What will the Americans do with their captive? Is Saddam going to face a trial? Will the truth of his mass murders and crimes come out? Will the trial shed light on how the US backed him and supplied him with chemical weapons? Will it reveal how the US encouraged him to launch the war on Iran, causing the death of a million Iranians and Iraqis? Will the trial go into the alliances with and support for Saddam by so many of members and parties now in the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council? The dark clouds over Iraq haven't lifted yet.

Let's help him out, shall we? Dear Sami, following please find answers to your enquiries:

- Make sure he's tried by an Iraqi court and executed, and if that doesn't work, do it themselves.
- See above.
- Certainly. I hope that makes you glad.
- I fervently hope so. Part of the justification for the war certainly must be US culpability in helping prop up the bastard in the first place. Will you be directing that question to the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, China etc?
- The Iran/Iraq war is the Americans' fault? Sorry, answered a question with a question.
- Indeed, as it should.

What's the problem, Habibi? You keep asking questions that get you further into a corner:

So at this moment of joy, other questions keep intruding: Who is going to try Bremer, Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair? Will Iraq ever be free?

Well, the answer to the second question is somewhat dependent on the success of obstructionists like you.

What would this man have done? For Ramadani, the campaign in Iraq was a "US-led unjust and immoral war". I can't help responding that whether we went to war or not he'd still be alright, enjoying the benefits of the free, prosperous and democratic part of the world he spends so much disparaging.

What would he do? By opposing the war, he says in essence that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power, and his sons left in line for the succession, unless coaxed out of power by international pressure. That worked real well in the previous 12 years. And I doubt it would be a great big stretch to assume that he railed against the sanctions back in the day.

Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein. The inescapable corollary of opposing the war, for the the marchers to the screeching columnists to the tut-tutting English and European dinner party set to the demented and frothy remants of the US far left to the nervous and concerned church ladies of the American middle classes, is preferring to have left Saddam in power.

And I come back to my first comment: the cloudy confusion. Just what is this man saying? Read the article twice if you like. What is his point? There isn't one, other than the need to say, yet again, that no matter what happens, oppose America abroad. "Saddam is gone, the resistance will grow." Is that a bad or a good thing? If bad, then surely he argues for having left Saddam alone. If good, then he's glad that the coalition will now suffer increased casualties and perhaps leave sooner. Before stability has been returned to the country.

There is no mention, by the way, in Ramadi's piece on whether he intends to leave his life in the west now and return to Iraq to help in the rebuilding of his country.

I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election.

Carrie B.

And then a little further down,

I'd like to remind folks to keep in mind...

The press is reading.

Musn't make it too obvious what we really think. Some of the other posters sound similar warnings, while others speculate that the Carrie B. type postings are partially the fault of provocatuers. If you care to page through the whole thread, you will see a conversation predominantly among people consoling themselves on a setback and exhorting each other to keep the faith. On the day after Saddam Hussein had been captured and humiliated before the world.

Dean's speech, the snippet I saw anyway, was subdued and quiet. He expressed approval that Saddam had been captured, and allowed that this was Bush's day. But it was grudging. He never cracked a smile and looked a little tired. Here's his statement.

Joe Lieberman reacted correctly, expressed actual jubilation, and you believed him. And he only spoke the truth: If Dean had been President, Saddam would still be in power today.

And this: "This evil man has to face the death penalty." He doesn't want an international body to have anything to do with it, and says if the Iraqis can't agree to impose death, he should be tried by the US and executed. What he said.

Since 1648, when the Treaty of Westphalia created the principle that sovereign states, and therefore their sovereign heads, are both legally and morally absolute, there has been no legal basis for proceeding against such a person, however heinous the crimes he is known to have committed.

In other words, there isn't any internationl precedent to go on despite the pious calls of those that believe the best way to deal with Saddam is to have him tried by an international court convened by the UN.

Did you get that? As you read of such statements in the coming days, reflect on the fact that those same people are the ones who argue that full soveriegnty must be handed back to the Iraqi people and pronto.

Let's hold them to that, and look, perhaps unrealistically, for an admission finally that Saddam must be tried by an Iraqi court or tribunal, which almost certainly will institute the death penalty for the purpose. The best possible outcome of Saddam's capture would be a public trial with enough time to present methodically a representative set of charges covering all his years in power followed by a date with a hangman, said date to be well recorded for posterity, and most of all for Iraqis.

One cannot become a member of the European Union and want to start this membership with a veto.

