November 6, 2005
There are still a remarkable number of people who maintain
illusions in Gen. Colin Powell, and believe he was really a "good guy"
who tried his best to moderate the evil nature of the Bush
administration but failed. As part of that, they actually give credence
to Powell's recent "mea a little bit culpa" speech in which Powell asserted that his February, 2003 speech to the U.N.
was now "painful" for him and a permanent "blot" on his record. Of
course he hid behind the claim of having "been misled about the
accuracy of the intelligence on which he relied" and didn't take any
actual responsibility for what he said. This despite the fact that reports at the time (June, 2003) had Powell saying "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," and removing "dozens of pages" of alleged evidence.
Supporters
of Powell like to claim that Powell was just being a "good soldier,"
but, with apologies to German readers, the proper colloquial term for
Powell's behavior is that of a "good German." A "good soldier" not only
doesn't have to obey illegal orders, it is is obligation to disobey them. From Powell's role in covering up the My Lai massacre, to his speech at the U.N. which even he recognized was filled with "bullshit," Powell has acted to promote
illegal actions; in the latter case, he played a key role in moving
American "establishment" opinion to support the illegal invasion of
Iraq, and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and
Americans. Of particular interest are statements like these which
Powell made in his U.N. presentation: "My
colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid
sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and
conclusions based on solid intelligence." Such a statement takes on even more significance given today's revelation
that reports as early as February, 2002 had indicated that key portions
of the "intelligence" presented by Powell were sourced to a "likely
fabricator."
Colin Powell is a free man and not only welcomed,
but honored by "polite society." A war crimes trial for his role in
selling an illegal war doesn't seem to be on the horizon. Meanwhile,
another General, Iraqi Gen. Amer al-Saadi, sits in solitary confinement
in a prison in Iraq, where he has been for the last 2 1/2 years. As
with most prisoners held by the Americans, he has neither been
convicted, tried, or even charged with any crime. Gen. al-Saadi, you'll
remember, was the Iraqi liason to the weapons inspectors, the voice of
Iraq when Iraq denied having any weapons of mass destruction or WMD
programs. And just what was Gen. al-Saadi's crime? For all intents and purposes, it was speaking the truth to Powell's lies: "'I
have always told the truth about these old programs,' Saddam Hussein's
top scientific adviser said in an interview with German TV last April
[2003]. 'The future will show it.' After surrendering to U.S. forces on
April 12 [2003], al-Saadi was jailed, interrogated by the CIA and
declared a prisoner of war. But his line on WMD never changed, and now
-— following declarations by former weapons inspector David Kay —- it
seems that al-Saadi was indeed telling the truth. 'I'm still vegetating
in solitude,' [i.e., solitary confinement] al-Saadi wrote to his wife
last month [January, 2004]. '[I feel] degraded.' And although there was talk this June about the possibility of freeing al-Saadi (and other Iraqi scientists),
it appears it was just talk. Although the 2004 election has come and
gone, and the Duelfer report has long since proven that al-Saadi was
telling the truth to the world, his freedom, and ability to speak would
still be an embarassment to the U.S., and that outweighs a man's right
to freedom in this "might makes right" world.
The intimate
connection between Powell and al-Saadi is part of why al-Saadi is still
being imprisoned and silenced. In his U.N. speech, Powell said: "It
was Gen. Saadi who last fall publicly pledged that Iraq was prepared to
cooperate unconditionally with inspectors. Quite the contrary, Saadi's
job is not to cooperate, it is to deceive; not to disarm, but to
undermine the inspectors; not to support them, but to frustrate them
and to make sure they learn nothing." Al-Saadi shot back at Powell's slander:"Al-Saadi
described the report as 'unworthy of a superpower,' and singled out
Powell's charges point by point as being fabrications.
"In
particular, he derided Powell's assertions that Iraq attempts to hide
secret information by keeping it moving in vehicles driven around the
country.
"'All of that is fiction,' he said. 'It is simply not true.'
"Saadi
described Powell's approach as a 'a deliberate attempt to undermine the
credibility and professionalism of the inspection bodies … by making
allegations which directly contradict their assessments or cast doubt
on their credibility.'" History has proven that every word al-Saadi spoke was true, and every accusation made by Colin Powell ("We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile biological agent factories...There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Saddam Hussein has
chemical weapons.") was false. And still Al-Saadi rots in prison. At
least we think so. As a reflection of both the way the U.S. government
conceals information about the people it is holding, and the lack of
curiousity on the part of the media, it's interesting to consider what
we know about the status of al-Saadi's imprisonment. Newsweek actually ran a story
in June with a picture captioned "Was el-Saadi [sic] released?", and
reported that "Former U.N. inspector David Albright said he'd recently
heard credible reports that al-Saadi...might have been freed from
custody," while in this exchange
which took place in the British House of Parliament in February, it is
asserted rather specifically that Dr. Al-Saadi "was released by the US
on 18 January 2005." Yet the Newsweek article also reports that
a "State Department official...denied al-Saadi had been freed from
custody," while in July, 2005 (i.e., well after January), Dr. Rod
Barton, an Australian scientist who was a key deputy to Dr. Charles
Duelfer, made a strong plea for the release of Dr. al-Saadi, which
would certainly indicate that someone in a position to know still
believed him to be held. Given all this, and the fact that if Gen.
al-Saadi had been released, chances are we would have heard about it (and heard from him), Left I on the News considers it virutally certain that Dr. Amer al-Saadi is still being held prisoner by the Americans.
Back in 2004, here's what then chief weapons inspector David Kay had to say: "As
a prisoner of war, al-Saadi can be held without charges until the
Coalition declares an end to hostilities. Kay suggests that the
Pentagon will ultimately relinquish al-Saadi and other scientists to
Iraqi authorities, who may decide to indict them for crimes against
humanity." This, of course, begs the question of "what war"
we are talking about. Regardless of the linguistic fiction of the "war
on terror," Gen. al-Saadi was an officer in the Iraqi army, and if the
U.S. declared him a prisoner of war, it was the war of aggression
launched by the United States, i.e., the invasion of Iraq. And, while
fighting continues (obviously) in Iraq, that war succeeded in topplng
the existing Iraqi government and replacing it with a new government,
which has now officially been granted "sovereignty" by the United
States and the United Nations, and the United States is no longer at
war with the Iraqi government, i.e., those hostilities have ceased.
American troops are currently in Iraq at the fictional "invitation" of
the Iraqi government, helping to stabilize the country against internal
opposition. The Americans clearly have no right whatsoever (not that
they ever did) to continue to hold Gen. al-Saadi. But in prison (and,
presumably, in solitary confinement) he remains, his voice silenced
while the lying Gen. Colin Powell walks free.
|
