Iranian Alert -- December 12, 2003 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” But most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

Booby Trapped Letter Explodes in Office of Kuwaiti Editor

December 10, 2003
Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI

A booby trapped letter addressed to ahmed al-jarallah, the chief editor of the kuwaiti daily, al-siyyisah, exploded in his office and injured his secretary. The letter was sent from lebanon. (mr. Al-jarallah has recently written highly critical editorials of the syrian regime.) (al-hayat, london, 12/12/03)- MEMRI News Ticker Headlines

Editor of Kuwaiti Daily: 'The U.S. is not going to Quit... It will Convert Poles of Jihadi Flags into Arrows to Pierce the Hearts of Terrorists'

On November 23, 2003, Ahmad Al-Jarallah, the Editor-in-Chief of the Kuwaiti dailies Al-Siyassa and Arab Times, praised the U.S. fight against Jihad fighters. The following are excerpts from the article: [1]

"Any resistance that depends on suicide bombers to destroy its target is a desperate and futile movement. Such a resistance hasn't succeeded in evicting Jews from Palestine or ending the misery of Palestinians. It has also failed to curtail the political authority of Jews over Palestinians. Those who still employ this method - covered by slogans of Jihad and promises of a place in heaven for the suicide bomber - wrongly believe it is an effective method.

"They are living in the past and they can see only the history of the United States. They think America is the same country that withdrew from regions where it incurred heavy casualties, such as Vietnam, Beirut in 1982, and Somalia. They refuse to see the recent history of the US in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and in the war to liberate Kuwait. Americans weren't fazed by suicide bombings. Trucks laden with deadly bombs and driven by suicide bombers failed to scare them. Instead, such attempts have steeled their resolve to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.

"Regrettably, some myopic Arab leaders can see only the negative side of the U.S. army's history. All their speeches are stale and full of lies and their people are sick and tired of their meaningless slogans. These leaders delude themselves trying to lead their people towards mass suicide. They are not aware history is changing and they don't realize any self-respecting military will learn from its past mistakes. The U.S. has chosen to take terrorism head on by launching a war on terror. Nobody, except these handful of Arab leaders, are surprised by America's resolve to fight terrorism.

"Saudi Arabia - which was earlier ambivalent towards terrorism - has been forced to join the war on terror. The tone of Saudi media has changed and they want to eliminate the dangers of international terrorism. They now proclaim terrorists violate the teachings of Islam. Kuwait and Egypt have also been fighting terrorism for a long time. The latest victim of terrorism is Turkey where a number of innocent civilians were killed… "This will only result in an international war on terrorism which will have legitimate reasons to continue till the fountainheads of terrorism are smashed. Those who lead revenge operations - for their defeats in Kabul and Baghdad - in the name of resistance are unwittingly strengthening the resolve of the United States to face and defeat terrorism. The United States is not going to quit. Instead, it will convert poles of Jihadi flags into arrows to pierce the hearts of terrorists - who ultimately will be consigned to the dustbin of history."

[1] Arab Times (Kuwait), November 23, 2003.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD62603

Scientists in Iran Nuke-scam Not Arrested, Says Govt

December 13, 2003
The Peninsula
AFP

ISLAMABAD -- Pakistani authorities yesterday sent home one of the two nuclear scientists who had reportedly been detained since early this month, saying they had finished “debriefing” him. “The debriefing session of one of the scientists has concluded and he has resumed his normal duties,” foreign ministry spokesman Masood Khan said.

Local newspapers had linked the pair’s apparent detention to allegations that Pakistani scientists helped Iran develop its nuclear programs.

Yasin Chohan, a laboratory director at the Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) uranium enrichment facility, returned home yesterday morning, an associate of Chohan’s family said.

Chohan and KRL director Farooq Muhammad were taken from their homes in early December and held for questioning, according to opposition politicians and local news reports. Some reports quoted witnesses saying Caucasian men wearing bulletproof jackets took them from their homes, triggering accusations that United States intelligence agencies were involved.