Gerhard Schroeder

Fine. Not a bit politics going on there. That's just common sense, and has nothing to do with the fact that Germany (and France) in their arrogance never imagined finding themselves in the absurd position of having only a few votes more than Poland (Poland, I ask you!), who, after all, was one of those countries who missed a good opportunity to shut up a while back.

Nothing new under the sun, isn't that about it? Tell me if I'm wrong. France and Germany, with the blood of the stability pact already on their hands, are about to do in the constitution over the voting issue because it threatens their primacy. Some people are probably hoping that something like that will happen anyway.

Yawn. Please note that I have broken protocol to mention the EU. I can make such an exception very occasionally, and only in mid-day when I am most alert and thus the risk of spontaneous trance is minimal.

Do they know it's Christmas?

In collaboration with Project Sance*, Bluebird** is determined to share the spirit of Christmas with hundreds of underprivileged youngsters.

With your support of the Bluebird 2003 Christmas Gift-Giving project, we can make the magic of Christmas a reality for them. Contributions of basic food and clothing are needed.

Suggested food donations include: powdered soups, concentrated beverages (syrup, powder, etc.), coffee, sugar, tea (black or fruit), packaged Christmas pastries or cookies, precooked/dehydrated foods and meals, and canned meats.

Suggested clothing donations include warm (woolen) socks and hats.

How specifically can you contribute to the Bluebird 2003 Christmas Collection?

As an individual: Collect any food or clothing from the above list and call Karolyn Andrews at 721 509 149 (English) or Tereza Urbánková 602 531 391 (Czech and English) for delivery details.

As a company: Designate a project coordinator. Place 2 boxes/containers in an area where employees can donate food or clothing from the above list. Have your project coordinator call Karolyn Andrews at 721 509 149 (English) or Tereza Urbánková 602 531 391 (Czech and English) for delivery details.

When and where:
Donations of food and clothing should be delivered on Friday, December 19, Saturday, December 20, and Monday, December 22. For delivery information, contact Karolyn Andrews at 721 509 149 (English) or Tereza Urbánková 602 531 391 (Czech and English).

Contribute to the Bluebird 2003 Christmas Give-Giving project, and let them know it's Christmas.

That suggestion for warm clothes got to me a bit. I walk every day in the park near my office. It's hilly and there is a lot of shrubbery and scrub growth. I have seen obviously homeless kids, carrying their few belongings stuffed into plastic carrier bags, looking for places to crawl up into the bush and sack out. The other day I came around a corner on one trail and saw a dirty, discarded sleeping bag (summer weight) and lying next to it a can of toluene. Opened and empty. Rather heartbreaking.

Beanies for Baghdad. (Do the scroll down thing.)

At first I thought this was about sending ... ahem ... beanie babies (it's embarassing to say, write or think that) in care packages to the troops. Interesting concept. On foot patrol by day dodging RPG rounds? What better way to unwind back at the barracks than by rearranging your (those things) collection?

But no. Beanie moms are exhorted to donate their floppy little friends to the kids of Iraq, a worthy idea to be sure. So, now I kind of feel bad about thinking of making fun of it. Never mind.

...You are average to above average for the business world; buy a few gadgets and you might graduate to guru.

What am I, from Lake Woebegone?

Survey brought to you by Microsoft, wannabe purveyors of digital gadgets.

CNN.com - Cannibal trial begins in Germany - Dec. 3, 2003

...
He is alleged to have cut off part of the victim's body before the pair ate it together. The defendant is then alleged to have cut up the victim, storing his body in a freezer and eating it over the following months.

With the first sip, hints of sweet caramel and savoury lard hit the palate, usually followed by facial expressions connoting confusion, disgust or anger.

3. Several initiatives were identified as priorities for American Voices Abroad during the year preceding the US presidential elections. The “100,000 for 2004” campaign, launched in Berlin earlier this month, was expanded to cover the entire organization. Under this project we will seek out American voters abroad, ensure that they are registered to vote and ask them to sign a pledge declaring that they will vote only for candidates who oppose the doctrine of preemptive war and the USA Patriot act, which has so drastically dismantled American civil liberties.

Be warned. Nothing there about a requirement to wear bright, identifiable clothing as a warning of their approach. They could be anywhere.

“The thing about Child of Pragues (sic) was that the statue was so cheaply made that the head would inevitably break off, the neck being the weak point in the design. . . . Irish kitchen drawers and garages are full of decapitated zombie Child of Pragues (sic).”

