Saddam's wife hires US lawyer Curtis Doebbler to act in his defence.

From the article: Saddam's wife has chosen US lawyer Curtis Doebbler to act in his defence.

I am a pacifist in so far as I will not use force to achieve political ends and in principle I reject the use of force by both governmental and non-governmental actors. At the same time, I can understand the frustrations of those individuals who turn to the use of force when they or others with whom they identify are being oppressed and have no adequate means of legal recourse.

I strongly support the Social Justice Movement, which I view as the conglomeration of anti-globalists, human rights defenders, and anarchists who are striving for social change towards a world of greater equality. In this sense, I believe in a world of greater equality where no person or company can acquire such a disparity in wealth that others have less than the minimum that enables them to live meaningful lives. To this end I support actions to ensure the redistribution of wealth through governmental intervention as long as these efforts are not based on political biases and reflect the will of the majority of the people in any given country. And I support the intervention of the state to ensure education, health care, social welfare, a minimum income, and the protection of all fundamental human rights.

I ardently oppose American and more broadly western neo-imperialism which is being imposed through the exploitation of the majority of the people of the world and the economic and military dominance of the United States. I believe that all people have a right and a duty to take all necessary measures to end the United States’ inhumane dominance of the lives of billions of people.

I believe in the right of all people to make an informed choice about their government and to participate in their government in a meaningful way. To achieve this I believe that it is necessary for every person to be guaranteed basic education according to their abilities, the basic health care that is needed to live a meaningful and quality life, and the basic means of subsistence.

I am committed to striving through all means possible and within my capabilities to ensuring that all people, everywhere in world have their human rights respected. To this end, I will employ all my abilities to further the cause of human rights for the most vulnerable, the poorest, and those who have been disenfranchised. The human rights upon which I base my commitment are those which have been accepted by consensus by the international community either in treaties to which particular states have become parties, or, those rights found under customary international law. I believe that human rights must reflect an international consensus and that they should be periodically reviewed with input from all sectors of society and through means that allow extremely broad participation so as to ensure that international human rights law reflects the claims, demands and expectations of the overwhelming majority of the people in the world.

I believe that international law provides a basis for peaceful coexistence. This, I believe, is only the case when states respect international law. When states violate international it is necessary that all steps be taken by all people to punish violating governments and to ensure that they respect international law. This, I believe, is especially important as concerns the most powerful countries in the world.

Finally, I am committed to upholding my beliefs through action and the support of others’ actions. Such action is the right and responsibility of every individual in the world. It is my particularly strong pledge to assist others, anywhere in the world, who are striving to protect the human rights of the most vulnerable person in their societies.

This page provides some examples of the writing of Dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler on "America's illegal and cowardly war on Iraq."

The Illegality of the War

Perhaps the criticism of the American conduct of the war is not ill-placed. Indeed, by all accounts even the Pentagon's is scrutinized carefully with knowledge of the laws of war; it is the United States military that has committed the overwhelming number of serious violations of international law. Let me run through a few.

First to start with the United States started an illegal war. This violation of the most basic and fundamental principle of international law, and especially the Charter of the United Nations, not only made the United States a serious violator of international law, but irresponsibly exposed the American people to the treat of use of force, even nuclear weapons, by the Iraqi regime in accordance with international law. It also made many in the United States government guilty of international crimes against the peace and the United States one of the most serious violators of human rights over night. It is true that Iraqi President Saaddam Hussein had also violated his peoples' human rights in the past and even the prohibition of the use of force in past. However, he was condemned for both and force was used against him to end his illegal occupation of Kuwait. Will force be used against the United States to end its illegal invasion of Iraq? It should and it could, but it will not because the United States has violated international law once again by threatening states that might use force against it to uphold the law.

The illegal war also mans that the use of force threatening the lives of Iraqi's is a violation of international human rights law. Not only is the right to life customary international law, but it is always provided for in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man to which the United States is legally bound. Yes, some have argued that it is does apply abroad, but this irrational argument runs in the face of the nature of human rights instruments which are to provide individuals the greatest protection of their most fundamental rights as possible. To allow countries to violate human rights abroad is merely giving a license to countries to hire in or in many case merely let in foreigners to commit human rights violations. This would be contrary to the object and purpose of every international human rights instrument. Indeed, the United States may even have the right--but doubtful as he is a sitting head of state--to arrest Iraqi President Saaddam Hussein, but this must be done using proportionate force. To attack a country using 300 cruise missiles, radioactive (nuclear?) weapons, hundreds of thousands of troops, and thousands of tons of conventional explosives and destroying most government buildings and many civilian ones is not a proportionate use of force even if the aim is legitimate.