Pakistani officials denied the pair were in custody, saying they were merely undergoing “routine personnel dependability and debriefing programs”. Earlier a senior government official said the two scientists were “neither arrested nor detained.”

“They are undergoing debriefing sessions conducted by officials from within the sensitive organisations,” said the official, who could not be named. The term “sensitive organisations” refers to intelligence agencies.

“This exercise does not stem from any specific charges against these individuals,” he said. The foreign ministry’s Khan also denied the men had been interrogated or were in custody, or that any foreigners were involved.

“There is no ‘interrogation’ going on. The word has implications of ‘wrongdoing’. This is prejudgement,” Khan said in a written response to e-mailed questions.

“People in debriefing sessions are not held in ‘custody’.”

But he declined to answer whether the men had freedom of movement. Muhammad’s son said his father was fine and was in regular contact with the family. “He is in touch with us and we have spoken to him on a number of times,” he said.

Opposition parties are furious at the scientists’ apparent detention and have accused President Pervez Musharraf of trying to appease the United States. Islamist senator Khurshid Ahmed claimed a third nuclear scientist had been detained, naming KRL principal engineer Saeed Ahmed.

The senator dismissed government assertions that the two scientists were undergoing debriefing sessions as “eyewash.”

The United States has said it will step up its effort to prevent nuclear technology reaching Iran, alleged by Washington to be using an atomic energy program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.

Pakistan, which declared its nuclear capability in May 1998 with a series of underground nuclear tests, has been accused of sharing nuclear technology with both Iran and North Korea. It adamantly denies the allegations.

Earlier this year, the Americans imposed sanctions on the Khan Research Laboratories, saying the establishment was providing material support to a country or people trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Pakistan+%26+Sub%2DContinent&month=December2003&file=World_News2003121314454.xml

Rebel army termination tests U.S.
Iraq panel votes to oust fighters opposing Iran

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 11, 2003

Khalis, Iraq -- The U.S. secret weapon against Iran is kept behind high gates here, where several thousand fighters of the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People's Warriors, live in a sprawling military base guarded by U.S. troops.

Although Khalis is just 60 miles north of Baghdad, two large statues of Iranian lions decorate the base's interior gateway, and an Iranian flag snaps in the wind.

The rebel army has become a symbol of the Bush administration's internal divisions about policy toward Iran -- and a possible point of friction with Iraq's emerging civilian leadership.

On Tuesday, the Iraqi Governing Council voted unanimously to shut down the Mujahedeen Khalq (known as MEK) camp at Khalis by the end of December. It also called for seizure of the rebels' money and weapons and a funneling of the proceeds to a fund that will compensate victims of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The move poses a sharp challenge by the council to the U.S. military, which has long sympathized with the Mujahedeen -- and to President Bush and his circle of advisers, since a dissolution of the group has long been sought by Iran's Islamic government.

On Wednesday, Pentagon officials responded cautiously, indicating that they would resist any immediate action to carry out the Iraqi decision.

"We share the Governing Council's decision about the MEK," said a Pentagon official in a telephone interview. However, he added, "We are considering how to deal with them and will of course consult with the Governing Council ..."

The guerrilla army, which has been opposed to Iran's religious rulers since it broke with them shortly after the 1979 revolution, is classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization because of its role in attacks on Americans in the 1970s and its support for Hussein in crushing the Shiite uprising in southern Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991.

It was given lavish support by Hussein, who provided conventional weaponry like tanks and helicopters, plus a half-dozen luxurious military bases replete with swimming pools and executive-quality offices.

On the other hand, conservatives in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office view the rebels as freedom fighters and potential U.S. allies against Iran's religious leaders, in much the same way as the Northern Alliance helped overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The group has long occupied a top spot in the Iranian government's pantheon of archenemies, and most official public rallies in Iran are punctuated by orchestrated chants of "Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to the Mujahedeen Khalq!"