Infantofprague blogger "The Holy Infant" thinks that story is "kind of creepy, but precious nonetheless. (And what about the Infant of Prague isn’t precious?)." Indeed.

And I can't quite resist one more:

The Infant of Prague can be visited at his home on the web at a site maintained for the Church of Our Lady of the Victory.

They even have photographs of the Carmelite Sisters changing his dress!

The only hope for Iraq to achieve stability again is through a coaltion of Sunni tribes - the Shias are simply too fragmented. And the only way to achieve a Sunni tribal coalition is by handing control back to the Baath party. They will bring stability back to Iraq. They will be brutal unfortunately. But better that than US soldiers kicking in doors. That's a gestapo tactic.

We will lose in Iraq. Iraq is in for a decade of pain and suffering, pain and suffering that needn't take place. Get the troops out now.

That's Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector for Iraq, speaking Saturday night in Prague to the American Voices Abroad conference I mentioned below.

For me, this was a new one: I'd like to know if even George Galloway has ever said that power must now be returned to the Baathists as the only hope for Iraq.

Scott Ritter is a great speaker and I highly recommend him should you ever get the chance. He is also a bit of a motormouth, and might leave you with the impression of a needlessly high word-to-argument ratio. However, he is highly competent in flow, and preaching to an audience of the converted Saturday night, he was very much on message.

Pity about the message.

The incredible gullibility of being Czech

Ritter began his talk with what I thought was a spectacularly condescending putdown of the Czechs. It is appropriate, he said, to be meeting here in Prague at a time when the Czech Republic is making the mistake of committing military resources to the illegal conflict in Iraq. The Czechs suffered long under the previous regime and may be under the mistaken impression that they owe a debt of gratitude to the US for its part in the downfall of the Soviet Union. How naive! Czechs, he said, "slavishly" follow the US and fail to question its motives. For more on this, read his his op-ed piece from last week's Prague Post.

Though Ritter normally speaks very quickly, at times hardly stopping for breath, his introductory remarks were clearly aimed at Czechs in the audience, and it seemed to me that during that part he spoke v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, as you would to a young child. That along with the simple fact that he couldn't be more wrong did not auger well for the rest of the talk. (Memo to Ritter: a majority of Czechs polled before the war expressed oppostion to it.)

The theme of the evening was the US (or George Bush) and its (or his) true, unadmitted intentions in Iraq. Ritter's vehicle in developing that theme was his experiences as a weapons inspector. And his has been a remarkable career: from blood and thunder gung-ho marine lieutenant to respected arms inspection officer in Russia in the 80s to intelligence officer in Gulf War I and finally chief inspector during the first inspections regime in Iraq after the war. He projects the unmistakable aura of a super-competent, take-charge, get it done now kind of person. Undoubtedly he did his job very well. I wonder if he would disagree with the statement that he may have done his job too well, at least for some.

Ritter says he was ill used by the CIA. The Agency not only provided him intelligence on Iraqi WMD programs, something he needed to do his job, but they planted spies in the inspection teams as well - and the Iraqis cottoned on to it. It is that fact, says Ritter, and not the desire to prevent discovery of WMD, that made Saddam so intransigent and uncooperative toward the UN inspectors.

More importantly, he says, Iraq simply had no WMD. Every inspection Ritter's team performed to verify Iraqi declarations panned out. Not a single surprise inspection on the advice of the American, British or Israeli intelligence services turned up a thing. Ritter thinks this shouldn't surprise anyone. The shelf life of the constituents and growth media needed to produce chemical or biological WMD is short - three years maximum. You can't, therefore, bury a chemical weapons program and dig it up years later and restart it.

It all makes a compelling story, and I don't doubt that a lot of it is true. When he relates his specific experiences, there is no hint of disingenuousness. (I also doubt whether he is telling the whole technical story.) If his goal is to proclaim that both the UN and the US (and ally) failed to give him due credit and admit that Iraq, at least on his evidence, could not be proven to be hiding WMD, he has a case to make.

But like many anti-war/anti-Bush evangelists, he goes a whole lot farther.

The empire that will be America

America today is about imposing a broad, imperial hegemony on the world.

That's a direct quote. Ritter, changing into high gear, can come to no other conclusion from the way the Bush administration made WMD the official pretext for war and the fact that none so far have been found. The US clearly lied. It attacked Iraq which was "no threat, no enemy!" and thereby proved that it wishes simply to extend American power by force. And we are off to the races.

