos of the
death and destruction which the Zionist war machine, among the mightiest
on earth, has administered as collective punishment upon the entire
Palestinian nation.

Contents include with documentation: Israeli genocide in Palestine.

Exposing the media fantasy of Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle
East."

Israeli troops shoot rights activists.

Israeli war crimes in Palestinian cities.

The Jenin death camp.

Bush and Sharon: birds of a feather.

"Israel has nothing to hide."--The calculated Zionist policy of shooting
and obstructing reporters.

How Israel forbids war crimes investigations.

The history of Israeli state terrorism.

This book is one of the most explosive indictments of Israel ever
published. Illustrated with suppressed photos of massive carnage and war
crimes. The rare photos alone are worth the price of this stunning book.

Can be ordered through Loom panics Unlimited, PO Box 1197, Port Townsend,
WA 98368 U.S.A.


  ¶ 9:03 AM

  9/11 Chair Says White House Could Have Stopped Attacks


It has been two years and three months since America absorbed the horrific attacks of September 11. A fight has been waged since then to determine the facts behind that terrible day: How did it happen? Why was it not stopped?

The Bush administration has fought the official investigations into these attacks every step of the way, going so far as to nominate master secret-keeper Henry Kissinger to chair the investigation. They failed in this nomination, and wound up with former New Jersey Governor and fellow Republican Thomas Kean.
Today, Kean has fired an incredible broadside across the bow of the White House, stating bluntly that the attacks of September 11 could have and should have been stopped, and that blame for this failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration. -- William Rivers Pitt

Go to article: http://truthout.org/docs_03/121803A1.shtml

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
CBS News

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission.

The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots.

"If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said.

Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.   ¶ 8:56 AM

  Saddam's "capture" - news aggregation

Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens for Legitimate Government
December 17, 2003
http://www.legitgov.org/
All articles, dates, and links from summaries below are here:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news

Madeleine Albright: Bush Planning Bin Laden October Surprise [Caveat: the source of this story is Reichwing NewsMax.com] On Monday, Washington state Congressman Jim McDermott suggested that Dictator Bush could have captured Saddam Hussein long ago, but moved only when the news would have had maximum political effect. On Tuesday, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told reporters that the Bush regime may already have captured Osama bin Laden and will release the news just before next year's presidential s-election.

McDermott questions timing of arrest --On Seattle radio yesterday, Rep. Jim McDermott questioned the timing of Saddam Hussein's 'capture', saying, "I'm sure they could have found him a long time ago if they wanted to." Later yesterday, the Seattle Democrat said he did not know whether the Pentagon had manufactured the arrest of the Iraqi leader. "I think the fact is that the administration has been desperate to find something (positive), and this came up." [Exactly!!]

LaHood (Dec. 2, 2003) said Hussein's capture imminent U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein. Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?" "Yes I do," replied LaHood.

Indications Hussein Was Not in Hiding But a Captive (debka.com) A number of questions are raised by the incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler who was discovered in a hole in the ground on Saturday, December 13... Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner. After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition.

Saddam Military Capture A Fraud? Israelis Suggest Saddam was Already a Prisoner of $25 Million Reward Seekers --If It Doesn't Work with Jessica Lynch, Try it With Saddam. (OpEdNews.com) "Now that the Bush regime has Saddam, the question is, what do they do with him. He now becomes a tool for the Karl Rove propaganda machine. But this tool has some high risks. As a number of progressive pundits have already stated, Saddam was an employee of the US, engaged in nefarious business, with dealings with Donald Rumsfeld, Bush senior and others. It will be too risky to the Bush cabal to allow Saddam to ever speak publicly and may be so risky that they decide he needs to die, by accident or illness."

Hoping for amnesia --by Scott Burchill "It is hard to believe that either Washington or London would relish the prospect of an open trial. They would not want Saddam to adumbrate their support for him - credit-by-credit, pathogen-by-pathogen, weapon-by-weapon - during the 12 years before he became an official enemy by invading Kuwait in August 1990."

Rumsfeld and his 'old friend' Saddam --by Jim Lobe "It was presumably realpolitik that also persuaded [Pentagon chief Donald] Rumsfeld not to bring up Iraq's use of chemical weapons with Saddam in their first meeting of December 20, 1983, even though the administration knew about it... For the next five years, Washington would quietly ensure that Saddam received all the military equipment he needed to stave off defeat, even precursor chemicals that could be used against Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians."

Saddam, So Not Worth It --Dubya, now that you've got your dime-store thug, can you stop the warmongering and death? --by Mark Morford " Well gosh golly it took only upward of 500 dead U.S. soldiers (and counting) and more than 2,500 U.S. wounded (and counting) and more than 10,000 dead innocent Iraqi citizens (and counting) and countless tens of thousands of hapless dead Iraqi soldiers (and counting). And it'll only cost U.S. taxpayers at least a staggering $350 billion along with the complete gutting of our foreign policy and our national treasury and the appalling blood sacrifice of our national pride and our international status and global sense of self-respect. Oh, and the truth is, it turns out Saddam actually did have some old stashes of weaponry, a bit of rusty, small-scale WMDs, after all -- because we sold them to him, 20 years ago. But they were never any sort of direct danger to America -- or anyone else, for that matter -- and regardless all evidence points to the fact that the stash was completely destroyed more than a decade ago."   ¶ 8:48 AM

  Pope Peace Message Takes Swipe at U.S. Over Iraq
By Philip Pullella
CNN | Reuters

Tuesday 16 December 2003
(Reuters) - Pope John Paul took a swipe at the United States and its allies Tuesday for invading Iraq without U.N. approval, suggesting they had succumbed to the temptation to use the law of force instead of the force of law.