After the U.S. conquest of Iraq, during which the Mujahedeen bases were briefly bombed by coalition forces, many in Tehran and Washington expected that the Americans would disband the group.

Although the U.S. military has taken away its heavy weapons and confined its fighters to their main base at Khalis, it has taken no steps toward dissolution.

The relation between the two forces clearly is friendly. At the base, an outer gate is manned by American troops, with a large antiaircraft radar nearby. About 100 meters inside is a grand inner gateway fit for a palace, with large imperial lion statues and flags of prerevolutionary Iran and the MEK overhead, with dozens of uniformed Mujahedeen fighters -- men and women alike -- carrying Kalashnikov rifles.

In a Chronicle reporter's visit to Khalis last week, it seemed apparent that the group was being kept intact as a potential fighting force.

Maj. Chris Wilson, executive officer of the U.S. garrison, said his instructions were to allow no media on the base, and said the rebels had been disarmed.

Mohammed Hussein, a Mujahedeen spokesman, said he could not give an interview or allow a visit inside. "I'm sorry, but we have received instructions from the U.S. Army not to talk to the press. We do not have freedom of movement, as you can see. We are waiting for decisions to be made."

U.S. officials and Arab diplomats say that in backchannel negotiations through Jordan's King Abdullah II, Iran has offered to extradite several top- level al Qaeda officials it is holding if the United States shut down the Mujahedeen and delivered its members to Iran.

In Iraq, however, it is widely assumed that the Americans are preparing the Mujahedeen as an intelligence and covert-action force. A U.S. military official hinted Wednesday that this might be true, saying that the rebels were "being screened to get intelligence they have about Iran that might be useful to us."

Last year, the group proved its credibility in the emerging debate over whether Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons. The group released information about a secret plant for enriching uranium in the cities of Natanz and Arak. U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors investigated the claims and found them mostly correct.

However, the group is not believed to have much support inside Iran. The Mujahedeen "appear to have some support among professional and scientific classes, but it wouldn't be correct to assume they have a large base here, or that people would rise up to follow them if the U.S. did some kind of military or covert action," said a Western diplomat in Tehran.

"The Mujahedeen have been painted as the demons, and they are hated because they sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war," said one Tehran resident who supports the Mujahedeen. "Its future as a military organization is over."

One U.S. official who asked to remain unidentified said, "I don't think anybody knows right now what's going to come of" the Governing Council's decision to expel the MEK. But he stressed that the council's Dec. 31 deadline was essentially impossible to meet.

If any rebels are deemed by U.S. investigators to be terrorists, the official added, "Will the legal action against them come in Iraq? The United States? Iran?

"And if they're not prosecuted, they're essentially refugees. Where will they be relocated? We haven't started asking that."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/11/MNG3A3KPHG1.DTL

MKO warns US, expulsion would be a war crime

Friday, December 12, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

NICOSIA, Dec 12 (AFP) - Iran's armed opposition group, the Mujahedeen (MKO), said Friday it had told the US authorities that any attempt by Iraq's US-controlled Governing Council to expel thousands of its members to Iran would be a war crime for which Washington would be responsible.

Some 4,000-5,000 of the MKO, which mounted attacks inside Iran from neighbouring Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power, have been disarmed since the US-led invasion and are now guarded by US troops in their base of Camp Ashraf, east of the capital.

Earlier this week the Governing Council said it planned to expel the MKO, whom it accused of terrorism, by December 31. On Thursday a member of the council said Iraq's interim rulers are considering handing them over to the very Iranian authorities they have been fighting to overthrow.

A Swiss international law expert acting for the MKO, Professor Marc Henzelin, told AFP he had written Thursday to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top military officials warning them that such a move would be a war crime under the terms of the Geneva Convention.

As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States would bear the responsibility, and would face legal action in US, Swiss or other courts.