Don't believe that the US has any interest in bringing democracy to Iraq. This is demonstrably not so, says Ritter, in the plain language used by the Americans in justifying the invasion: non-compliance with UN resolutions. That's what they said - see? right here? - and they can't go retroactively claiming justification for other reasons now. It's not allowed.

It's also not allowed, apparently, to rejoice in the fact that Iraq for the first time in decades lives out from under the heel of a fascist dictatorship. It goes without saying that the Iraqi human rights record under Saddam was not discussed all evening. Ritter: sure, Saddam was bad and I have no love for him. Another direct quote: "But he [Saddam] ruled the country for 30 years and at least built up a stable bureaucracy. Iraqis today don't have even that." Iraq was better off before the invasion, he said. I saw many heads nodding in fervent agreement.

It gets better (or worse?). Iraqis, we are assured, supported the invasion in advance...because they trusted the US when it said Saddam had WMD and must be disarmed. More naive foreigners, it seems. When it became obvious that no WMD will be found (when exactly was that?), Iraqis said

Damn you, America! You killed us for a decade for no reason!

Ritter is referring to the UN sponsored sanctions against Iraq. He apparently believes that the sanctions were held determinedly in place by a series of US presidents against the wishes of all the other members of the security council. No mention of abuses of the oil for food program, no admission that Saddam himself profited hugely from the sanctions regime both financially and politically, characterizing them to his people as simple aggression.

And not once during the evening did Ritter or any questioner ask, "might not the Iraqis today be glad to be free of Saddam and optimistic at the chance to develop democracy? Might they be happy that a regime that killed hundreds of thousands is gone?" I want to stress that. Not once was it suggested that Iraqis might have any other reason to be glad of an invasion of their country than to rid it of WMD. On the contrary, Iraqis know today that the US is in Iraq "illegally" and want them out.

A sick country, a sick society

Several times during his talk Ritter proclaimed that he was a "proud American, a patriotic American." That can't be doubted. One of the few moments of comedy came when an older American lady plaintively asked him if his feelings of pride didn't amount to "blind patriotism" (a dirty word). I mean, she said, what right do we have to think we are better than anyone else? [audience: applause] I wear the uniform and I took the oath, answered Ritter. I believe America again can be the greatest country in the world! [audience: nervous chuckles.] Another questioner prompted him, "is it true that you voted for Ronald Reagan?" [audience: laughter] Ritter: "I am a lifelong registered Republican. I voted for Ronald Reagan twice, I voted for George Bush, Sr., and I voted for George W. Bush." [audience: GAASSSP!!] "But George Bush lied to me. He lied to us all."

I note that he was happy enough with Reagan/Bush truth telling over Iran-contra to vote for Bush Sr. in 1988. But then in those days he had no axe to grind with an administration he thinks has dissed him.

American is sick today because we have forgotten how to be citizens, how to hold our leaders to account, says Ritter. It's shameful that more of us don't vote, that we accept unquestioningly what we are fed. "America today is not a representative democracy," he says. It's hard to find fault with a message urging more civic participation. I can't disagree that our low voter turnout rates are bad. But the idiocy of the statement that the US is not a representative democracy makes the whole discussion moot.

And spot the quantum leap. And the interesting abandonment of the useful legal standard of strictness in making a case. The US has embarked on a crusade of global imperial domination (pretty good for a sick country) and we all just sit there. The evidence for this is as follows:

a) Scott Ritter's findings in Iraq were manipulated for political purposes, and
b) the stated reasons for the Iraq invasion (WMD) have not been proven.

Is all that clear? Because if the US and Britain can't go justifying their illegal war on a sovereign state on any old pretext like human rights and regional stability when their original, official pretext was WMD (which it wasn't, for fuck's sake!), then Scott Ritter can't go adding any new reasons for his conclusions, either! (If this sounds to you like the level of debate found in the average schoolyard, it's sounding just about right.)

Thus, ladies and gentlemen, we have: Scott Ritter's WMD findings ignored - WMD given as justification for Iraq invasion - no WMD found yet - US policy bent on "total, imperial hegemony." Quod erat demonstrandum. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

There's an old episode of Seinfeld where Jerry buys a blazer from a swanky clothes boutique. The salesman flirts with and eventually begins dating Elaine. Jerry gets annoyed when the salesman ignores him and won't acknowledge his status as Elaine's former boyfriend. Jerry decides to return the blazer. The clerk asks him, "and can I ask your reason for returning it?" Jerry: "for spite." The manager is called to confer. "I'm sorry, sir, we cannot accept returns for spite."