In his World Day of Peace message, issued three days after the capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, he also appealed to democracies fighting terrorism to uphold the principles of international law and fundamental human rights.

In the message, which is sent to leaders of nations and world organizations, the 83-year-old pope also said the U.N. needed reform and the international community had to heal the underlying social injustices that can fuel terrorism.

In the 13-page message he appealed to terrorists, telling them that violence was not only unacceptable but compromises "the very cause for which you are fighting."

The message, called "An Ever-Timely Commitment: Teaching Peace," was largely dedicated to the theme of international law and its role in resolving conflicts between states.

Without mentioning any country by name, he recalled that the U.N. Charter "confirms the natural right to legitimate defense, to be exercised in specific ways and in the context of the United Nations."

He also recalled that the U.N. Security Council had responsibility for collective security with "competence and responsibility for the preservation of peace, with power of decision and ample discretion."

Not a Just War The Vatican did not consider the war in Iraq "a just war" because it was not backed by the United Nations and because the Vatican believed more negotiations were necessary to avoid it.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Washington a week before the war started that without Security Council backing, a war to disarm Iraq would violate the world body's charter.

The pope said it was necessary for states to avoid the "temptation to appeal to the law of force rather than to the force of law."

He also said he realized that international law was "hard pressed" today because of the presence of terrorist groups which could not be considered states in the traditional sense of law.

"The scourge of terrorism has become more virulent in recent years and has produced brutal massacres which have in turn put even greater obstacles in the way of dialogue and negotiation ..." he wrote.

Force had to be accompanied by what he called "a courageous and lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks."

The fight against terrorism had to aim at "eliminating the underlying causes of situations of injustice which frequently drive people to more desperate and violent acts..."

Combating terrorism "cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law," he wrote, adding that political decisions must take into consideration fundamental human rights.

Civil rights groups have criticized new anti-terrorism laws enacted after September 11, 2001 that give the U.S. government the power to tap telephones, track Internet usage and cell phones, share intelligence information and detain immigrants.   ¶ 8:36 AM

  Dean Campaign News Aggregator

Slightly off topic, but obviously the election of a new president to replace dictator Bush is of importance to all peace-loving people. Is Dean the best anti-Bush candidate? Check out these stories and make up your own mind.
Ralph Nader may be throwing his hat into the ring. Some Democrats blame him (rather than the electoral shenanigans) for putting Bush in the White House.
Then what of Wesley Clark, the war criminal of the Yugoslav bombing, whom Michael Moore supports?
Opinions, please, in the COMMENTS link.
News Aggregator  ¶ 8:23 AM

  Upcoming EVENTS: Some UK dates in 2004 for your diary
Saturday 17th - Sunday 18th January 2004
Reclaim the bases weekend of anti-militarist action.
Networking via: www.reclaimthebases.org.uk

The Bloody History of Northwood HQ
Theatrical protests around the base 17 January 2004, Assemble 12pm at Northwood Tube.
http://www.thed10group.org.uk for more information!
- - - -
Thursday 12th - Sunday 15th February 2004
PEACE NOT WAR PRESENTS ...
... on the anniversary of the global peace protests, The Peace Not War FOUR NIGHT MUSIC FESTIVAL
Hackney Ocean, Mare Street, London E8
http://www.peace-not-war.org/Festival/index.html- - - -
Saturday 13th - Sunday 14th March 2004 (dates tbc)
GrassRoots Opposition to War (GROW) Gathering
The Sumac Centre, 245 Gladstone Street, Nottingham NG7 6HX, England
http://www.grassrootsoppositiontowar.org.uk
- - - -
Saturday 20th March
GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION
on the first anniversary of the U.S. Bombing and Invasion of Iraq
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136
http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/m20/index.html
- - - -
Friday 9th - (Bank Holiday) Monday 12th April March
London to Aldermaston, Easter 2004 Stop the next generation of weapons of mass destruction!
http://www.aldermaston2004.net
contact: info@aldermaston2004.net
- - - -
For more events please see:
http://www.j-n-v.org/events.htm  ¶ 7:17 PM

  A new Aldermaston March: Stop the next generation of weapons of mass destruction! NEWS RELEASE: Monday 15th December 2004
CONTACT: info@aldermaston2004.net
http://www.aldermaston2004.net

March - London to Aldermaston, Easter 2004

Friday 9th to Bank Holiday Monday 12th April

All this year, we have all wondered where the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction are - they're not in Iraq, they're in Berkshire!

The UK is now gearing up to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons at the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment near Reading. We plan to show how people feel about Britain preparing to build new weapons of mass destruction - with a march from London to Aldermaston over Easter weekend 2004.