"I am totally convinced that the legal experts of the US military will reach exactly the same conclusion," Henzelin said, noting that when they agreed to be disarmed in September the MKO put themselves under US military protection.

He said the Governing Council did not have the means to carry out its decision on its own, but would require the consent and cooperation of US forces for any deportation.

A statement issued by the MKO also said the handing over of the Mujahedeen to the Islamic republic "would be a war crime and a crime against humanity."

Washington must provide the "relevant protection offered to members of the (MKO) by the Geneva Convention, which categorizes them as civilians.

"Any transfer or deportation of (MKO) members outside the territory of Iraq to any country, and in particular to Iran, is prohibited under the laws of war applicable to the present occupation," it said.

The statement also said deportation would violate an international treaty binding states not to "expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

It called on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, all the member states of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross to "maintain a vigilant eye on the developing situation in Iraq with regard to the status of (MKO) members who are refugees in Iraq."

Iran greeted the expulsion decision as "very positive" and said the Islamic republic would show "leniency" to low-ranking members wishing to give themselves up.

The authorities said nothing about how middle- and high-ranking members would be treated, but have said in the past they would be dealt with harshly.

Governing Council member Nuredin Dara told AFP on Thursday: "It's better for them to ask for forgiveness from Iran. I think Iran will be understanding.

"If we deliver them to Iran I think (Tehran) will issue a general amnesty. The country may forgive them for the crimes they committed against Iran and accept them back again in their country."

Dara denied that the MKO had been sacrificed in the interest of better ties with Iran or that they would likely be executed upon their return.

He accused them of allowing themselves to be used "as a means for Saddam Hussein to execute the crimes of killing and slaughtering," notably of Kurds.

A MKO official, denying the allegations of terrorism, said the move showed Iran was exerting a malevolent influence on the Governing Council, 24 of whose 25 members had recently visited Tehran.

"As long as the fundamentalist regime remains in power in Iran, democracy in Iraq is an illusion," he said.

The official also noted that "quite a few members" of the MKO in Camp Ashraf had US or other citizenship and families living in the United States and elsewhere in the West.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20522&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

UK not to intervene in Iran, Syria: O’Brien -- Detail Story

KARACHI: British Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mike O’Brien has said that the British government would not take part in any military intervention in Iran or Syria.

He was talking to newsmen, after delivering keynote speech on "Pakistan and Britain - A Developing Relationship", arranged by the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, Economic Affairs and Law (KCFREAL) at the FTC Auditorium, here on Thursday.

Describing Iran as an emerging democracy, he said that the UK was working alongside the Iranian government for the country’s growth. He said his country also had no plans to go after Syria.

He dispelled the impression that there was any list of countries to be attacked like Afghanistan and Iraq. He said that the allegations that the US and the UK would be benefited from the oil in Iraq were also baseless.

Responding to a question about the bugging of the Pakistan High Commission in London, he said: "There are people who make all sorts of allegations. The British government’s position is that we don’t either confirm or deny any such allegations."

Earlier in his speech, the minister, who also holds the portfolio of international trade and investment, said: "Britain and Pakistan are intimately linked, in their past and in the present." He said that more than three-quarters of a million Pakistanis, who had made their home in the UK, were playing a vital part in every sector of the British life. Similarly, he added, 80,000 British citizens had chosen to make Pakistan their home. "This is only one of the factors that has helped trade between our two countries to improve so dramatically in recent months," he said.

He said both the countries could and should work closely on some issues facing the world today. He said the concept of "clash of civilisations" had persisted since the phrase was first coined by an American academic, Samuel Huntingdon, a decade ago.

"There is a danger that this perception will gain ground in these difficult times for all. Britain’s multi-cultural society shows that Islam and Christianity can live in harmony.

