It’s pretty amazing to sit here in the US watching the administration drumming up an anti-murder, pro-good governance campaign against Syrian President Bashar al-Asad on the very same day– yesterday– on which (a) Tom DeLay got indicted, and (b) the big speculation is how long before Karl Rove gets indicted in the Valerie Plame case…
The NYT’s John Kifner and Warren Hoge got an apparent “scoop” by reporting that an unnamed “diplomat” in New York told them, regarding the UN’s Mehlis investigation into last February’s killing of Rafiq Hariri, that,
- the investigators were focusing on Syria’s military intelligence chief, Asef Shawkat, the president’s brother-in-law.
“Their main lead is that he is the ringleader,” the diplomat said. “This is where it is heading.”
… He spoke on condition of anonymity because of what he described as the extreme sensitivity of the matter.
… The diplomat, describing Syria as a “country run by a little family clique,” said the involvement of any one in Mr. Assad’s inner circle would be a severe blow to the government.
“There is absolutely no doubt, it goes right to the top,” he said. “This is Murder Inc.”
H’mm. I wonder who this “diplomat” is, or whose instructions he may have been acting on in holding this conversation with the NYT reporters. The name “John Bolton” springs to mind…
Okay, maybe some readers here would say that there is gross disproportionality between the kinds of actions that are at stake in these three “cases”. The Detlev Mehlis investigation in Lebanon and Syria, after all, involved the wilfull murder of Hariri, and reckless disregard for the safety of scores of people in the area around him, some 20 of whom were killed. The Tom DeLay indictment has (until now) involved “only” some large political kickbacks and improper administration of fincancial affairs; and the Plame investigation involves “only” the revelation of the CIA links of one Washington-area professional woman…
Well, yes. Except that we know that the Plame investigation involves a whole lot more than that one apparent incidence of illegal information handling by a high administration official. In a real sense, because the Republican-controlled Congress has been totally unwilling to go back and re-examine the fallacious claims on the basis of which President Bush jerked the country into this terrible war, this special prosecutor’s investigation into just one tiny part of that story– the ex-post-facto intimidation of Amb. Joseph Wilson– has come to serve (for now) as a substitute for the broader investigation that the country certainly needs.
The death toll from the administration’s fallacious claims about Saddam’s alleged “WMDs” now stands at nearly 2,000 US servicemen killed, and scores of thousands of Iraqis dead.
So yes, there is disproportionality among these acts. The killing of Hariri led to some 16-20 deaths on that day– and then, through a twist of history, to the very welcome liberation of Lebanon from the heavy hand of Damascus… The Bush administration’s fabrication and twisting of the evidence about Iraqi WMDs (including the whole fallacious “yellow cake” story) has led to hundreds of times as many deaths, and the plunging of much of Iraq into prolonged civil strife.
Meanwhile, key top officials in each of these capitals– tiny Damascus and that lumbering great elephant of a place, Washington DC– are nervously watching to see how close to them the investigators will reach…
The other useful exercise is to look into the initial Hariri murder commentary that started the JWN thread. Talk and intelectual speculation are cheap. With the UN report as actual findings it is time to see how accurate or outlandish the experts and amateurs opinions were. At the end of the day batting average matters more than shmoozing all over the beltway.
David
Thank goodness America never tried to assassinate anyone!
And it is also a relief that the Republicans aren’t hankering to remove assassination restrictions on the intelligence services.
We didn’t even launch “decapitation attacks” against Saddam, and don’t let anyone fool you into thinking “decapitation” meant we were getting _Saddam’s_ head, it was clearly regicide.
(Oops, previously misposted into wrong thread… Now properly placed…)
Yes, David. I’m happy to look back at what I wrote Feb 14, if that’s what you’re talking about. I wrote this:
Initial speculation– in the case of this bomb as of the one that severely wounded MP Marwan Hamadeh last October– turned to the possibility of a Syrian hand in the attack… However, in both cases there is also the possibility that the attacks were part of an orchestrated destabilization campaign in Lebanon aimed at turning the Lebanese people even more strongly against Syria. Who might be behind such a campaign? On the principle of cui bono one would have to say certain hardline forces inside Israel…The possibility of some kind of a Mossad hand seems to me even more likely this time around than in October.
I gave no quantification of relative probabilities regarding either event. I merely said that in February the possibility of a Mossad hand seemed to me higher than it had in October. I was there in October, and the probability of that then seemed nil.
In February, I repeat, I gave no estimation of the probability of a Mossad hand, except to say that it was greater than (effectively) nil. And yet for even raising the possibility that that was what happened, I got pilloried all over the place including by you.
I’m glad that Mehlis has been able to clarify matters considerably. Now, let’s have an equally rigorous (and intrusive) UN investigation into who it was that jerked the Bush administration into taking the much, much more damaging step of invading Iraq.
Yeah sure… It all depends on what the definition of “is” is…
Quite a performance. Nice pretzel gymnastics.
Tony’s remark is incomprehensible. David’s takes the UN report as absolute truth, which is unlikely. Why does not anyone say that this looks like a mistake on the part of the Syrians, but in no way worse than the number of innocent dead caused by the US in Iraq? Hariri’s death was important, but doesn’t change the situation in Lebanon by much.
Hey this bombing murder of Hariri reminded me of this event:
Senior Yemeni officials and tribal sources say that the ambassador, who is one of Washington’s top counterterrorism experts, set up last week’s successful Predator Hellfire strike. US officials, they say, paid local tribesmen for information that helped locate Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, whom US officials suspected of plotting the strike on the USS Cole in October 2000.
taken from this article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1112/p01s02-wome.html
Yep, the USA was judge, jury and executioner (without the need for an arresting officer) down there in Yeman. And didn’t even leave much DNA left over from this attack… which killed several people beyond Qaed, I might add.
As for Hariri, the UN report may be correct, or it may be the Helena’s first ideas about who was responsible is correct. Or maybe I will be proven correct: I think the CIA did it.
We have heard the UN’s conclusions without the evidence at this point.
Susan – NC
Yep, the USA was judge, jury and executioner (without the need for an arresting officer) down there in Yeman.”
Why you dont like Amarican Way? is it a COWBOY WAY what’s changed, this is a history of Amaica.
In February, I repeat, I gave no estimation of the probability of a Mossad hand, except to say that it was greater than (effectively) nil. And yet for even raising the possibility that that was what happened, I got pilloried all over the place including by you.
Denial of “quantification” may literally be true, but ignores the idea that the prior post clearly meant to point a finger at Israeli involvement. Thus, the subsequent, ominous reference to “certain hardline forces inside Israel” as a (the?) likely cause:
Before all my ardent pro-Israeli commenters get on my case here, let me just point out two things: (1) The use of car-bombs … has been an established Israeli SOP in Lebanon …; and (2) Israel has maintained robust special-ops capabilities in central Lebanon ….
Destabilizing Lebanon’s still fractured, war-ravaged society is something that both its bigger neighbors have done a lot of over the past 35 years. In Syria’s case, these destabilization attempts have on occasion been pursued …. In Israel’s case, the ruling elite there … have often sought to destabilize things there in order to “punish” Syria; to keep Syria “busy” in Lebanon; and to diminish the Damascus regime’s general ability to exert influence outside its borders.
So, there was a certain amount of bet-hedging (could be Syria; but Israel’s a good bet). But that simply means a 50% probability that either one did it; quantification, after all. Then there was the provocative rhetoric re: “ardent pro-Israeli(s),” and “hardline” forces and “ruling elite” inside Israel — highly suggestive of an ideological bias that got (and gets) in the way of analysis.
“COWBOY WAY”
You know, cowboys are getting defamed all over the place these days for no good reason. There is very little resemblance between George W. Bush and an actual cowboy. Donald Rumsfeld is practically the exact opposite of a cowboy.
FRATBOY WAY would be more like it.
Helena and Susan,
Is it that hard to admit one was wrong so that readers develop trust over time based on our record?
I long maintained that your finger pointing at the US and Israel is reflexive, and offer the Harari example just as incremental support for my thesis.
Thanks Helena for replying to the request, and let’s indeed move to the second analysis you suggest. I think there is plenty of data to shed light even in the absence of a UN investigation, and I have seen very thorough reports either posted or linked to your site. Do you have some novel theories beyond that?