The march will begin with a major rally at Trafalgar Square on Friday April 9, and march through London to Southall, Slough then Reading, ending by surrounding the Aldermaston base on Bank Holiday Monday April 12. The entire route is about 50 miles and easily accessible from major public transport links at all times.

For more details see www.aldermaston2004.net

The march has been called by Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp, National Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), London Region CND, and other local peace groups

Arrangements are already underway - and now we want your help! Please get in touch via info@aldermaston2004.net if your group can offer support - whether it is accommodation, contacts for catering, entertainment, foot massage or any of the hundred and one things that a dedicated band of marchers will need. Or if you live outside the Thames Corridor and want to organise a "feeder march" from your area, then get in touch too.

Donations towards organising the march are part of the action. If you'd like to add your voice to this public demand for peace by making a donation, please send a cheque to Aldermaston2004 c/o AWPC, 18 Greenway Road, Bristol BS6 6SG.

And if you want to volunteer to march then let us know - we plan to organise accomodation etc for a "core" of marchers who have registered in advance so get in quick and book your bed/floor space. This is going to be a great opportunity to get together the amazingly diverse groups of people who have been so active this year, get to know each other better, and jointly highlight the hypocrisy and lies of the British and US military machines.

Join the hunt for WMD next Easter!

The Aldermaston 2004 planning group
----------------------------------

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS, MAILING LISTS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED

For more information about the latest developments at Aldermaston, please visit:
http://www.aldermaston.net

Contact Details:
www.aldermaston2004.net
Aldermaston2004 c/o AWPC, 18 Greenway Road, Bristol
BS6 6SG.
info@aldermaston2004.net  ¶ 8:40 AM

  Saddam Hussein's capture: an indictment of the victors
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:14:45 -0800
Subject: [soa] Saddam Hussein's capture: an indictment of the victors

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/sadd-d15.shtml

Saddam Hussein's capture will not resolve Iraqi quagmire

By the Editorial Board 15 December 2003

The capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hidden in a hole at a farmhouse outside the central Iraqi city of Tikrit, has been the occasion for full-throated exultation on the part of the Bush administration, the US occupation authorities in Iraq and the American media.

Erstwhile opponents of the illegal US invasion have been swept up in the wave of Washington's triumphalism. Germany's chancellor Helmut Schröder and French president Jacques Chirac wasted little time in sending their craven congratulations to George Bush.

There is no doubt that the gloating in both the White House and the media will continue for many days to come. Having demonized Hussein as the equal of Hitler, his apprehension is treated as a milestone in the birth of a "free" and "democratic" Iraq. This interpretation of events evades a number of inconvenient questions.

The first was posed by a reporter at the press conference held at the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad to announce the capture. "Was it possible to run the guerrilla war from a hole underground," he asked.

The answer is clearly no: Saddam Hussein was not some mastermind coordinating attacks that have risen recently to the level of 55 a day across the entire territory of Iraq. He was a hunted individual, apparently moving from place to place and preoccupied with his own survival. US military sources noted that no communications equipment, even cell phones, were found with Hussein and two companions.

US officials declined to discuss how they learned of his whereabouts and whether anyone would claim a $25 million bounty on his head. There was some initial speculation that he may have been turned in by hostile elements within his own former ruling Baathist Party.

The tactical success in nabbing Hussein may have a short-term effect in bolstering the sagging prestige of the occupation. It is hardly, however, the basis for resolving the intractable problems besetting the US attempt to recolonize Iraq, or for that matter suppressing the growing nationalist resistance of the Iraqi people.

Curiously, in their breathless reports of Iraqi celebrations over Hussein's fate, the US television networks repeatedly broadcast footage of two demonstrations in Baghdad. The first was that of supporters of the Iraqi Communist Party waving red flags emblazoned with the hammer and sickle, while the second was organized by a Shiite Muslim faction carrying portraits of ayatollahs. While both these tendencies have collaborated to one degree or another with the US occupation, neither seems a likely foundation for some new and stable US-backed regime.

US officials have also declined to clarify how they will deal with Hussein now that he is in custody. General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of US occupation troops in Iraq, deflected questions about whether he would be turned over to Iraq's Governing Council or brought before a special tribunal whose creation was announced just days earlier. He limited himself to saying that the US military would continue "processing" the former Iraqi president.

Whatever is done with Hussein will be a case of victors' justice. The Iraqi Governing Council and the new tribunal are both creations of Washington and have no legitimacy. The US occupation authority has no basis under international law to carry out any trial of former Iraqi officials.

In any case, if war crimes charges are to be brought in relation to Iraq, the most serious one of all would be leveled against the Bush administration itself for plotting and prosecuting an unprovoked war of aggression.

There are good reasons for Washington to want to avoid any public prosecution of Hussein. Occupation officials described him as "cooperative" upon his capture Saturday. This adjective could equally be used to describe his relations with US administrations over a whole number of years.

Indeed, his regime's greatest crimes against the Iraqi people-the Iran-Iraq war, the suppression of the Shiites and Kurds, etc.-were carried out with Washington's active support. This involved the direct participation of some of those who now play the leading roles in US policy, such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's new special envoy, former secretary of state James Baker.

