Here is one of the most horrified stories, that taking place in our "New Librated Iraq!".. thanks to Bush Dictatorship and Bush adminstration:

Leading article:

The horror story that is unfolding before us

Published: 10 November 2006

The midterm elections have left America's policy on Iraq in a state of confusion. The Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has been sacked, and President Bush seems to have outsourced strategic thinking on the subject to James Baker's Iraq Survey Group, which is not expected to report until next year. The newly resurgent Democrats will have a profound influence on what happens now, too. They must decide whether to pursue a bipartisan approach to Iraq or increase the pressure on the Republican administration in preparation for the 2008 presidential elections. But if Washington's senators, congressmen and policymakers have any sense of responsibility they will divert their attention from matters of domestic advantage, and concentrate on the interests of the Iraqi people.

To grapple with this question it is necessary to recognise the scale of the horror facing Iraq. The prospect of the break-up of the country into separate Shia, Sunni and Kurdish blocks looks increasingly unavoidable. The national government of Nouri al-Maliki is weak and lacks popular legitimacy. Ethnic cleansing on the ground is well advanced. American and British troops are doing nothing to prevent this. Nor is our military presence stopping the sectarian killing. As for the Iraqi national police force and army, they seem too feeble or compromised by the infiltration of sectarian militias to perform their security duties. The north of the country is relatively peaceful, but this is because the Kurds are well on their way to autonomy already.

But history shows that the abrupt withdrawal of foreign forces in collapsing states generally intensifies the slaughter. The spectre of the partition of India still looms large. It is chilling to think what could happen in Baghdad, which has broken up into several separate sectarian enclaves. It is also impossible to divide up Iraq's oil wealth in a way that would suit the various groups. The Sunnis would most likely be left with nothing.

This is a recipe for a lengthy civil war, and a no-win situation for the US and Britain. If our troops remain, we will see the country crumble gradually and more British and American soldiers die at the hands of an increasingly sophisticated insurgency. If our troops go, they will leave Iraq to cataclysm, tarnishing the reputation of the US and the UK abroad still further. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, warned us that leaving would create "a very real risk of even greater instability and bloodshed than we've already seen". Quite so. But Ms Beckett and all those politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who supported this invasion should acknowledge their responsibility for the terrible choice now facing us.

Some are recommending a third option. Mr Baker, a former secretary of state, has hinted that his report may recommend an appeal to neighbouring Iran to help stabilise the Shia south of the country. He has also suggested that Syria be requested to influence Iraq's Sunni population. This seems the most pragmatic course on offer.

But even this is by no means guaranteed to succeed. The Shia are fighting among themselves, with the Iranian-sponsored Badr Brigade vying for dominance with the followers of the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Iran may find that its influence in the south is limited. On the other hand, Syria and Iran may decide they would like a share of Iraq's oil wealth for themselves, leading to a bloody regional struggle. There would be little the US, or Britain, could do in such a scenario.

The dreadful truth is that, no matter what strategy our leaders now settle upon, the fate of Iraq is slipping inexorably out of their hands.

The midterm elections have left America's policy on Iraq in a state of confusion. The Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has been sacked, and President Bush seems to have outsourced strategic thinking on the subject to James Baker's Iraq Survey Group, which is not expected to report until next year. The newly resurgent Democrats will have a profound influence on what happens now, too. They must decide whether to pursue a bipartisan approach to Iraq or increase the pressure on the Republican administration in preparation for the 2008 presidential elections. But if Washington's senators, congressmen and policymakers have any sense of responsibility they will divert their attention from matters of domestic advantage, and concentrate on the interests of the Iraqi people.

To grapple with this question it is necessary to recognise the scale of the horror facing Iraq. The prospect of the break-up of the country into separate Shia, Sunni and Kurdish blocks looks increasingly unavoidable. The national government of Nouri al-Maliki is weak and lacks popular legitimacy. Ethnic cleansing on the ground is well advanced. American and British troops are doing nothing to prevent this. Nor is our military presence stopping the sectarian killing. As for the Iraqi national police force and army, they seem too feeble or compromised by the infiltration of sectarian militias to perform their security duties. The north of the country is relatively peaceful, but this is because the Kurds are well on their way to autonomy already.

But history shows that the abrupt withdrawal of foreign forces in collapsing states generally intensifies the slaughter. The spectre of the partition of India still looms large. It is chilling to think what could happen in Baghdad, which has broken up into several separate sectarian enclaves. It is also impossible to divide up Iraq's oil wealth in a way that would suit the various groups. The Sunnis would most likely be left with nothing.

This is a recipe for a lengthy civil war, and a no-win situation for the US and Britain. If our troops remain, we will see the country crumble gradually and more British and American soldiers die at the hands of an increasingly sophisticated insurgency. If our troops go, they will leave Iraq to cataclysm, tarnishing the reputation of the US and the UK abroad still further. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, warned us that leaving would create "a very real risk of even greater instability and bloodshed than we've already seen". Quite so. But Ms Beckett and all those politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who supported this invasion should acknowledge their responsibility for the terrible choice now facing us.