David
Great to see you back in the real world, David. So, the UN is relevant, and its resolutions too ?
David’s point is well taken. Betting on six horses out of a field of eight and having one come in first does not make a person an “expert” handicapper. The same is true of rushing to present pretty much all possibilities as “expert”, dispassionate analysis, without any evidence and based largely on one’s personal prejudices, and then patting oneself on the back because one of those possibilities eventually seems to look correct.
As for Alistair and Susan, actually what the US has or has not done is pretty much irrelevant to the Hariri murder. It really has no bearing on the fact that Syria has pretty much treated Lebanon for decades as a province with no real sovereignty (for example, Syria has refused to agree on an international border and does not maintain an ambassador in Lebanon, the rationale being, why should they if Lebanon is actually part of greater Syria). What the US may or may not have done in Iraq is also pretty much beside the point concerning the lack of majority rule in Syria and the way the ruling Allawi clan operates vis-a-vis opponents such as Rafiq Hariri.
Syria has refused to agree on an international border
See who is talking, before you talking look to yourself and your state, blaming Syria about international orders, could you tell us how many international orders refuted by your state?
What about Al Jolan Hights why your state hold it and occupied till now, tell us the ”expert”? Is it also Part of The Promised Land?
Salah,
Just FYI, Israel has agreed international borders with both Egypt and Jordan, as these two countries signed peace agreements with Israel. And, I might add, Israel has lived up to those agreements concerning borders, including the return of Tabah following international arbitration. I am certain that the same will hold true for Syria when that country actually enters into a peace agreement with Israel.
Beyond this, your argument is irrelevant. What Israel does, in this case, has nothing whatsoever to do with the responsibilities of the profligate ophthomologist and his Allawi cohort in Damascus vis-a-vis Lebanon. What you, and others here, state is similar to the argument of a spoiled teenager who defends their misdeeds by saying “Well everyone else is doing it!”
There are 99 UN resolutions that demanding Israel to withdraw from the occupying Arabs lands, the reality the UN and the international community should punished Israel for not obeying the international law.
If you think with your “expert” this irrelevant so why the law applied on others not Israel? Are their multi laws here?
The fact your clams with twisted words that all the time we got from Israelis like Parrots, first you should withdraw and give back the occupied land and then asked for Pease not other way mr. “expert”
BTW, The recent announcement by some israelii officials saying now the any agreements with the neighbours with new demands, so the “Land For Pease” scenario no longer Israelii policy now.
BTW, if Syria under sage because of one killed in Lebanon, Israelii killed hundreds of leaders and politic figures from the sounding Arab neighbours one of them Shaikh Ahmad Yassyn on his disability chair, what UN or US did? Just silence that all we got.
We don’t need to reminded the killing of German sentients and experts when they working in Egypt’s in 1950, or the killing of the Egyptian scientist in France who was working on Iraqi project during 1980 so where is the UN?
What about this may be the Mossad plots “mr. Expert”
Israel has agreed international borders with Egypt and Jordan,
Israel has agreed international borders with both Egypt Regime and Jordan Regime.
the reality is if we do free voting now in those both states we will fine the majority will appose the agreements and will be rejected not because they not loving peace because the agreement itself its wrote in favour for one side which Israel.
One of those bad things these land should be not militarised!!!. Ok JES Yab you gave them their land under your conditions….
BTW, in any court case around the world any person with criminal recode not allowed to testify or be a witness or judging any case, I put this as example that state of Israel its out of the Law there are many cases and example prove this state its a Torrerest state and there are many case this state taken actions un lawfully around the world, then this put this state and their citizens in state out of judging the rest of world who signed and agreed of the international agreements.
Well Salah, let’s take a look.
There are 99 UN resolutions that demanding Israel to withdraw from the occupying Arabs lands, the reality the UN and the international community should punished Israel for not obeying the international law.
I suggest that you take the trouble to actually read those resolutions. Most are simply restatements of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338, which are clearly not unilateral in relation to Israel and call upon the Arab countries to also take positive action. These resolutions do not specify that Israel must do something first, and, as I pointed out earlier, when Jordan and Egypt lived up to their obligations under international law (i.e. Resolutions 242 and 338), Israel followed suit. Further, none of these resolutions have invoked the relevant UN Charter article enabling sanctions or the use of force.
(BTW Salah, I’m not the one who puts myself forward as an “expert”.)
…the reality is if we do free voting now in those both states we will fine the majority will appose the agreements and will be rejected not because they not loving peace because the agreement itself its wrote in favour for one side which Israel.
Well, I’m glad that you can decide without elections how the majority of these people would vote! Would you kindly tell us how these agreements were written in favor of Israel? Egypt received all of its territory back, as did Jordan and relations were fairly normalized between the countries. I don’t see how this “favors” one side.
BTW, in any court case around the world any person with criminal recode not allowed to testify or be a witness or judging any case….
Very interesting, but I don’t believe that this is the case in most states (except, perhaps, the idea of serving as a judge). Perhaps Jonathan would like to weigh in here with a professional legal opinion. At any rate, this is beside the point. You still fail to see that what Israel does or did has very little bearing on whether Syria, the eye doctor and his Allawi buddies should be held accountable for the Hariri murder.
“BTW, in any court case around the world any person with criminal recode not allowed to testify or be a witness or judging any case….”
a point-blank falsehood. testimony of convicted criminals is admissable in any US civil or criminal case. this is true in courts around the world, eg
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayArticle.asp?col=§ion=theworld&xfile=data/theworld/2005/March/theworld_March205.xml
“ou still fail to see that what Israel does or did has very little bearing on whether Syria, the eye doctor and his Allawi buddies should be held accountable for the Hariri murder. ”
Syria is an uninteresting topic to those fixated upon Israeli and US misdeeds exactly because it is so difficult to cast either party as villains . those like salah will always try, and it’s instructive to watch them try.
To those who bulling in this thread, the fact is who are behind of pushing the international communities to punished Syria for killing one man in Lebanon, history from Iraq war showed us they are liars.
There is a State had a history of taking the law unlawfully by their hands around the world why this state not punished? This state not responding and respecting the UN resolutions, all we know this state blindly supported and protected by US power military and diplomatically because those who control US polices there their heart and minds with that state as we saw from the rushing and pushing for the Iraq invasion war and demolishing Iraq state which built and instructed by LIES prepared and presented and cooked by those like few here they try to twisted the facts.
Hopefully that the normal Americans will start to get more truths from the story of Judy Miller “Palm Gate”
We can say who is the most benefiting from Al Hariri killing, this the question would give us the answer, is it Syria benefiting the most? I doubt it.
Look and search for the most benefitting one of the outcomes of this case……
Special for JES and others belabouring the Syrians, a story from Der Spiegel. Personally I am not at all surprised that there are doubts about the validity of the Mehlis report; there is too much US policy riding behind this, for truth not to be a little elaborated.
>Hamburg, 22 October – The most prestigious German political news-magazine, Der Spiegel, revealed today that the central witness, Zuheir al-Siddiq on whom Detlev Mehlis had relied during his investigations into the assault on Rafiq Hariri, was a dubious person with a criminal record as a convicted felon and swindler. Even the UN Commission which had submitted the Mehlis report to the UN Security Council yesterday, is raising serious doubts about the reliability and credibility of al-Siddiq’s declarations, since it was revealed that the alleged former officer of the Syrian secret services had in reality been convicted more than once for penal offences related to money subtraction.
The German magazine reports that the UN investigating Commission is well aware that it had been lied by Siddiq, who at first had affirmed to have left Beirut one month before the assault on al-Hariri, but then had to admit at the end of September his direct involvement in the implementation of the crime. It is quite evident by now that the witness had received money for his depositions, considering that his siblings reveal to have received a phone-call from him from Paris, in late summer, in which Siddiq announced “I have become a millionaire”. Doubts regarding the credibility of the man were further fuelled by the revelation that Siddiq had been recommended to Mehlis by the long-term Syrian renegate Rifaat al-Assad, an uncle of the Syrian President who more than once offered himself as “alternative President of Syria”.