Who is the man now in US custody and how did he arrive at his present unenviable position? The answer to these questions is bound up with the domination of Iraq by US imperialism throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and the fate of Arab nationalism.

The path that led Hussein to power in Iraq began in 1957 when at the age of 20 he joined the Arab Baath Socialist Party. The Baathists have frequently been described in the media as "national socialists," but this definition is useful only within strict limits. To equate Baathism with Nazism and Hussein with Adolf Hitler, as both Washington and the Zionist regime in Israeli have frequently done, is a deliberate distortion.

Iraq is a backward and historically oppressed country, not an imperialist power bent on global conquest. Hussein led a ruthless dictatorship that systematically repressed the Iraq working class. There was a definite distinction, however, between the kind of nationalist movement he led and the semi-feudal, comprador regimes that were installed by British imperialism, like that of Nuri al Said, who was regarded as a traitor by his own people and the entire Arab world.

Nationalist regimes like that in Iraq came to power in a whole series of countries, bringing with them a national and social agenda that was bound up with the emergence of a mass anti-colonial movement. In comparison to the colonial puppet regimes that preceded them-as well as with the feudalistic monarchies and emirates of the Gulf-they carried out policies that led to definite changes in living standards and conditions for masses of people. These including improved health care, education and increased social rights for women. They also carried out policies, in the case of Iraq and other Middle Eastern regimes, that antagonized the major imperialist powers, particularly the nationalization of oil resources.

The contradictions of the Baath Party

The Baath Party was established during the Second World War as part of a growing wave of nationalism and anti-colonialism sweeping the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Its founders, French-educated Syrian intellectuals led by Michel Aflaq, advanced a Pan-Arabist program aimed at overcoming the region's backwardness, division and foreign domination. It advocated Arab unification to erase the "lines in the sand" that were the legacy of the colonial carve-up carried out in the aftermath of World War I and divided the Middle East into a collection of economically and politically unviable states. It also called for the creation of a secular and democratic government.

The party's slogan was "One nation, from the Atlantic to the [Persian] Gulf." Like other parties in the region, as well as in Africa and Asia, however, the Baathists were organically incapable of carrying through a consistent struggle against imperialism. Once they emerged as the principal political instrument of a small, weak and rapacious national bourgeoisie in both Iraq and Syria, the interests of the local ruling elites in maintaining the state structures inherited from colonialism proved too powerful to achieve unity even from Damascus to Baghdad. Indeed, the two regimes remained bitter enemies during most of the period following the Baathists' rise to power in both countries.

In Iraq, the principal conflict remained that between the regime and a working class that was the most organized and politically developed in the entire Middle East.

Hussein emerged within this complex and contradictory movement as part of a layer of bourgeois nationalists who were fanatically hostile to communism and were prepared to do business with the major imperialist powers. In 1958, he was jailed for assassinating his brother-in-law, a Communist Party member. Five years later, he returned to Iraq from exile after the Baath Party joined a coup that overthrew the left-nationalist leader General Abdel-Karim Kassem and brought the party to power briefly. The overthrow of Kassem was carried out with the support of the CIA, which supplied the coup's organizers with the names and addresses of Iraqi Communists so that they could be rounded up and executed.

In 1968, a second military-backed coup brought the Baathists to power, which they maintained until the US invasion earlier this year. Hussein took charge of internal security, becoming the real power in the new regime.

The Baathists came to power in Iraq in the context of a strategic alliance between Washington and the dictatorship of the Shah in neighboring Iran. Together, the US and the Shah's regime pressured Iraq during this period to make unfavorable concessions in relation to the disputed boundary on the Shatt-al Arab.

Both to further Iranian interests and in retaliation for the Baathist regime's nationalization of US oil interests in Iraq, Washington and Teheran, with the collaboration of Israel, acted to foment and support a Kurdish nationalist rebellion against Baghdad. CIA arms and funding were supplied to the Kurdish groups, while the Iranian military provided direct logistical support.

When the political winds shifted abruptly in Iran, bringing the Shah's police state crashing down and an Islamic fundamentalist regime to power, Washington's own policy in the region shifted as well. Now it forged closer ties with Iraq, urging it to strike back over the border dispute and to actively oppose any spread of the Iranian revolution. In particular, it feared that Iran would stir up a Shiite revolt that would spread through the key oil-producing regions of southern Iraq and eastern Saudi Arabia, threatening US supplies.

Iraq's response to Washington's new strategic orientation found its expression in a massive purge of the Baath Party and the ascension of Hussein to the presidency in July 1979. The main target of this purge was the former alliance formed with the Iraqi Communist Party, which had joined the Baathists in a national coalition government. The execution of Communist Party members, together with the Baathists most closely associated with this alliance, served as a clear olive branch to Washington. Little more than a year later, the Iraqi regime launched a war with Iran over the Shatt al-Arab.

While Iraq's ends were limited and Hussein opportunistically hoped that they could be achieved as a result of his newfound US support, the military action was a political blunder. Iraq became embroiled in a murderous conflict that was to claim as many as a million casualties and which was fueled by the politics of the Iranian revolution.