Even if the United States war is illegal and a gross violation of human rights has it not at least been conducted in accordance with most laws of international humanitarian law which we know apply regardless of the legality of the conflict. These laws require first and foremost that civilian not be targeted, that only discriminating weapons be used, and that civilian objects not be attacked. There are many more rules, but these are the basic ones that form the core of customary international humanitarian law. The United States has violated all three of them in the first week of the war. The United States has attacked civilians, most recently in a market place and apartment complex. It also announced with pride that it had attacked several apartment complexes before the 'real war' even began trying to kill the Iraqi President. These attacks are both against civilians and against civilian objects. The fact that high ranking Iraqi's might have been present in some of these apartment complexes does not change them from civilian objects to military targets as the American claims seemed to suggest. Instead the claims are confessions of war criminals who are actually bragging about their violations of international humanitarian law. Moreover, the United States has used indiscriminate weapons. For example, Basra was bombed with cluster bombs. Even if these weapons were not indiscriminate from the start they certainly became so after American and British sources encouraged Iraqi's out into the streets of Basra by claiming they had no plans to attack the city because they were no soldiers in it. What changed their plans? Did they find soldiers? No that is not what they said. Instead they said that that they need to control the city, apparently again as the cluster bombing indicates, without distinction for civilians and combatants.

I guess the only question remaining is who will try to bring American's to justice for their violations of international law. Unfortunately, it will probably not be international lawyers who cowardly support the war or half-heartedly object to it. It will probably be left to more radical and determined forces. Those forces are undoubtedly right now planning their revenge on Americans, unfortunately, they also will probably not respect international law, but who will blame them as America has set the example.

The Cowardly Nature of America's aggression

A coward is someone who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger.

To call the American military forces, the most powerful army in the world, cowards, might seem fool worthy, but it is also probably very true to the meaning of the word.

Having the most powerful army in the world you would think that we would be willing when need requires that we deploy it to fight a fair fight face to face with our enemy who can see even when they cannot see us because of our superior technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead we deploy long range missiles which target and kill innocent people with such regularity that I have heard foreign military officers refer to the United States army as the “coward who fight from 30 feet.”

How did we get this name? Well, it shouldn’t surprise military officers, even Americans. Just look at the wars we have fought. We have never attacked an army that was even close to our army’s capability. Instead we have attacked Granada, Panama, Haiti, and Afghanistan, just to name a few. Even when North Korea, a much less powerful army, but one with at least something we fear—nuclear weapons—stood up to us we backed down. Yes, we sent ships, but they remained thousands of miles away. And yes, we have troops in South Koreas, but we quickly explained to the North that we would never attack them, although I am not sure they will believe such cowards.

Afghanistan was probably the best example of the Americans’ cowardly armed force. Most Afghans fought using weapons that would have been considered sub-par in World War II. One American military officer even described the fight as pitting a 21st Century army against a World War I army. Still for days the Afghans held out relying on very little more than they inferior weapons and quite a lot of pride. They realized they were overpowered. They realized that they could not even get close to the American planes that bombed them day and night from altitudes which they could only imagine. They also knew that they had pride in their country and would die defending it from an illegal foreign invasion. To this day—more than a year after the war—American is still losing the war in Afghanistan and Afghans increasing hate Americans. One reason for this is that they think American soldiers are cowards and fought a cowardly war against their people.

It is likely that the Iraqi’s will think the same way. The Americans will not charge into the streets of Baghdad looking for the evil doers of the regime. No they will remain at a distance. Dropping bombs from the sky. They will send messages telling Iraqi’s to stay at home and not to support the regime, thereby pushing the brunt of the human cost of the conflict unto the shoulders of Iraqi civilians. This is exactly what happened in the last Gulf War. When Iraqi’s rose up, we abandoned them. Now we tel them to rise up and stand outside the city gates and watch as they are massacred. For the Bush family, this will truly cement their legacy of cowardice as commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces.

Finally, perhaps the best confirmation of the appropriateness of bestowing the appellation of ‘coward’ on American soldiers is their disrespect for international humanitarian law. In the conflict in Iraq American have attacked civilians, killed civilians, attacked civilian objects like homes, destroyed these civilian objects, and used weapons—such as cluster bombs—which do not discriminate between combatants and civilians. In training soldiers about international humanitarian law—the laws of war—one of the most commonly used arguments to encourage respect for these laws is the very real enticement of respect that will come from their adversary. Throughout history armies that respected the laws of war have been recognized for their military talents and courage, while armies who have ignored these rules have been branded cowards. Yes, sometimes they have been feared, but almost always they have been branded cowards because they took civilian life to protect their own.

Today, the world’s most powerful army is an army of cowards. They are soldiers who are willing to risk the lives of innocent civilians to protect their own. I don’t know about my fellow Americans, but I don’t feel very much protected by such cowards.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.