To Mehlis the central witness Siddiq is supposed to have declared that he had put his apartment in Beirut to the disposition of the conspirators to kill Hariri, among them several Syrian intelligence officials. Of himself he had declared to have gathered intelligence for the Syrian services regarding Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. But the Syrian government, revealed Der Spiegel, had sent weeks ago a documentation regarding the man to various Western governments, hoping that Detlev Mehlis would not get caught in the trap of a notorious imposter.”
Alastair, hi– Do you have a URL or any further bibliographic marker for this report? It looks very interesting.
Flash for Alastair!
A five second google of the Internet reveals that the source of this story is http://www.arabmonitor.info. (Interesting that the home page today sports a banner ad reading: “Syria, Tourism and more…”)
URL here
It has since rapidly made the rounds of a variety of over-the-edge left-wing fora, such as Daily Kos.
Face it, even if Siddiq is not the most reliable of witnesses, I think that Mehlis probably did not waste months of investigative work and millions of dollars to rely on the testimony of one witness. (Of course the UN and its staff might just be so feckless!)
You might also want to take a look at this story which indicates that there was a much broader body of evidence that someone at the UN apparently wanted to disregard.
Face it, even if Siddiq is not the most reliable of witnesses, I think that Mehlis probably did not waste months of investigative work and millions of dollars to rely on the testimony of one witness.
More to the point, Mehlis is a prosecutor with 25 years’ experience, including organized crime and complex international investigations. Anyone with that track record will have experience dealing with criminal witnesses and evaluating the information they provide. Mehlis isn’t the type to make a rookie mistake like building an entire case from the uncorroborated testimony of a dodgy witness – and as the full text of the report shows, he in fact had many other sources of information.
Jonathan, I don’t want to offend, knowing that you are a lawyer, but why should we trust this lawyer, Mehlis? We don’t generally trust lawyers as such and we don’t trust old lawyers in preference to young, innocent ones, as a rule.
I’m afraid yours is a weak defence of Mehlis. You plead the body of the report over the highlights stressed by Mehlis himself. You do so in these terms: “he in fact had many other sources of information”. Where is that fact? “Many” is not a fact. “Many” is a weasel word.
I think that if you could have, you would have given us a better, stronger fact, but you didn’t. As a result you end up undermining Mehlis even more.
“More to the point, Mehlis is a prosecutor with 25 years’ experience, including organized crime and complex international investigations.
We saw CIA, the US most experienced personal who put all their experiences behind president Bush and we saw the US secretary of State Colen Powel with his extensive track records telling us LIES , why should we then believe this lawyer with his 25 years, if two states US/UK telling lies, also the onerous responsibility of sorting out all these complex issues of Iraq MDW and presenting a finding to the Security Council with Hans Blix and his team of very experienced inspectors and in the end just lies.
Why should we believe in the liars again?
Jonathan Edelstein, I think UN, or US and others who support them lost the confidence; simply the Iraqi war was the big lie no one will take any word seriously whatsoever exeperices behind that words or reports.
Other simple example is Paul Bremer III and his US team of expertises and what we hear now the fraud and mismanagement and billons of money went missing or stolen by your native expertise Jonathan.
Re JES – Lebanon as part of Syria – no border – no Ambassador. The UK is in almost that position – we were without a US Ambassador for nearly a year, now we have a 2nd hand car salesman in place…. and a Prime Minister and Cabinet and Oposition parties who simply do what they are told … right back to April 2002.
Look carefully, this Mehlis report is not FINAL (also see the first report from March slipped out this week, previously unpublished) Mehlis has asked and been given by K Annan until Dec 15th. That doesn’t stop the orchestrated howl from the US and Israel … outta the blocks faster than Carl Lewis … crying like the other Lewis ..Carroll… Off with his head ! Off with his head ! Sentence first, trial later.
For more – and info on the Siddiqi puzzle http://www.postmanpatel.blogspot.com “Bashad bashed – International choir finds the same page on the hymn sheet”
We don’t generally trust lawyers as such and we don’t trust old lawyers in preference to young, innocent ones, as a rule.
Who’s this “We”? Is this the royal “We”? Does this mean that “We” don’t trust, for example, Ramsey Clark or Francis Boyle when they make their outlandish claims about the US and Israel?
At any rate, Dominic, Jonathan clearly invited you and others to read the entire report, and not just to rely upon the highlights!
The UK is in almost that position…
“Almost” isn’t good enough. The UK does not openly treat Lebanon as a province of Britain with no sovereignty of its own, which is the case with Syria – not just for “nearly a year”, but rather since Lebanese independence. Big difference.
You are correct, Edward, the Mehlis report is not FINAL. Mehlis, and the Security Council, are endeavoring to gain Syrian cooperation in the investigation to complete the report, and the release of this penultimate report – with very incriminating evidence against Syrian officials and members of Assad’s clan – is intended, I believe, as leverage to force the Syrian government to provide such cooperation.
Further, I would like to see your evidence of this “orchestrated howl from the US and Israel”. Even in Israel opinion seems to be divided on this issue.
BTW:
“Nelson Mandela renounced his claim to the chieftainship to become a lawyer. He attended the University College of Fort Hare and studied law at the University of Witwatersrand; he later passed the qualification exam to become a lawyer and in 1952 opened a firm with Oliver Tambo.”
I guess “We” shouldn’t generally trust either of them either!
You think you are samrt, JES, and you think you have hoist me on my own petard. But you are wrong.
“Trust me, I’m a lawyer” is no good. maybe you don’t know it, but I’m sure that Nelson Mandela and Jonathan Edelstein know it, and I’m quite sure the late Olive Tambo knew it, too.
Your proposition is actually ridiculous. You say that this unknown guy has 25 years’ experience therefore we should trust him with this thing which the USA and other Imperialists are trying to use as part of a casus belli against a peaceful country.
Sorry, it’s not working.
No, I was just trying to point out how ludicrous your initial statement and pointless generalization were. Truth be known, I don’t think I “hoisted you on your own petard”. I think you just put your fingers to action on the keyboard before actually thinking about what you were saying.
Nobody said “Trust me, I’m a lawyer”, as you suggest here. I simply pointed out earlier that refutation of a single witness (by what appears to be, shall we say, a somewhat biased source) does not, in any way, discredit the entire investigation. Jonathan went further, pointing out the professional credentials of the investigator as a basis for doubting that the case was built on this single witness and clearly suggesting that you and others read the entire report before casting judgement.
In any case, it would be nice to see this issue brought before a court of law with the full cooperation of the ophthemologist and his family.
As to your final remark concerning a “a casus belli against a peaceful country”, don’t make me laugh!
Jonathan, I don’t want to offend, knowing that you are a lawyer, but why should we trust this lawyer, Mehlis? We don’t generally trust lawyers as such and we don’t trust old lawyers in preference to young, innocent ones, as a rule.
I think the above is an unanswerable conundrum. If “old lawyers” are not to be trusted, but if only they have the technical expertise to conduct investigations of this type, then who can conduct a reliable investigation? Generalizing by profession is not appropriate; the key is not whether the investigator is a lawyer but the character and abilities of the lawyer in question.
You do so in these terms: “he in fact had many other sources of information”. Where is that fact? “Many” is not a fact. “Many” is a weasel word.
I linked to the full report, so anyone who might be interested could see for themselves what I meant by “many.” I suppose I could have listed every witness and item of evidence relied upon by Mehlis, but that would have been both tedious and redundant.
In any event, there seem to be two not-entirely-related issues under discussion here: (1) is the Mehlis report credible, and (2) if so, what should be done about it. It seems, from my standpoint, that your judgment about the first of these may have been affected by your concerns about the second. I happen to share many of your worries about the uses to which this report will be put – I most certainly do not favor military action against Syria – but with respect to the report itself, I would cite the following:
In addition to his general reputation, I also havent’ seen any indications of partiality in this particular case. For instance, I haven’t heard of anyone resigning from the investigation and claiming that Mehlis was trying to slant it. I also haven’t heard of any credible witness coming forward and saying that Mehlis’ people tried to lead him. Without anything like this, the fact that he is an “old lawyer” is hardly enough to carry the burden of proof on partiality.
A continental prosecutor writing a pre-indictment brief will say, for instance, “there is evidence pointing to Syrian involvement” rather than “Syria did it.” This is doubly true where, as here, the report is an interim report. That doesn’t mean Mehlis believes his case is weak, only that he will not use the language of certainty to express an uncertain fact. I’ve seen quite a few European prosecutors’ briefs, and they all look like that.