It was during this period that Washington forged the most intimate ties with Hussein, funneling billions of dollars worth of aid and weapons, including advanced military and communications technology, to the Baathist regime.

In May 1987, in the midst of the conflict, US support for Hussein found its most dramatic expression when an Iraqi fighter fired an Exocet missile into the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf, killing 33 American seamen. Washington's reaction was to exonerate the Iraqi regime and to blame the attack on Iran, the target of the US military buildup of which the Stark's deployment was a part. Barely a year later, the USS Vincennes, a US warship sailing in Iranian territorial waters, brought down an Iranian commercial airliner with a missile, killing all 290 people aboard.

Many of the figures now playing key roles in US policy had their own friendly dealings with Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld, serving as the special envoy of the Reagan administration, flew to Baghdad at the end of 1983 for private talk with Hussein in which he extended a US invitation to establish direct diplomatic relations.

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in March 1984 for talks with then-Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and it was announced that full ties had been resumed in all but name only.

As secretary of state in the first Bush administration, James Baker orchestrated a massive US effort to aid and illegally arm Iraq. Baker issued the clearances for Iraq to obtain military technology including materials for biological and chemical weapons. He also initiated a program under which the CIA organized arms deals between Baghdad and US allies such as the Pinochet regime in Chile and the apartheid regime in South Africa as well as various NATO countries.

The massacres, gassings and other atrocities that the Bush administration has invoked to portray Saddam Hussein as the worst tyrant since Hitler and to justify the US invasion of Iraq were, for the most part, carried out during this period. It was the high-water mark of the US-Iraqi alliance, and Washington supplied the weapons used in these incidents.

This was not merely a US venture. As the trademark of the missile used to sink the USS Stark makes clear, France also cemented intimate ties with Saddam Hussein. In the case of France, the individual most responsible was Jacques Chirac, who has just sent his congratulations to Bush on the former Iraqi president's capture.

Provocation over Kuwait

In the wake of the Iran-Iraq war, the US-Iraqi alliance was to break apart over the murky dispute between Baghdad and the Kuwaiti emirate. Iraq's historic claim over Kuwait - which it viewed as an artificial creation of British imperialism-became intermeshed with a series of other conflicts. Kuwait was deliberately driving down oil prices on the world market as well as carrying out horizontal drilling to siphon oil from the al-Ramallah fields in southern Iraq. Under conditions in which Kuwait was demanding immediate Iraqi repayment of billions of dollars worth of debts incurred during the war with Iran, these actions represented a gross provocation that threatened Iraq's economic and political stability.

In the midst of this conflict, Saddam Hussein held a meeting with US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, who declared that Washington had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She added that Secretary of State Baker had "emphasized" that the US had no interest in the matter. Hussein took this declaration as a green light to launch an invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. After an eight-year de facto alliance with the US against Iran, he believed he could count on Washington's acquiescence.

Again, the Iraqi dictator had vastly miscalculated. There is strong reason to believe that the Glaspie interview was a deliberate attempt to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait in order to provide the pretext for realizing long-standing US plans to establish a direct US military presence in the Persian Gulf. Washington was also ready to dispose of a troublesome ally whose services were no longer required.

Hussein confronted a vastly changed geopolitical situation. Like the leaders of many other bourgeois nationalist regimes, he had consolidated his power in large part by balancing between Moscow and Washington, tilting first one way and then the other. By 1990, such maneuvers had become untenable. The Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy under Gorbachev was already firmly on the path of capitalist restoration and was seeking US support by giving away everything it could. Hussein found his regime was also on this auction block in Moscow.

Nothing he could have done would have avoided a US war that claimed an estimated 100,000 casualties and left Iraq in ruins. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the conflict, when Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north rose up against Hussein, Washington demonstrated once again that it still valued the Iraqi dictator as a force for stability in the region.

With the US military occupying a fifth of Iraq's territory, Washington ordered that no action should be taken to halt the Hussein regime's savage repression of the Shiite and Kurdish rebels. Indeed, a directive was issued to allow Iraqi attack helicopters to fly unhindered. As the New York Times noted on April 11, 1991, the revolts "brought the United States and its Arab allies to a strikingly unanimous view: whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression."

The decade following the Persian Gulf War was marked by a furious campaign by elements on the extreme right of American politics for a war to conquer Iraq. One of the primary sins of the Clinton administration in the view of this layer was its failure to prosecute such a campaign. Once the Bush administration was installed in the White House, these elements from the right-wing Republican think tanks took over key positions, including virtually the entire civilian leadership of the Pentagon, and set about preparing the "preemptive" war that toppled Hussein.

In a televised address Sunday afternoon, Bush read out a "message to the Iraqi people" declaring that the capture of Hussein ended "dark and painful era" and signaled the arrival of "hopeful day."

The US president claimed that the event would further a US policy aimed at bringing "sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture and, for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life."

Far from granting the Iraqis sovereignty, the Bush administration has embarked on a program to recolonize Iraq and seize its oil wealth and strategic geopolitical position in order to further a program of global US hegemony. The occupation has stripped increasing layers of the Iraqi people of their dignity, creating growing popular support for attacks on US forces. As for opportunity, that is being granted in unlimited amounts to corrupt, politically connected corporations like Halliburton to loot both Iraq's resources and US taxpayer funds, while Iraqis face mass unemployment and poverty.