Jerry: "OK, then...I'm returning it because it doesn't fit me."

Manager: "Too late! You already said spite!"

I think that pretty much sums up the world according to Scott Ritter and the good members of American Voices Abroad.

I N T E R T O P S
.C O M

It's an online betting shop.

American Voices Abroad is a non-partisan coalition with chapters in ten international capitols bringing together Americans abroad in opposition to current US foreign and domestic policy.

After September 11, 2001 we experienced an unprecedented outpouring of support and sympathy for the US in the countries where we live, only to see it squandered by aggressive unilateralism and disregard for world opinion.

AVA hopes to remind the countries that we live in that Americans do not stand united behind the policies of the present U.S. government and to encourage debate and discussion among Americans worldwide about the course of our democracy.

Oh. Apart from the squandering of goodwill theme, which I've been meaning to talk about and will do so later, there isn't much to get worked up about here. I can't object to somebody wanting Europeans to know that, well, not everybody supports Bush.

But - are Europeans really that stupid? Aren't we supposed to be the stupid ones? I'm not sure I've ever discussed Bush with an anti-Bush European who didn't take pains to point out that he didn't even win an absolute majority of votes. The papers are always full of polls showing how divided the country is and was over these issues. Guess what - Europeans actually don't think America stands united behind Bush. And ignoramuses that do aren't going to be swayed by efforts like this. So what's the problem here?

I think a little more honesty is in order: re-read the mission statement and replace each instance of "American" with "us", "our" or "we" and you just about have it. But more power to them. I'm not really complaining. Not that much ;).

Many schoolchildren are expected to leave their classrooms, particularly in London schools, and join the march.

Sigh. Kind of makes me sad.

'A really simple thing to do,' he says, 'is that you take off your helmet, you take off your sunglasses and you make good eye contact with the locals.'

...the majority of the Scots had the unmistakable look of men suddenly confronted with the realisation that they had strayed into a place where bad things were likely to happen.

On Monday they upset the Dutch 1-0 probably because they didn't really believe they had a chance. That can free you. Last night they suddenly realized they were in over their heads. Result - deer in the headlights.

tell your friends in London that G in Baghdad would have appreciated them much more if they had demonstrated against the atrocities of saddam. And if you could ask them when will be the next demonstration to support the people of north Korea, the democratic republic of Congo and Iran?

Dear George,
I would just like to say how much I hate you. You have done nothing positive in your whole time as president. You are the reason for the poverty in the Middle East. You have no idea what you are doing. You're killing loads of people, and that is not excluding your own nation too. There are still lots of very poor people in America, and they are getting poorer.
You keep making excuses about Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, but all you were in Iraq for was the oil. Saddam had been there for 30 years, so why is it only now you decided to act? You keep talking about September 11 when all you do is bomb other countries and give Israel lots of money. It is a very bad idea that you have come over here.
I don't want to grow up in a country which is so influenced by you and your policies.

Mickey (12)

Don't you think that's their problem? That's not your problem and that's not my problem. There are many bad regimes on Earth, we can list several hundred... at the moment I would put the Bush regime as one of them.

There was an interesting exchange on Matt Welch's blog a few days ago, sparked when Matt scolded Andrew Sullivan for taking a Kinsley column as evidence that the whole of the anti-war side was unable to appreciate that anything at all had changed as a result of 9/11. Kinsley doesn't qualify as a member of the loony, paranoid left like Vidal or Noam Chomsky do, and it's not very useful to paint with such broad strokes. They are out there, the question is how big really is that group, and should we even pay attention to "those people" at all?

Bush is about to visit the UK and stay overnight at the Queen's house - which he pronounces Bucking-ham Palace. The outpouring of hate and vitriol will be simply unprecedented. If you think, in the case of our European allies, that "those people" do not constitute a very large group, then I think you need to look again. The amount of money, time and effort that have gone into the Hate Bush movement in Britain is just incredible. If there are voices out there still in support of the alliance - other than a few Tony Blair loyalists and the odd columnist - they are mostly being drowned out or ignored themselves.

I took the above quote from David Aaronovitch, who puts the upcoming demonstrations in some perspective. Worth a read.

FYI, if you're in Europe, the BBC is showing David Frost's interview with Bush three or four times today. Also available on their website.

Thanks. BTW, I was in your city this June for the first time in thirty years, and my wife and I both loved it.

Cool.