BTW, if it turns out that Berri’s name was suppressed, that would hardly point to political influence from the United States. The United States would love to see Berri caught up in the net, so if anything, it would want Berri’s name highlighted rather than buried. Likewise, the fact that the Mehlis report exonerates Hizbullah points away from American influence. I’d say that, if sny evidence was suppressed for political reasons, the influence came from within the Lebanese government. There’s nobody else with any obvious interest in suppressing Berri’s name.
There is, however, enough in the report to give Assad a case to answer. He may ultimately be able to answer that case, but there’s quite a bit of circumstantial proof pointing his way and precious little pointing in any other direction. This report is not something that can be discounted on the basis that Mehlis is an “old lawyer” or that his conclusions are politically unacceptable.
Which leaves the second issue: assuming the report to be credible, what should be done about it? Like you, I believe that military action against Syria would be both counterproductive and morally wrong. Fortunately, I don’t think such military action is politically possible, but I will certainly oppose any moves in that direction.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that evidence of Syrian involvement should be suppressed simply because of the political uses to which it might be put. The truth has intrinsic value, and in any event Assad hasn’t earned any mercy. My preferred solution is likely to satisfy nobody: that the evidence of Syrian actions should be laid out in public – as is the evidence concerning the various actions of Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Turks etc. – and that everyone form their own judgment of Assad and treat him accordingly.
Jonathan, I haven’t read your big post above yet. I was looking to post three paragraphs from Justin Raimondo today, which can be found in full at http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7743 .
Here is my extract from it:
‘The War Party has its own prosecutor, UN “investigator” Detlev Mehlis, currently trumping up charges against the next candidate for “regime change” in the Middle East: Syria. Mehlis operates under none of the constraints of the U.S. legal system that keep Fitzgerald’s inquiries and the testimony before the grand jury under lock and key. The UN’s grand inquisitor has published his findings midway through his investigation into the question of who killed Lebanese politician-entrepreneur Rafik Hariri. His report – here – is full of uncorroborated testimony from unknown witnesses of unknowable veracity, and in places reads more like a political polemic than a legal document. I defy anyone to read it and come to any definite conclusion other than that Lebanon is one vast snakepit we would do well to stay out of.
‘Yet drawing American troops into the Levant is precisely what the neocons are counting on to distract the American people from their treason, in a “wag the dog” scenario so bold it leaves one breathless. According to Joshua Landis, the respected scholar of Syrian politics and culture who resides in Damascus, the very people who fear indictments the most are behind this new push for war:
‘”I have it on good authority that Steven Hadley, the director of the US National Security Council, called the President of the Italian senate to asked [sic] if he had a candidate to replace Bashar al-Assad as President of Syria. The Italians were horrified. Italy is one of Syria’s biggest trading partners so it seemed a reasonable place to ask! This is what Washington has been up to.”‘
Jonathan,
Lawyers work in opposing pairs under a third one who is the judge. The ancient idea that truth can best be found in dialectical argument is trusted, not the individuals. A judge alone without any officers in court would not have the benefit of that ancient trust. A single lawyer might give an opinion, but it would only be that, and could never have the instrumental power of a court order. A different lawyer might give a different opinion.
It is not a question of Mehlis in the first place. There is no conundrum. This process is entirely inappropriate and inadequate to a matter of international politics. If he be apolitical, then it is worse, not better.
Mehlis has made matters worse still by issuing his work, let’s call it that, in a half-baked version, which is not the final one. I don’t see that you are aware of that, Jonathan, but I’ve seen it in two different places. It’s a trial balloon. That’s unsatisfactory, to say the least of it, you must agree.
I’m glad you are not in favour of war, Jonathan and that you share my worries as to the uses to which this report will be put.
That is not totally reassuring though, because there is another aspect. To me in the “third world”, the idea of people in the US schemeing to put a head of state of a sovereign independent country on trial is repugnant, but it is not repugnant to you. You say there is “enough in the report to give Assad a case to answer”
JES has the same result in mind, and adds to it a bit of an insulting mis-spelled jibe about “the ophthalmologist”. He wrote: “it would be nice to see this issue brought before a court of law with the full cooperation of the ophthemologist and his family.”
The whole thing is ugly, Jonathan. I don’t like the thought that you are on the other side of it from me.
Dominic
US schemeing to put a head of state of a sovereign independent country on trial is repugnant, but it is not repugnant to you. You say there is “enough in the report to give Assad a case to answer”
In same taken why not then UN sent lawyer with 25 years to investigate Sabra and Shatila massacre 1982 where Israel has denied direct responsibility, while finding certain Israelis, among them Ariel Sharon, indirectly personally responsible. In few cases some foreign courts stoped the proceedings by pressures by US and the excuse used that Ariel Sharon immunity because he is PM of state!!! And in Syria case the president have no immunity and the drams starts load for get him down not just answeras you siade, specially inside Israel which inline with US and UN?
A single lawyer might give an opinion, but it would only be that, and could never have the instrumental power of a court order.
I don’t think I’ve ever claimed otherwise. The Mehlis report is a prosecutorial brief, and the function of such a brief is to lay out the evidence for subsequent judicial review. A prosecutorial brief can only indict, never convict. I don’t regard the Mehlis report as a conclusive finding of fact, and I don’t think Mehlis does either. Only a court of law can make such a finding after hearing from all sides.
BTW, I’m aware that the report is an interim report. It was presented, among other reasons, for the purpose of showing that there was sufficient evidence to warrant continuing the investigation. Obviously, that also doesn’t amount to a conclusive finding of fact, but it also doesn’t render the contents of the report worthless.
It is not a question of Mehlis in the first place.
Based on the number of post hoc attacks that have been made against Mehlis’ character, I’d say it very much is a “question of Mehlis in the first place.” Characterizing Mehlis as a political hack acting at the behest of the “War Party” seems to have become an integral part of the criticism of his report. I might add that I’ve seen no evidence thus far to support this accusation, and that far from being an “unknown guy,” Mehlis is a high-level prosecutor with an extensive and verifiable track record. And also that a genuine American frame-up job would, in all likelihood, have implicated Hizbullah in the assassination and linked HA directly to Assad.
To me in the “third world”, the idea of people in the US schemeing to put a head of state of a sovereign independent country on trial is repugnant, but it is not repugnant to you.
I’d point out that while the Bushies have picked up on the Mehlis investigation for their own reasons, the original call for an international probe came from within Lebanon. More to the point, though, I don’t see why Assad should have a greater degree of immunity than any other head of government. He shouldn’t have a lesser degree, but certainly no greater.
I don’t think the United States should put Assad on trial. I do, however, think that the evidence against him (and not only with respect to Hariri) should be preserved and made public so that his own people might someday put him on trial.
“The Mehlis report is a prosecutorial brief” you say, Jonathan. In what court? Not the International Criminal Court (ICC) I think. So where? Is something going to be cobbled together when this thing has got up enough steam? That’s not satisfactory. You know the history of the ICC and the US undermining of it, which is still going on. This is an abomination and a perversion of the law. It’s scenery, not law.
“Characterizing Mehlis as a political hack acting at the behest of the “War Party” seems to have become an integral part of the criticism of his report.” – you say.
There is an a priori War party, Jonathan. The evidence that Mehlis is dollying up ammunition for the War Party is indeed post hoc, as it should be. What you call “showing that there was sufficient evidence to warrant continuing the investigation” is what I call pandering to a hysterical campaign designed to gallop the US public into supporting yet another overseas war, against Syria. Mehlis cannot be unaware of it. Jurists are never unaware of the circumstances of their pronouncements.
Your last couple of paragraphs are unworthy of you, Jonathan. This is a plot against the independence of a sovereign country.
Otherwise you could just get somebody to research and write a book about it.
The thing is nothing to do with gently collecting a little evidence that the good people of Syria might use at a later time to try their President after he has retirred or something. Why are you making up stories? That’s nonsense.
Oh dear me, I misspelled “eye doctor”! Or, to put it in the passive voice, the word has been misspelled by me!
