Call to free Iraq's Tariq Aziz

BBC ^ | Monday, 24 December 2007, 00:40 GMT

[james500]

The spiritual leader of Iraq's Chaldean Christian community has called on US forces to release Saddam Hussein's ex-deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

Cardinal Emmanuel Delly made the request in his Christmas message.

Mr Aziz, who is himself a Christian, gave himself up to US forces after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 but no charges have been brought against him.

He was seen in court last year in his pyjamas, testifying for the defence in the trial of Saddam Hussein.

"In terms of Tariq Aziz," Cardinal Delly said, "we have to demand the release of all those who were captured and which have no evidence against them."

The Chaldean patriarch of Baghdad, who criticised the US-led invasion in 2003, said his requests to visit Mr Aziz in prison had been turned down.

Iraqi prosecutors say he could face charges in connection with the crushing of the Shia Muslim uprising after the 1991 Gulf War.

In January last year, Mr Aziz's lawyer said his client had suffered a stroke.

In his message, Cardinal Delly also called for religious freedom in Iraq, where many Christians have been kidnapped, killed or forced to flee.

[ReignOfError]

Iraq was a secular dictatorship. There were Chaldean Christians and Armenians in the government, although the vast majority were Sunni Muslims.

Saddam had a "religious awakening" after his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War [*], adding "Allahu Akbar" in Arabic script to the Iraqi flag. It was pretty transparent pandering, and Iraqi Muslims and neighboring countries didn't buy it.

[*] I've never liked the phrase "first Gulf war." The first ran from 1980-88 and was between Iran and Iraq.

[ReignOfError]

Aziz was harmless. He was the token Christian in the Saddam regime and from all accounts, he actually tried to provide some common sense counsel to Saddam IRT international weapons violations.

He was also a frequent spokesman for the regime because he speaks fluent English and, as a Christian, presented a more appealing face outside the Middle East. My impression has always been that he was there for window dressing and had very little real inside influence. I could be mistaken, and he might be a war criminal, but if so it's time to bring charges.

This is the first grumble about folks being held without charge, but it won't be the last. There will be folks who are likely guilty but will be let go or freed after relatively short sentences, just like at Nuremberg. The imperative is to stabilize Iraq; holding this or that individual accountable is a lesser concern, and the most culpable figures have already been tried, convicted and hanged.

[G8 Diplomat]

It was pretty transparent pandering, and Iraqi Muslims and neighboring countries didn't buy it.

Saddam only played the religion card when he had to.....kinda like Huckabee and Romney.

[ReignOfError]

All of those charges but one begin “As a member of the Revolutionary Command Council ...” We don’t — or at least I don’t — know whether he actively supported the crimes committed by the regime or even counseled against them.

[Larry Lucido]

The Chaldean patriarch of Baghdad, who criticised the US-led invasion in 2003

So he opposed the liberation but wants to make the rules anyway. Get bent.

[ReignOfError]

If he did commit crimes, try him, but holding him indefinitely without trial strikes me as wrong and the Patriarch is right to decry it.

Thank you. I'll take it a step further and say that holding anyone indefinitely without trial, counsel or recourse isn't something we should do or condone.

[LIConFem]

"He was seen in court last year in his pyjamas."

Is he related to Jimmy "The Chin" Gigante?

[ReignOfError]

Saddam only played the religion card when he had to....

Leaving aside the comparison to American political figures, yes. Perhaps it's religion, not patriotism, that's the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Saddam held power for as long as he did because he was brutal, not because he was skilled. In fact, he was pretty much inept at everything he did. General Schwartzkopf said it best: "He is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that, he's a great military man." His political and diplomatic efforts were equally all-thumbs.

Saddam thought that simply mouthing the right Muslim catch-phrases and clumsily lobbing missiles at Israel (which killed more West Bank Palestinians than they did Israeli Jews) would rally the rest of the Middle East to his side and against the Coalition. It didn't work. Think what you will about Islam, but Muslims aren't congenitally stupid, and the ones who survive long enough to lead countries know the smell of snake oil.