The apprehension of the former Iraqi dictator will do nothing to legitimize either the illegal occupation or the stooges that Washington has selected to form a regime with an "Iraqi face." Nor in the end will it halt the escalating bloodshed that is claiming the lives of both Iraqis and young American soldiers.

The Bush administration clearly hopes that Hussein's capture will bring a more or less rapid disintegration of Iraqi resistance to the occupation. Over time, however, it is likely to have just opposite effect. The unintended impact of the capture of the former Iraqi president will be that of further delegitimizing the US occupation and thereby intensifying the conflict.

The question will inevitably be raised all the more forcefully: If Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat, then why are 130,000 US troops still in Iraq? The obvious answer is that the US has no intention of leaving. It has carried out a predatory war and intends to maintain a permanent occupation to assure itself unrestricted control of the vital energy resources of the region.

While the ties between Hussein and Washington have been largely concealed from the US public, they are widely known among the politically literate population of Iraq. The real question is whether the likes of Rumsfeld and Baker are to be regarded as accomplices of Saddam Hussein's crimes, or whether Hussein himself was merely the accomplice in the greater crimes of US imperialism.

Bush's empty vow that Saddam Hussein will face "justice" must be answered with the demand for the immediate withdrawal of all US forces and that all those US officials responsible for the present war as well as the previous policies that claimed the lives of hundred of thousands of Iraqis be held accountable for these crimes.

See Also:
Iraqi "reconstruction" as corporate looting [13 December 2003]
The political economy of American militarism [10 July 2003]
Into the maelstrom: the crisis of American imperialism and the war against Iraq [1 April 2003]
The crisis of American capitalism and the war against Iraq [21 March 2003]
There is No Peace [8 March 1991]

  ¶ 10:59 AM

  Mike's Message: We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole!
"Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.
America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops. "
Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message  ¶ 7:53 PM

  New York Times editorial: The Capture of a Dictator
"Mr. Hussein's capture leaves the United States facing the same profound questions about how best to create a stable and democratic government in Iraq. The capture does not diminish the need for Washington to find ways to broaden the international nature of the occupation, and to put the nation-building efforts under the United Nations. The ultimate measure of success will be an Iraq held together by consent, not force, with its resources dedicated to development, not weapons. Iraqis will then finally be free of the malign legacy of Saddam Hussein."
FULL TEXT  ¶ 1:37 PM

  New York Times: Bearing Questions, 4 New Iraqi Leaders Pay Hussein a Visit
"The wild gray beard was gone, and he sat on a metal army cot, just awake from a nap, in socks and black slippers. He was not handcuffed. He did not recognize all his visitors, but they recognized him. That was the purpose of the visit: to help confirm that he was, in fact, Saddam Hussein.

What came next in the Sunday afternoon meeting, according to people in the room, was an extraordinary 30 minutes, in which four new leaders of Iraq pointedly questioned the nation's deposed and now captured leader about his tyrannical rule. Mr. Hussein, they said, was defiant and unrepentant but very much defeated."
FULL REPORT  ¶ 1:32 PM

  Iraq to Stop Counting Civilian Dead
"Iraqi Health Ministry officials ordered a halt to a count of civilian casualties from the war and told workers not to release figures already compiled, the head of the ministry's statistics department told The Associated Press on Wednesday."
FULL REPORT  ¶ 5:25 PM

  New York Times: So far, the biggest political fallout from the Iraq war has not been in the Arab world. It's been in Israel.
Op-Ed Columnist: Breaking and Entering
"Last week, an earthquake happened in Israel when a leading figure of the Israeli right split away and embraced the logic of the Israeli left and center. The Likud deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, gave a gutsy interview to Israel's leading columnist, Nahum Barnea of Yediot, in which he indicated that Israel can't continue occupying the West Bank and Gaza, with all their Palestinians, without losing a Jewish majority and eventually having to argue in the world against the universal principle of one person, one vote. 'I shudder to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against us,' Mr. Olmert said."  ¶ 12:26 PM

  Wired News: Congress Expands FBI Spying Power
"Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts. "
Click here for FULL STORY  ¶ 11:51 AM

  New York Times: Case Against Ex-Guantanamo Bay Chaplain Opens Focusing on Extyra-Marital Affair Rather Than Security Breaches
FULL REPORT  ¶ 1:52 PM

  New York Times: U.S. Raid in Afghanistan May Have Missed Target
"The United States military admitted Monday that it might not have succeeded in killing a Taliban suspect in an air assault on a village on Saturday that left nine children and one man dead."
FULL REPORT   ¶ 1:40 PM