Some are recommending a third option. Mr Baker, a former secretary of state, has hinted that his report may recommend an appeal to neighbouring Iran to help stabilise the Shia south of the country. He has also suggested that Syria be requested to influence Iraq's Sunni population. This seems the most pragmatic course on offer.

But even this is by no means guaranteed to succeed. The Shia are fighting among themselves, with the Iranian-sponsored Badr Brigade vying for dominance with the followers of the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Iran may find that its influence in the south is limited. On the other hand, Syria and Iran may decide they would like a share of Iraq's oil wealth for themselves, leading to a bloody regional struggle. There would be little the US, or Britain, could do in such a scenario.

The dreadful truth is that, no matter what strategy our leaders now settle upon, the fate of Iraq is slipping inexorably out of their hands.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE

News Flash

AI Index: MDE 14/037/2006 (Public)

News Service No: 286

5 November 2006

Iraq:
Amnesty International deplores death sentences in Saddam Hussein trial

Amnesty International deplores the decision of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) to impose the death sentence on Saddam Hussein and two of his seven co-accused after a trial which was deeply flawed and unfair. The former Iraqi dictator was sentenced today in connection with the killing of 148 people from al-Dujail village after an attempt to assassinate him there in 1982. The trial, which began in October 2005 almost two years after Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces, ended last July. The verdict was originally due to be announced on 16 October but was delayed because the court said it needed more time to review testimony.

The case is now expected to go for appeal before the SICT's Cassation Panel following which, if the verdict were to be upheld, those sentenced to death are to be executed within 30 days.

"This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein’s rule," said Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme. "In practice, it has been a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

In particular, political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court, causing the first presiding judge to resign and blocking the appointment of another, and the court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defence lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial. Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal.

"Every accused has a right to a fair trial, whatever the magnitude of the charge against them. This plain fact was routinely ignored through the decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. His overthrow opened the opportunity to restore this basic right and, at the same time, to ensure, fairly, accountability for the crimes of the past. It is an opportunity missed," said Malcolm Smart, "and made worse by the imposition of the death penalty."

Amnesty International will now follow closely the appeal stage, where the evidence as well as the application of the law can be reviewed, and the SICT has therefore an opportunity to redress the flaws of the previous proceedings. However, given the grave nature of these flaws, and the fact that many of them continue to afflict the current trial before the SICT, Amnesty International urges the Iraqi government to seriously consider other options. These could include adding international judges to the tribunal, or referring the case to an international tribunal -- an option indicated by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention last September.

Saddam Hussein is currently being tried by the SICT, together with six others, on separate charges arising from the so-called Anfal campaign, when thousands of people belonging to Iraq's Kurdish minority were subject to mass killings, torture and other gross abuses in 1988.

To read the Arabic translation of the above document >>>>>

Statement by
Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad

It is a travesty of justice and
unworthy of the present stage of human civilisation

Member, International Committee for the Defence of President Saddam Hussein

As a member of the International Committee for the Defence of President Saddam Hussein, to oversee the trial of Saddam Hussein I would like to express my horror and disgust over the trial and sentencing of Saddam Hussein to death by hanging;

Firstly a court set up by his enemies has no right to try Saddam Hussein. Since the inception of the trial, the International Committee and the Panel of Lawyers in the defence of President Saddam Hussein have repeatedly pointed out that the court set up by an illegal occupying power has no jurisdiction whatsoever to conduct the said proceedings. If Saddam Hussein is to be tried, it should be by an international court of judges drawn from countries uninvolved in the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

The members of the International Committee have demanded that in order for justice to be done and seen to be done, the trial court and the judges must be independent and without bias, and be able to discharge their duties without fear or favour. The Chief Judge that presided in the early part of the proceedings resigned in protest against the blatant interference by the Iraqi regime installed by the occupying power. He was replaced by a judge who had no qualms in disregarding all established principles of fair trial and was willing to hand down a judgment inconsistent with the evidence adduced.

In the course of the proceedings, lawyers representing President Saddam Hussein and his co-accused were threatened and brutally murdered. Witnesses were also intimidated. This fact alone would render any verdict handed down by the court to be manifestly unjust and contrary to all established principles of a fair trial.

There were no evidence that President Saddam Hussein was involved in the killings of Shiites in 1982. Yet the Court found him guilty. The Court was a Kangaroo Court set up for the sole purpose of rendering a guilty verdict. It was a Nuremberg type court, manifestly biased and incapable of being just.

If President Sadam Hussein was guilty as charged, then President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair should be tried for the unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq and the death of over 650,000 Iraqis and the brutal torture of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay.

President Bush Senior, President Clinton and President Bush Jr should also be tried for the sanctions against Iraq which caused the death of more than half-a-million children and the use of illegal weapons such as depleted uranium, cluster bombs, phosphrous bombs etc.

For all these reasons, as a member of the International Committee overseeing the trial of Saddam Hussein, I condemn the death sentence passed on Saddam Hussein. It is a travesty of justice and unworthy of the present stage of human civilisation.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
November 7, 2006

To read the Arabic version of the above letter >>>>