It absolutely amazes me that an apparently intelligent person can put forth a position so uncritically. To assert that the Mehlis investigation is part of “a plot against the independence of a sovereign country”, while ignoring the fact that the minority-rule government of Syria has been openly denying the independence and sovereignty of its neighbor for the past 40 years inidicates, in my opinion, incredible doctrinaire closed-mindedness!
the minority-rule government of Syria has been openly denying the independence and sovereignty of its neighbor for the past 40 years…
You might have said “unelected government.”
The sovereignty residing in the crown is taken here in a clearly mystical way, just as theologians find the personal God in nature.
It’s clear that JES and vadim want a war on Syria. It would be enough to know this and to know that thousands like them exist and can be found on the Internet. It would be enough but it is not all.
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=406
“The question today in not whether the Syrian regime is weakening or not in the face of imperialism, but knowing what is good for Syria, if Syria is capable of resisting imperialism. The current Syrian regime is incapable by its nature of resisting US imperialism, exactly as Saddam’s regime was incapable.
On the contrary, the regime is even our greatest weakness in the anti-imperialist struggle. The absence of democratic liberties weakens terribly our capacity to respond. Thus when we criticize the regime, we work to build a stronger Syria. Today, without radical political change, all the potential of Syrian society is paralyzed in the face of imperialism. ”
Dominic, I know I don’t want a war with Syria, nor do I believe a war with Syria is at all likely.
By the way, the original German reports in Der Spiegel about Mehlis and the dubious witness are:
http://service.spiegel.de/digas/servlet/epaper?Q=SP&JG=2005&AG=43&SE=5
and
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,381154-2,00.html
Evidently lower in tone than the Arabmonitor English-language precis that I copied. However, contra JES, Der Spiegel is an extremely well reputed magazine, certainly as good as anything in English, and their reports are not to be binned as biassed.
Although I am not a lawyer, as some of the other contributors here, the point is not to put in question the value of Mehlis’ work. Mehlis, as a German lawyer, almost certainly did a good and honest job.
The point is the context. Bolton has been recently appointed as US ambassador to the UN. His style is well-known. The US has been talking up a conflict with Syria. The US also is ready to fabricate evidence, as we have seen with the yellow-cake uranium from Niger, and the so-called letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi was also fabricated. It may be that these documents were not fabricated by the US in a provable way – indeed it would have been unwise to do so – but the fact that they are false is undeniable, and they correspond very closely to US administration interests.
In this context, it seems to me improbable that the US did not try to influence the results of Mehlis’ report. The interest is so strong that some kind of dirty tricks are to be expected. The question is whether they are more than tangential.
My mind remains open as to whether the Syrians were involved in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. They could have been, and the suicide of Kanaan in Damascus speaks in that direction.
However there is no doubt that Syria does not deserve the hostile attention directed at it by the US. Syrian interest in Lebanon is inevitable. The French stole Syrian territory to incorporate in Lebanon in the 1920s – the Biqa` and Tripoli.
It’s clear that JES and vadim want a war on Syria.
It may be clear to you, but it certainly is not clear to me. Helena likes to collect quaint Americanisms and pretend that she is a Southin’ Belle, so let me just say, Dominic, that your assertion here is horse puckey! (BTW, Dominic, you are the one who is constantly advocating “revolution”. I suggest you read up a bit on what it’s like for the average person to go through one of these. It ain’t a pretty experience.)
The US also is ready to fabricate evidence, as we have seen with the yellow-cake uranium from Niger, and the so-called letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi was also fabricated. It may be that these documents were not fabricated by the US in a provable way – indeed it would have been unwise to do so – but the fact that they are false is undeniable, and they correspond very closely to US administration interests.
Brilliant Alastair! But there is a little thing called “evidence”. To take the views of several columnists and bloggers that these documents were fabricated and then assert that they were is not the same as proving it. After all, to falsely claim that the documents were falsified very closely serves the interests of those columnists and bloggers.
The French stole Syrian territory to incorporate in Lebanon in the 1920s – the Biqa` and Tripoli.
Tell me Alastair, do you also believe that the Germans were right in occupying the Sudetenland and areas of East Prussia (Western Poland)?
Jonathan Edelstein
I am glad that you oppose the war with Syria, but this case is hiding exactly the case of Iraq all we know it’s a matter of time this war will start, specially Bush he had his ambustion for BIG ME,.
Jonathan Edelstein don’t take my words hard may be you don’t like my talk the point I would like to say I think your believe in Zionism affected your response and your talk in this case as I see you are almost with line with Israeli Officials in this case, they spook few times about regime change in Syria, JES and Vedim also with line also.
As been said “question of Mehlis in the first place.” We do not attacked this lawyer as such to us we see he may be under pressures form other power for using his report in the way Bush and Israel likes, this is the argument whether Al Assad involved or not this is another matter need to be addressed, to me Muamer Al Qdaffi is more criminal and more evident his criminality using his position and his money two kill civilians in addition to his very bad records of human rights inside his state, here the question if the international community specifically US interested to brings the bad regimes down or to trial then the first one I would say Alqadaffi, but what we saw from US administration the opposite. The second case we can say Mugabi regime and his drama their inside Zimbabwe.
Here is my assumption why Syria not others, the Israel need to get with all the neighbours a peace agreements as individuals not as collectives Arab countries as we saw this Israelis opposed any scenario of collectives Arab countries agreement for long time even they refused to participated in international summat includes few courtiers to solve the Arab/Israeli conflict, in same talk they refused the king Abdullah offer two yeas ago to sort out this conflict. This attitude by Israelis got full support by US specially by Bush more over Bush he had his agenda from personal revenge for his father from Saddam also cut any support may Iraq give to Syria if attackers first and there are more point to that, to me this give the Israeli more space to play with their conditions with separate peace agreements with individual Arab states, it’s the matter of time we will see all will come to the end as we saw from invasion of Iraq and demolishing the state of Iraq which was most opposing any talk with Israeli in the region so one card finished, the playing now is 2nd card “Syria” .
As you stated “the original call for an international probe came from within Lebanon.” This may be right but how many case that states asked same help or inquired from UN, did Bush or US responded? Of course not.
in all likelihood, have implicated Hizbullah in the assassination and linked HA directly to Assad.
This is part of solving the threat that the Israeli facing and I don’t know what’s convinced you that the case, what about Iran support? specially the main leaders and groups of Hizbullah are Iranians not Arabs.
Vadim
Your saying you are not with the war and the rest of your talk clear enough that you like to be war or regime change their, the point is here the human disaster we saw in Iraq almost will be replied here if that the case, please can you and JES stope thinking in Zionist way and be more human, specially you most suffered along the history and you know what the war and human suffering better that any group on this earth.
“”The French stole Syrian territory to incorporate in Lebanon in the 1920s – the Biqa` and Tripoli.””
“Tell me Alastair, do you also believe that the Germans were right in occupying the Sudetenland and areas of East Prussia (Western Poland)?”
Maybe JES would like to learn a bit of history, rather than make pointless remarks. When he has read a book on Syrian history he can come back and comment
Alastair,
Perhaps you would like to respond to a legitimate question with a real answer instead of your ad hominem? Yes, I have read a few books on the history of the region.
“please can you and JES stope thinking in Zionist way ”
Salah until you acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state I doubt you can ever be part of any constructive dialogue. Unless you have some other definition of ‘zionism’ in mind, in which case a clarification is welcome. I notice that you have no problems speaking of “Arab lands” , “Arab nationhood” etc, so what exactly is the difference?
PS my views regarding Syria have nothing to do with Israel.
“The French stole Syrian territory to incorporate in Lebanon in the 1920s – the Biqa` and Tripoli.”
This is a confusing comment. Alastair, do you recognize any of the national borders established since the fall of the Ottoman empire? & do you advocate a “greater syria” incorporating all or large parts of modern lebanon?
I’ve just got to be the fitieth comment!
For peace and against imperialism!
Dominic
I’ve just got to be the fiftieth comment!
For peace and against imperialism!
Dominic
All right, third try at posting this response.
“The Mehlis report is a prosecutorial brief” you say, Jonathan. In what court? Not the International Criminal Court (ICC) I think. So where?
The Lebanese courts, for starters. One thing tha’s often forgotten is that the original call for the Mehlis investigation came from within Lebanon. Several of the people named in the report, including those associated with the Lebanese security forces, are in custody in Lebanon and will be tried there. No doubt the Lebanese public prosecutor will make use of the Mehlis brief, and the defense attorneys will challenge it vehemently as they should.