  Iraqi Communist Party (cadre) oppose ICP participation in US governing council in Iraq The following is part of a statement by members of the Iraqi Communist Party (cadre) issued on December 13:
Our slogan, as Iraqi Communists, is "A Free Homeland and a Happy People." Based on this, our stand on the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the homeland is of the highest importance and is felt most keenly. So much so, that even our philosophical beliefs themselves pale before it.
This was formulated by the founder of our party, our comrade forever, Fahd, when he said: "I am a patriot before I am a Communist, and when I became a Communist, I came to feel even more greatly my responsibility to my homeland."
On this basis we are compelled and destined to fight the occupier wherever he comes from, by any means, and in alliance with our Iraqi patriotic forces, and with international forces whatever their ideological character. On this basis too, and in the situation where our country has fallen under occupation or when it is attacked by an enemy, there is no such thing as "tactics" or "acceptance of the status quo" or "assessing the balance of strengths and weaknesses" except insofar as this serves the basic aim, and that aim is defense of the homeland.
During the Zionist aggression of 1967, Iraqi Communists set aside their aversion to 'Abd ar-Rahman 'Aref. From the dungeons in which they were languishing, some of them under sentence of death, others under long and even life sentences, they overlooked those personal matters and appealed instead to be set free to take part in the fighting against the Zionist enemy, whether as regular soldiers at the fronts or as Resistance guerrillas. They pledged to return voluntarily to their cells after the defeat of the enemy, and they offered to allow the Iraqi government whatever it chose as a guarantee of their pledge, including using their relatives as hostages.
But today, oblivious to the times and to the consciousness of free people, the Communist movement in Iraq has been deluded. It has been afflicted by a reversal more intensely painful and more violent in its effects than was the party's acceptance of the partition of Palestine at the end of the 1940s.
The reversal today is the product of two full decades of retreats led by the two renegades 'Aziz Muhammad (former Party Secretary) and his deputy Fakhri Karim. The two renegades collected all the keys to Party political power in their hands – finance, propaganda, the security apparatus, the secretariat of the Central Committee, and the Political Bureau. They abrogated the internal system of the party and expelled the best of the militant comrades, and things reached a point where the party became totally paralyzed and unable to move. Its only concern became how to find allies to fight for it.
Then the party suffered an ideological reversal and began to speak in the name of the chauvinist current within the Kurdish movement. Organizationally, it became an army of informers for the benefit of the two renegades Fakhri and 'Aziz. The party came to be dominated by a school that stood outside the norms of organizations, a school of how to bring people down. The two renegades used this method, naturally, to divert attention from their own personal degeneration.
Finally Fakhri Karim took possession of the Party's resources, bank accounts, and propaganda institutions all of which he registered as his own personal property, thereby entering the world of the broker and business agent. The inevitable outcome of all of this was that he would ally himself with America, finding it to be the best guardian of his personal business interests.
He visited Washington in 1991 and presented them with a down payment in the form of a statement that he made on Voice of America radio in which he asked George Bush (the father) to intensify his embargo on the Iraqi people. As a result of enticement and intimidation, a group of writers and literary figures belonging to the Iraqi Communist Party gathered around him and cooperated with the American Central Intelligence Agency in publishing a newspaper under the title "Sawt al-Kuwayt ad-Dawli" ["The International Voice of Kuwait"] which distorted the facts and was one of the most important clarions heralding the 30-nation aggression against Iraq in 1991.
It was precisely this newspaper that published the theatrical story of the young Kuwaiti girl Nuwayrah under the headline "The Iraqis steal incubators from the children of Kuwait." As the battles raged, this newspaper, which was edited by Iraqi Communists, printed stories under giant masochistic headlines like "Coalition forces demolish Baghdad" and "Allied aircraft exterminate Iraqi military formation near Basra."
Even the Kuwaiti government with all its systematic hostility to Iraq could not bear the extreme vulgarity of such a paper. It came to regard the money allocated to it as a waste of public funds and finally shut it down. Thus in 1993 its editors began directly to work for the Central Intelligence Agency, becoming experts at bringing down people within the Party and the Iraqi and Arab patriotic movements.
They set about publicizing the plan to occupy the country under the slogan "liberation of Iraq". America announced some of their names, and an Iraqi lawyer living in exile lauded them.
When the scandals surrounding Fakhri Karim multiplied, he stepped aside to allow the renegade Hamid Majid to take his place in the secretariat of the Party. Since that time, the Party has openly taken up work with America and against the Iraqi people.
The Party newspaper "Tariq ash-Sha'b" published an article in July 2002 that reported that the Deputy Consul in the American Embassy in Damascus visited the offices of the Iraqi Communist Party in Syria and discussed recent developments with Party representatives. The Party's internal publication, "Munadil al-Hizb" (in June 2002) reported on a special meeting of the Party Central Committee to study how the Party would take part in the coming events, which they termed "the liberation of Iraq".
During the invasion battles, the Party openly acknowledged that it had fighters on the front lines together with the invasion forces. In the last decade, the Party took upon itself the task of preparatory propaganda for what the Anglo-Zionists termed preventive air strikes on military targets during the period of the embargo.
Hamid Majid himself entered Iraq via Kuwait together with the American Army. Last but not least, he has joined the Council of No-Accounts (the so-called "Governing Council") which was declared and whose members were appointed by the American Military Governor of Iraq. The first decree of this Council was to declare the date of Baghdad's occupation to be a national holiday.