"The growth of extremism in any religion or society is an issue that concerns us all. It has been found in the Christianity and many other religions also. It is Islam that has a long tradition of tolerance and deep-rooted tenets of equality, humanity and respect for the views of others," he said.

The British minister applauded President Musharraf’s concept of enlightened moderation and his initiatives at the Organisation of Islamic Countries. "He (Musharraf) is right. We all have some serious work to do," he said.

Earlier, KCFREAL Secretary General Ahsan Mukhtar Zubairi and founding member Liaquat Merchant, respectively, delivered the introductory and welcome addresses.

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en47547&F_catID=&f_type=source

Campaigning to begin in Iran amid fears

Friday, December 12, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

TEHRAN, Dec 12 (AFP) - "Why should I bother to vote?" asks 25-year-old Dariush, one of the millions of young Iranians who helped put reformists in power during the last parliamentary elections in 2000.

"The reformists have done nothing. Khatami has had the backing of 22 million people yet he hasn't stood up to the conservatives," he says of embattled President Mohammad Khatami, whose pledge of 'Islamic democracy' saw him win landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.

In just over two months, Iranians will again be deciding on the way forward for the quarter-century-old Islamic republic.

Will it be yet more struggling between elected reformists and powerful entrenched hardliners, or a message that the system is not working with the majority of the 41 million eligible voters staying away?

Campaigning for the February 20, 2004 Majlis elections gets under way on Saturday, when parliamentary hopefuls can start registering their candidacies.

But aside from fears that frustration with reforms may lead to an all-time low turnout, reformists will also be battling a tough vetting procedure imposed by the conservative-dominated Guardians Council -- a kind of unelected senate that over the past four years has blocked most reformist legislation.

Furthermore, they will have a hard time convincing voters they deserve a repeat victory in light of an economic track record tarnished by high inflation and high unemployment.

A clear warning was given to reformists -- who presently hold 210 out of the 290 seats in the Majlis -- during municipal elections in February 2003, when turnout hit a record low in a country more used to seeing participation figures that would impress many Western democracies.

In Tehran, Isfahan and Mashhad, turnout was just 12 percent. As a result, conservatives won in the sprawling capital and other major urban centres.

A repeat of that for the Majlis elections would likely see conservatives control parliament -- and therefore have the power to throw out reformist ministers -- as well as be a blow to the regime's legitimacy.

Hence both sides of the political divide are calling on Iranians to turn out in force, and the shock of many who now have their local councils run by hardliners busy turning popular cultural centres into prayer rooms and stepping up social controls may make those contemplating a boycott think again.

Voter participation was 69.25 percent in 2000's parliamentary elections. A number of opinion polls have put the February turnout just slightly lower -- between 50 and 60 percent.

But turnout is also seen as depending on whether the Guardians Council chooses to use its vetting power to weed out reformist candidates as it has done in the past.

The registration phase, which marks the start of pre-campaigning, lasts one week. After going through the reformist-run interior ministry, which manages the logistics of the elections, candidacies then go for approval to bodies appointed by the Guardians Council.

It was these bodies that were targetted by a reformist bill passed last year aimed at ending election vetting. The bill was subsequently shot down by the Guardians Council itself, leaving conservatives still having the last say on who can stand.

And recently, one conservative argued that "the Guardians Council should not repeat the same errors it has made in the past by approving the candidacies of those who do not deserve to be in parliament."

A top official in the judiciary, another key bastion of Iran's religious right, also called on "all those with cases before the courts" not to present themselves. The judiciary is known to have cases against large numbers of reformers.

The Guardians Council has also put in place a network of some 200,000 observers, and its head Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati in a sermon Friday warned that candidates "should not spend too much money... and in their speeches should not raise divisive issues."

But despite the pressures and threats -- including a string of attacks on reformist figures -- the pro-Khatami camp is not expected to boycott.