As far as the non-Lebanese subjects, that’s highly uncertain. The Lebanese government is considering whether to make an extradition request from Syria, although under current circumstances such a request won’t be granted. Saad Hariri and Walid Jumblatt are calling for an international tribunal, but that’s also unlikely if only because Russia seems to oppose it. There’s also the possibility of a Security Council reference to the ICC, which the United States would want to oppose but would have a hard time voting against. (It would be ironic if the Hariri case ended up forcing the United States to withdraw its objections to the ICC.)
None of these possibilities are particularly likely in the short term, however, and the report will probably be used and challenged in Lebanon before any Syrian has to worry about prosecution.
There is an a priori War party, Jonathan. The evidence that Mehlis is dollying up ammunition for the War Party is indeed post hoc, as it should be. What you call “showing that there was sufficient evidence to warrant continuing the investigation” is what I call pandering to a hysterical campaign designed to gallop the US public into supporting yet another overseas war, against Syria. Mehlis cannot be unaware of it. Jurists are never unaware of the circumstances of their pronouncements.
There are two aspects of this argument I find disturbing. The first is the notion that the results achieved by an investigator, without more, are valid grounds to make post hoc judgments about his motivations and integrity. The second – which is implicit in the first – is that investigators have an ethical duty to suppress evidence if they believe it will be subject to unacceptable political use.
There’s no way to get around the second notion once the first is accepted, and this opens the door to all kinds of suppression or even falsification of evidence in order to achieve the desired political results. That’s the same sort of mindset that led Bush and Blair to falsify intelligence reports in order to make the case for war against Iraq. Onviously the political and moral issues aren’t the same, but that doesn’t matter. Once you demand the right to your own “political truth,” you lose the right to object to everyone else’s. If we sacrifice impartial and objective presentation of evidence as a standard to judge Assad, we also sacrifice it as a basis for measuring Bush.
The only thing that will save us, in the end, is full investigation and presentation of the facts, no matter how inconvenient or politically pernicious they may be at any given moment. An investigator is acting according to an imperative separate from politics. It is no doubt true that jurists are aware of the political circumstances of their pronouncements, but if they let such circumstances dictate their pronouncements, then the result is “sexed up” intelligence dossiers. The political uses that may be made of Mehlis’ report are not to his account. Bush is fully responsible and accountable for his own actions.
I’d argue that the better question to ask is the one Alistair does: not whether Mehlis himself has manipulated the evidence (which is a red herring supported by nothing more than innuendo), but whether others might have manipulated the evidence that came before him. In other words, did the United States, or some other interested party such as the Lebanese government, suborn witnesses and/or falsify documents? I have my doubts about this, because a prosecutor with Mehlis’ experience is unlikely to fall for that kind of deception, but given the Spiegel allegations, it’s at least plausible that this has happened. An audit of Mehlis’ files may be in order; indeed, one of the tests of his own integrity will now be whether he investigates the Spiegel allegations and addresses them in his final report. I’d expect an impartial investigator to respond conscientiously to allegations of problems with his evidence.
The thing is nothing to do with gently collecting a little evidence that the good people of Syria might use at a later time to try their President after he has retirred or something.
I thought I was pretty clear that I was talking about my preferred outcome, not what would actually happen. I agree that such a trial is highly improbable in the short term and that the Bushies don’t intend the report for such use. On the other hand, it seems that the War Party also isn’t likely to get its way.
In the long term, who knows? Look how long it took to get Pinochet, after all. I’d like to think that Assad’s people will eventually catch up with him.
Salah,
Jonathan Edelstein don’t take my words hard may be you don’t like my talk the point I would like to say I think your believe in Zionism affected your response and your talk in this case as I see you are almost with line with Israeli Officials in this case, they spook few times about regime change in Syria, JES and Vedim also with line also.
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting this idea. I’m not calling for “regime change” in Syria, and as far as I know, neither are JES or Vadim. Assad’s fate is something for the Syrians to work out. (And as the Guardian article I linked in the above comment suggests, the Israeli government isn’t too keen on regime change either.)
For what it’s worth, my opinions on the Hariri case come largely from news articles and from conversations with Lebanese friends, who run across the political spectrum from the Ba’ath to Lebanese Forces. And I’ll state again that I oppose war against Syria or the exercise of any other kind of force against Syria.
Hi Jonathan.
There is the matter of locus standi, and due process. Can anybody on the planet now “call” and have the UN beam down an investigator? Where does that put our South African constitution, for example? And our proud judiciary? Can somebody have a UN investigator beamed down to New Orleans, for example? No, this is ad hoc, and we both know what that means.
As for post hoc, I’m not sure that we agree on the meaning of the term. I take it to mean that we are not judging Mehlis by his reputation, of which I know nothing and care less, but on his work, which I have looked at and I think is rubbish. I’m not prejudiced. I’m taking it on its face value, and I think it has none. The rest of your argument in this latest post of yours I can’t follow. I wouldn’t make Alastair’s argument, either. I just think Mehlis’s production is rubbish, and to produce rubbish in these circumstances is not simply incompetent, it is culpable.
Once again your last para ilets you down. Your comparison between Bashar Assad and General Pinochet is odious. You can’t possibly mean it, can you?
Can anybody on the planet now “call” and have the UN beam down an investigator?
Given the rules of reference for the ICC prosecutor’s office, that is in fact very nearly the case. South Africa has ratified the Rome Statute and could, as such, refer a case to the prosecutor’s office under Article 14. In such a case, investigation would be mandatory although prosecution wouldn’t.
I take it to mean that we are not judging Mehlis by his reputation, of which I know nothing and care less, but on his work, which I have looked at and I think is rubbish.
I agree that he should be judged by his work. Evidently we have a different opinion of it. I’ve seen a fair number of indictments, and Mehlis’ report seems pretty thorough.
I suppose that since we differ on whether the report is rubbish, we differ on the rest of it as well.
Your comparison between Bashar Assad and General Pinochet is odious.
All right, the comparison to Pinochet is over the top for Bashar, and would be more appropriate for his father. He’s not exactly innocent of culpable conduct, though.
Can anybody on the planet now “call” and have the UN beam down an investigator?
Sorry, I misunderstood this in my comment immediately above, and read “anybody” as “any government.” Obviously the UN can’t and shouldn’t go pre-empting national sovereignty at the call of some splinter group or aggrieved party. This isn’t what happened in Lebanon, though, because the government did consent to the Mehlis probe.
The sequence of events was more or less as follows (I’m working from memory): The Lebanese government initially conducted its own investigation of the Hariri assassination. This came under criticism from the domestic opposition, however, on the ground that the Lebanese security forces were potentially implicated and therefore under a conflict of interest. The investigation indeed went nowhere, and critically failed to probe the security forces’ role. After the Karami government fell on March 14, the opposition stepped up the pressure for an international inquiry, and on March 25, the government agreed. The Mehlis team began its work on April 7.
So in other words, the Mehlis investigation wasn’t foisted on Lebanon by the UN at the instigation of some splinter faction. It was agreed to by the government, albeit under political pressure. I don’t think this amounted to a violation of Lebanese sovereignty or an overstepping of the UN’s role, although your mileage may vary.
Dear Jonathan,
If you are going to loosely compare one what you call “transitional justice” situation with another, you are going to upset a lot of people. I don’t think you have fully understood this. It is more than simply over the top. It is blindly, stupidly insensitive.
Each situation is felt personally and with strong emotions. The memory of Chile, September 11th, 1973, when the country’s armed forces made war on their own Popular Unity government is not a thing to be diminished by cheap comparison with any other thing or person. It is a situation we study all the time, because it shows that the bourgeoisie will attack us even if we are elected in their own democratic terms. It is a very particular and special case of the nature of The State, realised in a very tragic way.
It is said that “comparisons are odious”. Comparison’s like the one you made demean both sides. It helps not at all to understand Syria, either, when you make this gratuitous comparison with Chile.
The fact that Pinochet was your man and the Assads are not your men also has the ring af a nasty mind-game about it. Pinochet sold his country to the Imperialists. The Assads have kept their country independent. To compare them is odious in more than one way.