[DPMD]

Okay, so this creep is a Christian. Let’s be sure to give him a nice Christian burial.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Look smartface, he opposed the war because he feared for the people he was leading. And he was right about that. The Iraqi Christians have paid a disproportionate price, far out of proportion to their numbers, during the insurgency. It’s not a matter of body counts, it’s about ability to survive as a people. Huge numbers have fled and those who remain are targets of intimidation. They’ve managed to hang on under Islam for more than 1000 years. As difficult as things were under Saddam, they had it better than the Shia and the Chaldean patriarch simply was trying to do what he could for his people in a no win situation. Incidentally, this is the primary reason as far as I can see that the Pope opposed the war. He feared the complete destruction of the Christian minority. Christian Arabs are virtually gone from the Holy Land. They cannot even go to Bethlehem for Christmas. Christians in Iraq, once one of world centers of Christianity, are dwindling to the point at which it become difficult to sustain a culture. They speak variants of Syriac/Aramaic, their churches are in a direct line from those founded in the first decades of Christianity. Do you know what happened to Orthodox Christians in Kosovo after the Muzzies took over? That’s what the Chaldean Christians fear—their centuries old churches and monasteries blown up, their women raped, their life destroyed.

And the Shia are feeling their oats. If it’s left up to them Iraq will not have religious pluralism—after years of domination they want to control everything and their extreme wings have no use for Christians, not even as Dhimmis. And with Condoleeza Rice now making nice with the Arabists in the State Department (who think that Christians ought to just bug out of the Middle East and leave it to the Muzzies because Christians are just a bothersome pimple on the body politic), it’s a real question whether the freedom-shouting Bush Administration will really stand up and insist on an Iraq that has a place for religious freedom.

I sincerely hope that in the end the Sunnis and Shia will realize that it’s in their best interest to create a multi-religious state with true religious freedom, but the Chaldean patriarch who has seen his priests kidnapped and held for ransom, his churches bombed, his flock scattered, might be forgiven for asking that the US not forget about his people, including even Tariq Azziz.

You live in freedom. Think at least ten seconds before you shoot your mouth off about people who have known nothing but tyranny, dhimmitude and bloodshed for centuries.

[wideawake]

Aziz was the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq during the Halabja gassing. Not an ambassador. He never served as an ambassador. He was the Foreign Minister later on - i.e. he was in charge of every ambassador.

But at the time of Halabja he was the third highest-ranking executive in Iraq in legal fact and second to Hussein as a matter of practicality.

Your attempt to whitewash or minimize is role is disgusting.

[johna61]

Aziz is an Iraqi disease that should be eliminated.

[Star Traveler]

It’s apparent that no one wants to have a trial. I wouldn’t doubt that Aziz was cooperating with the Americans for a long while, anyway. Look at it this way — if Aziz was that connected and a bunch of other Iraquis are already tried and convicted, but he isn’t — then something is different than you think it is...

At the very least, get a trial going. But, once again, I doubt that is going to happen because things are not as they seem.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Cronos]

How did a Christian get a position an Islamic government in the first place??

That's an absolutely wrong statement --> SH's government was not an Islamic one --> Saddy only cared if the persons were completely, utterly, 100% loyal to Saddam, and that's why he mostly had ppl from Tikait (his home town) or his family as his 'ministers' -- for all Saddam's faults, he was far more secular than the other strongmen in his region.

By that measure, also remember that Assad (syria), Mubarak (Egypt) and even Gaddafi (Libya) are to a large extent secular, they only care about their own power and are mostly, just nominallymuslim. I wouldn't say the same thing about our allies in SaudArabia, the UAE etc.