In addition, in order to secure his admission to this Council of No-Accounts, Hamid Majid agreed to the conditions imposed on him by the Military Governor, among the most important of which are:
- That Hamid Majid must not represent the Communist Party but the Shi'ite confessional community.
- That the Communist Party should reformulate its program and internal rules so as to take out from them and from the Party's publications, all references to "colonialism", "imperialism", "national independence", "defense of the homeland", and any concept that is related to these terms. In addition, Bremer must be referred to as "Mr. Bremer" and the occupation authorities must be referred to as the "Government of the Coalition".
- The Iraqi Communist Party must cooperate with the American Army against Islamist and other "saboteurs" who are now bearing arms against the occupation. The Party must immediately inform on any suspects, and it must actively participate in maintaining security.
- No members of the Communist Party must carry any weapons unless licensed to do so by the occupation and that they must undertake patrols together with the occupation troops against the Iraqi people.
- The Party must work determinedly to reduce extremism among Shi'ite Muslims - the Sadr and al-Khalisi Groups
- while on the other hand working to strengthen the currents of Baqir al-Hakim and Bahr al-'Ulum.
Obviously, the implementation of these conditions means in practice the total elimination of the role of the Iraqi Communist Party in the political arena, on the one hand; and, on the other hand it will lead to transforming the mass membership of the Iraqi Communist Party into informers, collaborators with the enemy of Iraq, the enemy of the peoples, and of humanity - the Anglo-Zionist right-wing.
The hands of this right wing are stained with the blood of patriots from every part of the world. It is they who brought about the defeat of the glorious 14 July 1958 Revolution, and the defeat of the glorious 3 July Revolution. Indeed it is this right-wing itself that pushed and organized and is ultimately responsible for the bloodshed and loss of life associated with Baath Party coups of 8 February 1963 and 17 July 1968.
In February 1963 the American Central Intelligence Agency took over direction of the putschists, making use of a radio transmitter in Jordan. This radio station broadcast the names and both the official addresses of Communists and their secret hideouts, enabling the putschists to execute them on the spot or to arrest them and torture them to death.
The February 1963 coup was not its only bloody act. The American Central Intelligence Agency planned the murder of a million martyrs in Indonesia and of more than a million in Viet Nam in open genocide or in the course of what even enemies of the Left have called a "dirty war." This is to say nothing about the massacres in Chile, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and the 30-nation aggression against Iraq in 1991 and the depleted uranium. And now America is occupying our country in contravention of international law.
Fraternal Communists and Friends!
Our heroic Iraqi people and their courageous resistance fighters are up to the task of expelling the occupation. But we appeal to you for your solidarity with and support for the Iraqi people, not simply because our cause is just, nor merely as a matter of principle, but so that you may take part in this great event - the fall of America, enemy of the peoples – which has begun today in Iraq.
The crime that the renegades in the leadership of the party have committed is unpardonable. It inflicts damage on the entire Communist movement in Iraq, in the Arab Homeland, and in the world. Neither self-criticism nor apology at some later time will do any good in this case. The Party Rules have rejected this behavior in legitimate organizational ways, yet the gang of renegades has persisted in its treasonous behavior tossing aside the history of the Party, its potential, and the Party's struggle for which thousands of martyrs have fallen.
Therefore we, the mass members of the Iraqi Communist Party and its base, declare as follows:
- The Iraqi Communist Party does not abandon its well-known national and worldwide goals in its struggle for peace, democracy, and equality among peoples and nations. It does not abandon the goal that it previously proclaimed among its unshakable national principles on the level of domestic, national politics, and that goal is the building of a socialist, democratic, and free society. But the current situation is a situation of occupation, and armed national resistance is the only means capable of crushing the occupier and driving him out of Iraq. It is the highest form of struggle against the occupier. Every goal that lies outside of the framework of the resistance must be postponed until after liberation. We stand with the sons and daughters of our people against the occupation and are committed to the armed patriotic resistance. We support it whatever its religious or political currents. For the first and basic aim now is to expel the occupiers from Iraq.
- Any Communist who cooperates with the occupation under whatever circumstances is charged with the greatest act of national treason!
- The behavior and actions of the current leadership of the Iraqi Communist Party do not represent the Iraqi Communist Party or Iraqi Patriots.
- We will not be frightened by idiotic accusations that we are "advocating terrorism" or "anti-Semitic" or "supporting al-Qa'idah." It is America that has declared war on the entire peace-loving world without regard for international or divine law. Therefore we call upon all opponents of America, and upon all opponents of invasion and the colonization of peoples, to come to Iraq and to fight alongside their brothers in the heroic Iraqi Resistance, or to give whatever they can from wherever they are in their own countries in service to that goal!
- The Americans know which way the border is. So for their departure let there be: No negotiations! No discussions! No agreements!
- We do not and will not accept any government under occupation, nor any trusteeship under the United Nations! We do not and will not accept any international forces on Iraqi territory for any reasons! We are the ones who can guard our homeland's security, and we are the ones who can construct its institutions!
- All energy must go to resisting the occupation, militarily in the first place!
- Disgrace and shame upon anyone who draws invaders against his homeland!
- Glory to the courageous Iraqi people!
- Glory to the peoples who love peace and liberation!
- Glory to the world patriotic and Communist movement!
Iraqi Communist Party (Cadre) 031205
www.alkader.net

  ¶ 1:32 PM