All right, Dominic, if you want to view the Pinochet regime as something beyond comparison, go right ahead. I was comparing Pinochet and the Assads in one specific and narrow respect – i.e., that Pinochet eluded justice for a generation and Assad is now doing the same – and I was following on a conversation with Issandr el Amrani about record-keeping as an aid to justice. But I have my own historical memory, so I’m not going to quarrel with yours. If you find the comparison offensive, you have my apology, and I’ll compare Assad to Hissene Habre instead.
I also don’t see how, by any stretch of the imagination, Pinochet is “my man.” Frankly, I find that at least as offensive as anything I’ve said to you. I was at a fair number of demos against the man in the 1980s, and if you can find one word I’ve ever said in his support, I’ll resign from the internet for life.
And “the Assads have kept their country independent” – maybe so. I’m not willing to give him a pass on strongman rule, violent ethnic repression and torture on that basis. I find that kind of thing offensive as well, whether or not it’s covered in an anti-imperialist figleaf.
Jonathan,
You can’t proceed from an imaginary never-never land. You must know that the protagonists do not abandon their history when they put down their arms. You have to admit that you have your own partisanship, and I thank you for doing so in your last post.
But I’m sorry you don’t see what I mean about Pinochet being your man and our support being for the independence of Syria and those who stand up for it. You are from the United States, not Atlantis or Shangri-La. I am saying, for that reason, it behoves you not to express yourself in a certain way. Whether you intend it or not, you give a very arrogant, offensive impression. And then it is too late to plead that your record is unblemished by any support for General Pinochet.
No doubt Hissene Habre has his supporters, too, and there will be a much larger section of the Chadean polity who will be furious that somebody would cash their compatriot’s name in this general way as a world standard of iniquity.
I suspect that you think that your high vantage point in the USA gives you an advantage over anybody else in the world. The colonised are very familiar with this attitude of the colonisers and do not respect it. On the contrary.
Given that you’re the only one who has thus far noticed this arrogance of mine, I’ll have to take your word on it. If you mean by that that as an American I should not presume to criticize any colonized or formerly colonized people, then I reject that notion. My vantage point is no higher than anyone else’s, but also no lower.
I don’t see very much difference between imperialist ethnic cleansing. Imperialist torture is no different from anti-imperialist torture. It’s all the same from the point of view of the tortured, and I’m not going to forgive the torturer or refrain from naming him as such because he is one of the colonized. I condemn American torture and I condemn Syrian torture, and for that matter Chadian torture.
For you it’s all about the actor and not the act, isn’t it? Assad might be a torturer, but he’s an anti-imperialist so he’s your torturer? My country’s made that moral error many, many times, and is still making it to our shame. But hey, I’m an American so what do I know?
I’m going to break off this discussion now, because it’s very late and we’re obviously offending each other in ways we didn’t intend. Please don’t hesitate to get in the last word and we’ll resume some other time, hopefully on a less touchy subject.
Sorry, Jonathan, it’s quite early morning here in Johannesburg. The sun rises in the East! The East is Red!
This is not totally ad hominem, although I wouldn’t apologise for that. Ad hominem is what makes the half the world go round. Add feminem to hominem and you have pretty much the whole picture.
No, this is an old argument, best expressed for me in Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. I say, with Freire, that there can be no righteousness that does not recognise the oppression of the oppressed and its true nature. It is not sufficient to recognise the abstract “torture”. More so, we must recognise the concrete “imperialism”.
So you have put yourself firmly on the patronising liberal side of the fence, opposite to Freire and myself, by your remarks in your last post. You are not concerned about imperialism, and I must say it is very obvious that you are not.
Look, it is good that you have made a fairly exhaustive empirical study of what you call “transition” around the world. That is fine as far as it goes. But if you use that knowledge to try to over-ride people I promise you they will resent it enormously. Therefore apart from anything else it is a tactical mistake.
I don’t see very much difference between imperialist ethnic cleansing. Imperialist torture is no different from anti-imperialist torture. It’s all the same from the point of view of the tortured, and I’m not going to forgive the torturer or refrain from naming him as such because he is one of the colonized. I condemn American torture and I condemn Syrian torture, and for that matter Chadian torture.
Jonathan, very much to the point. This reminds me of a scene from Costa-Gavras’ 1970 movie The Confession, which is based on Artur London’s autobiographical account of the Slansky purges in Prague. Gerard, the London character, returns from exile in the spring of 1968 and runs into his “interrogator” from some some 15 years before. This man, who had subjected Gerard and others to staged executions and other tortures, was very excited to see an old acquaintance. Garard, shocked by his behavior, asks him what he is doing now (under the Dubcek government), and he responds something to the effect: “I am working for the government, just as I worked for the government when I interrogated you, and just as I worked for the Germans when they were here. I’m a professional.”
Right, JES, it’s all one to you and it’s all one to the torturer. I don’t see where you’ve moved on. The torturer pleads professional detachment, and so, I suppose, does Jonathan the lawyer, but you? Where is your moral compass? You won’t find it by looking for the least worst atrocity perpetrators, for sure. That is a fool’s errand. Better to look for the source of war, which in our world is Imperialism, and get rid of that.
For Peace and against Imperialism!
Dominic.
Unfortunately Dominic not all aggression boils down to imperialism.
eg:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/15E6BF77-6F91-46EE-A4B5-A3CE0E9957EA.htm
(Yes, I know I said I was leaving off this discussion. This isn’t the first time I’ve changed my mind in the light of day.)
Sorry, Jonathan, it’s quite early morning here in Johannesburg. The sun rises in the East! The East is Red!
Early for you, late for me; I hope that’s not a metaphor of larger things.
The place you’re losing me is on the issue of ‘over-riding’ people. You’re using the word in a way I’ve never seen it used. When I make a statement here, I’m not silencing anyone or drowning anyone out; we’re all equal here but Helena, and I have no more power to enforce or privilege my opinion than anyone else does.
You seem to be arguing – correct me if I’m wrong – that as a citizen of an imperialist nation, my criticism of non-imperialist countries is an ‘over-riding’ act. That’s possible, I suppose, but in my many conversations with people from post-colonial nations – including those that ended in shouting matches – I’ve never heard this viewpoint stated before. In any event, as I said above, I reject the notion; nobody has the right to limit my discourse on grounds of nationality than I have to limit theirs. If a Chadian disagrees with my view of Habre, he’s free to dispute with me, prove me wrong, argue that Habre’s crimes pale beside Bush’s or call me any kind of a fool he feels appropriate. He isn’t entitled to demand a prior restraint on my speech. If that’s offensive, then I suppose I will occasionally offend.
(And in this one respect, Shakespeare was a fool. Comparisons are only odious to those who forget the difference between comparing and equating.)
But I don’t think this is really an issue of ‘over-riding’ or unconscious patronization. It seems that every discussion between the two of us eventually encounters a fundamental difference of belief, and I think that’s what underlies our disagreement here. Your view – and again, correct me if I’m wrong – is that imperialism is the pre-eminent evil in the world today. My view is that it’s one among many evils.
Anti-imperialism can never be a complete liberation, because it’s fundamentally about the liberation of nations rather than individuals. Countries may – and many of them have – shaken off the imperial yoke but remained shackled in others. If a country is free of colonial rule but the people in it are still oppressed, tortured and exploited, then has it really liberated itself? I don’t believe that humanity can be liberated unless the individuals who make up humanity are free.
And contrary to your comment above, my reason for believing this is very far from professional detachment. You see, I’ve met torture victims, some of whom were tortured by governments you would probably regard as ‘anti-imperialist.’ When you say it’s all one to you and it’s all one to the torturer, you’re leaving out the tortured. If Syria, or another country, commits such practices (and torture is of course not the only or even the greatest form of oppression), then from my standpoint its anti-imperialist credentials seem secondary.
(And how anti-imperialist is Syria really? Assad has, in the past, subcontracted torture from the United States; I’m sure you’re aware of the Maher Arar case. And Syria’s policy toward Lebanon during the past generation seems pretty imperialist to me. But I digress.)