[Cronos]

Sadly less now since our intervention than before --> under Saddam, Christians were pretty much protected as they didn't question S at all and he was happy to let them go about their lives as long as they didn't revolt. Remember, that's all SH wanted from his subjects, utter loyalty. The Shias were suspected of being in league with Iran -- quite valid. And the Kurds always wanted autonomy.

Iraqi Christians used to (at the start of the 20th century) constitute 10% of the population, then due to migrations etc. it came down to 2% at the start of the Baathist regime and now it's much lower.

Iraq also has other exotic religions -- like the Sabaens who reject both Mohammed and Jesus Christ and claim that John the Baptist was the Saviour, then also Mandaens who have a dualistic religion based on the Bible and the Zend Avesta. Then you also have the Yezdis who believe that after God created the universe (the God of the Bible), He left it to be managed by 7 angels -- the leader of whom is the peacock angel, the most beautiful angel.

then, you have some gnostics, some zoroastrians and among Christians you have Chaldean Christians, Assyrian Christians (the remnants of the vast Church of the East that once had members from Iraq all the way to China -- there used to be a Mongol tribe, the Naiman who were Christian and many peoples in Central Asia and Afghanistan were Assyrian Christian -- the last remnants of these are in Iraq and in southern India -- the Syro-Malabar Catholics and the Syro-Malankar Catholics)

Among Muslims, you have Sunnis, Shias, Allawis, Ismailis, Ibadis, even some Druze, Bahai's etc.

[Cronos]

Until FR smarties have actually lived under a regime like Saddam’s they ought to think before they rant. Christians in this region have had to survive for more than a thousand years in Dhimmitude. Under Saddam they had a secular dhimmitude situation and Azziz was in many ways Saddam’s favored house slave who could thereby offer a bit of protection for his co-religionists. Throwing stones at him from this distance and from our religous safety is foolish.

I agree with you, it's really thick for us to lecture him if we've not lived in that situation

[Cronos]

Did he betray his faith?

have you been in his situation that you can throw stones at him?

The Christians in Iraq just kept their mouths shut and looked away. I would not throw stones at a man when I've not been in his shoes.

[Cronos]

The baathists were secular, so Aziz would have joined a govt that didn't treat christians as second class citizens, forced to pay jaziya.

Live under Dhimmitude for a few decades and then start giving instructions to Christians in the Middle East about how to survive
is the right suggestion

[wideawake]

Did he betray his faith?

Of course he did. No Christian could sit by and permit the gassing of Halabja.

I would not throw stones at a man when I've not been in his shoes.

I haven't been in Ted Bundy's shoes, but I still know that raping and murdering women is wrong and that Bundy should pay dearly for his crimes.

I've never been in Tariq Aziz's shoes, but I still know that rubberstamping the gassing of women and children to death is wrong and that Aziz should pay dearly for his crimes.

Moral truth is absolute - not experiential.

[Cronos]

No Christian could sit by and permit the gassing of Halabja

There are a couple of things wrong in your sentence -- you say "permit" -- I don't think anyone in Saddy's council was in any position to give their approval or disapproval to the big boss's plans. So, Aziz didn't "permit" the killing because:
1. Saddy most likely wouldn't even ask him "permission" and
2. Aziz would not be in any position to be anything other than a yes man to Saddy.

The second thing wrong is that you say as a Christian he shouldn't have sat by --> well, that's what most of the heads of Western governments DID do at that time, just twiddled their thumbs. That's what the rest of us -- you and me -- DID do, we didn't grab weapons and go to oust Saddam, we didn't go in for mass imprisonment in IRaqi jails

The other statement abotu Ted Bundy is a red herring -- you can compare Ted Bundy to Saddam --> both perpetrators of crimes. I don't condone either of those two, but Aziz would seem, to me, to be more like Ted's pet dog (if he had one) who had no say in anything.

I do NOT believe Aziz rubber-stamped anything and do NOT believe he was in any position to make any decisions beyond when he could let out gas -- maybe not even that, everything else was controlled by SH