Anyway, I can see how those who view imperialism as the greatest contemporary evil might be offended at the comparison of imperialist and non-imperialist countries, much as some of my older relatives bridle at any comparison to the Nazi genocide. To those who view things my way (whether American, Syrian or otherwise), there’s nothing inherently offensive about such analogies. But here we’re talking about clashes of deeply held belief. I won’t convince you, you won’t convince me, and as long as I hold my historical memory, I have no right to quarrel with yours.
And once such a fundamental point of disagreement is reached, any returns tend to diminish very quickly. So, again, I hope to resume the conversation in another guise at another time.
Vadim,
I’m glad you agree that President Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad of Iran is not speaking from the point of view of Imperialism, but against it.
From his point of view, Imperialism is the principal source of misery and Israel is only a problem insofar as it is an agent of Imperialism.
To this extent at least, President Ahmedi-Nejad is absolutely correct.
I stand by my statement that the source of war in our world is Imperialism.
Jonathan, you are exhausting!
I’m not losing you. I understand you very well.
Let’s take a different starting point again. I am what is called a white person. I was born in 1945 in a naval town on the Channel coast of England and taken as a toddler to East Africa, where I grew up. My whole life has repeatedly presented me with the challenge of my relationship to my fellow-human beings, in circumstances where I have always been surrounded by people different from myself, and more oppressed than myself.
I have tried to study this situation in itself, and I have read as widely as I could about it. This is my starting point.
You are a lawyer who has a powerful interest in what we can call for shorthand purposes, “transition”. I can easily imagine you as a judge or as an advocate in an international court or tribunal. But I think you are not ready for that because you do not understand how people take what you say. You think that your encyclopedic knowledge and the logical process you have absorbed from childhood is a clear light within you that will guide your way home; whereas it is a road to hell paved with good intentions.
You don’t yet understand, and you say so in direct terms, that a single other person would feel over-ridden by your scholarship and your logic. You don’t further understand that such other people are the majority in our world and they are the ones also, who are oppressed and who cry out for your advocacy, but on their side and not in a way that in their eyes clearly over-rides them.
I must leave this temporarily. I have a deadline. I will try to get back to it later and see what else in detail you have written.
I’m glad you agree that President Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad of Iran is not speaking from the point of view of Imperialism, but against it.
From his point of view, Imperialism is the principal source of misery and Israel is only a problem insofar as it is an agent of Imperialism.
Sure. Of course. Absence of the term “imperialism” from the linked report doesn’t mean anything. Curiously, neither does the term “Israel” appear. Wonder about that omission. Maybe if we just allow the mullahs to have their nuclear bomb they won’t consider using it.
A-N’s endearing little genocidal rant does include this assessment:
But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a “historic war”.
“It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat,” he lamented.
I don’t think Samuel Huntington could’ve said it more concisely. Might just be that the mullahs do have imperialism in mind — their own brand.
I’ve read this entire thread. I can be boring, but Dominic, my friend, you can also be dense. Pinochet sold to the US, and Assad father to the Soviets. Chile came out of the dark 70’s, it took decades allright, as a vibrant country. Syria never came out, still a wasteland of repression, poverty, and international terrorism.
The UN report confirms what millions of Lebanese already knew, and beyond shinning the light on the nature of Syrian affairs I don’t think it leads to any action. If the “optometrist” has a male son, I put my money on him inheriting Syria in 30 years.
David
O.k., that chore is done.
Now, Jonatahn, your third paragraph is an example of the presumption of the self-righteous, educated Westerner. You say “nobody has the right to limit my discourse on grounds of nationality” but this statement is meaningless to an anti-Imperialist. Or rather, it means that you have not recognised, or will not recognise, the fact of Imperialism. There is more evidence of this in you message further down.
This is where Freire is so strong when he says that we must not only recognise the oppression of the oppressed, but its actual nature. If you cannot bear to recognise the systematic nature of Imperialism, and keep insisting that it is simply one among meny other “evils”, and a relative thing, then you are refusing to recognise the nature of the oppression of the oppressesed.
As you go on in this message you purport to take us to a point of irreconcileable “clash of beliefs”, which is a pretty kind of reversal. But it is not true in our case. I think yours is here a kind of casuistry or sophistry. Your middle passages are the key. You are unaware that there is a large literature that claimed what you claim, in the cause of anti-Imperialism, long before you were born. You are unaware that there is and has always been another literature that says – “These Imperialists are stealing our clothes!”. Your arguments are anti-Imperialist arguments, they our our arguments, stolen for the purpose of being used against us.
I don’t want to crush you here Jonathan. I think you will rise in the law with or without any advice from me. But I think you will be a better lawyer if you become aware of this other body of, what to call it – “discourse”? Otherwise you will have to believe, wrongly, that the people who are going to be angry with you have no reason to be offended, but are simply being wicked. If you believe that you will become a dangerous person, like Vadim, who probably wants to “nuke” the frightened Iranians, seeing their fear as what he calls “aggression”.
I can’t ignore what you say about the tortured. Do you really think the tortured want to be agnostic, like you, about oppression? I don’t.
is that imperialism is the pre-eminent evil in the world today. My view is that it’s one among many evils.
All evils yes but who had the power he is the deadly Evil Jonathan
shaken off the imperial yoke but remained shackled in others. If a country is free of colonial rule but the people in it are still oppressed, tortured and exploited, then has it really liberated itself? I don’t believe that humanity can be liberated unless the individuals who make up humanity are free.
Jonathan, in the light of your talk can clarify to us why your nation did what it dose in Iraq from killing of civilians Iraqis and Afghanis also torturing them, what cause this? Is it your nation Shaken off or still not liberated? Is it not living in freedom?
all this relevant its all about the cultures and heritage and believes that nation build on, what we saw from your liberated nation in Iraq and Afghanistan its a sorrow and a sham even other nation you talking about may be not practise like what your nation did.
From your post you talking about your right and freedom to expressed your self and personality and your nation that’s good but the odd thing is imperialism and your nation strips this rights from the nations not just the individuals Jonathans, and as we speaks your nation try to clone their ideology on other nation so….
I think this talk you believed in Imperialism that all and it looking to me that you are proud of it.
UN Gives Green Light for Israel, Syria, Iran War
Hi Salah,
Your link goes to a very depressing warmongering article. Sometimes it is nice to lighten up.
See the picture on the blog of “The Angry Arab” of the young woman with a sign saying “Syria declares that it is not responsible for Hurricane Katrina.”
Some of the comments are also quite funny, although there are as usual some ugly ones.
When your own side has got the best jokes, you know you’re winning.
“If you believe that you will become a dangerous person, like Vadim, who probably wants to “nuke” the frightened Iranians, seeing their fear as what he calls “aggression”.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ28Ak03.html
Speaking before Ahmadinejad, Ali Akbari, a personal representative of the Supreme Leader at the Association of Islamic Schoolchildren, and who is also an assistant to the president, stated that “young Iranians are being readied to be the flagbearers of wiping off Israel from the world map”.
He doesn’t sound scared to me, Dominic. For the record, I have no urge whatsoever to “nuke Iran”; these absurd suggestions do you no credit at all. Try to see other posters points of view as human beings from time to time, instead of treating them as caricatures?
Vadim, the Iranians are scared. You can’t hear it, you can’t see it, and you are completely insensitive to all the horrible things that have been done to the them in the remembered recent past, but you want me to think of your own humanity. Well, practice what you preach. Those are not monsters, they are people. They are being menaced all the time by powers who continue to make war as a cynical instrument of policy.
Vadim,
In a sense Dominic is quite right about imperialism and aggression. It is clear from Ahmadinjad’s genocidal rantings that he views this as a struggle for dominance in the world vis-a-vis the West, and I think it is quite clear that an ‘umma controlling vast regions of the world under a revitalized califate – whether it be sunni or shi’a – projecting its power to enforce Islamic rule is certainly a form of imperialism, and quite aggressive.
Of course, Dominic, ensconced safely in the world of his outmoded 19th century theory cannot hear or see this – he’ll just say that we don’t really understand what imperialism is.
but you want me to think of your own humanity.
I’d settle for confining your representation of what I believe to what I have articulated, as I have in taking Ahmadinjad at his word: that he wants to eradicate Israel — WITH NO QUALIFIERS.
“Israel is only a problem insofar as it is an agent of Imperialism.”
You’re right again Dominic, your side does have the best jokes!
Iraq to Iran: The Empire Attacks
Scott Ritter