"Not taking part," asserted prominent reformist thinker Behzad Nabavi recently, "would be to concede defeat in advance."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20523&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

Ebadi to defend liberal opposition leader

Friday, December 12, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

TEHRAN, Dec 12 (AFP) - Iranian lawyer and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi will help defend one of the Islamic Republic's main opponents, Ebrahim Yazdi, against charges of trying to overthrow the government, the defendant said Friday.

"Shirin Ebadi is one of the three lawyers who are going to defend me," Yazdi, secretary general of the Iran Freedom Movement, told AFP. There was no immediate confirmation from Ebadi.

Yazdi was due to appear before a revolutionary tribunal on Saturday for a closed chamber hearing on charges of damaging national security. But he said the court postponed the session without explanation.

His lawyers said Yazdi is facing up to 10 years in prison.

Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Wednesday, has taken on another sensitive case, concerning a Iranian-Canadian journalist who died after being beaten while in custody.

Yazdi, accused in November 2001 of attempting to overthrow the regime, has been interrogated 53 times since his return to Iran in April 2002 after spending several months in the United States and other countries.

He was one of the closest aides to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during his final exile in 1978 in France, and served as foreign minister in the provisional government of Mehdi Bazargan.

The Iran Freedom Movement, founded in the 1960s by Bazargan, is a liberal, nationalist opposition movement seen as close to Iran's reformers.

The group was tolerated until 2001 but is now banned in Iran because it questions certain principals of the Islamic Republic.

In March 2001, nearly 60 members and sympathisers were arrested on charges of wanting to "overthrow the regime" on the eve of presidential elections won by the reformist Mohammed Khatami.

Fifteen of them were condemned to sentences of up to 11 years in prison, and are awaiting the outcome of their appeal.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20527&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

IRAQIS MUST JUDGE SADDAM

by Amir Taheri
NEW YORK POST
December 12, 2003

December 12, 2003 -- AFTER months of soul- searching, it now seems certain that the Iraq Governing Council is prepared to put the fallen Ba'athist regime on trial. The decision is important because it ends the debate over who should hold the trials and where.

The council seems confident enough that the Iraqis can handle the task themselves: No need for a court outside Iraq, with foreign judges. The tribunal will sit in Baghdad, with only Iraqi judges to try Saddam and his associates on charges ranging from corruption to crimes against humanity.

Although long overdue, the decision has drawn criticism from the European Union and the United Nations. Their beef: The tribunal would exclude the U.N. and ignore internationally accepted judicial norms and practices.

The Governing Council should note the criticism - but do what it thinks right.

The U.N. and E.U., after all, still refuse to recognize the Governing Council as a legitimate authority. Both are reluctant to acknowledge that the toppling of Saddam's regime was an act of liberation for the Iraqi people. Thus neither can claim moral authority in telling the Iraqis what to do.

There is no reason why the Iraqis should trust the U.N. or the E.U. - they did nothing to curb Saddam's criminal activities. In fact, several EU members helped Saddam build his death machine while the UN played cat-and-mouse with him for 13 years.

Nor should Iraqis take notice of those who claim to represent public opinion in the West.

The suggestion that Western opinion may regard an Iraqi tribunal as "questionable" is neither here nor there. If by "Western opinion" one means the newly created coalition of Islamists and Stalinists, plus the usual fellow-travelers, it is enough to remember that it never organized a single protest march when Saddam was killing thousands of women and children with his chemical weapons, and filling all those mass graves.

But "Western opinion" has held marches to lament the demise of Saddam and denounce the liberation of Iraq, in the words of the British playwright Harold Pinter, as "a blood-drinking tea-party" by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. This "Western opinion" would rather put Bush and Blair, and the entire Iraqi people, on trial than utter a harsh word against Saddam.

Having said all that, the Governing Council should make sure that the tribunal conforms to the highest standards of justice.

To start with, the tribunal must limit its scope to the former regime's most senior officials, including Saddam.

On paper, the old regime boasted a wide base. The Ba'ath Party had more than 1 million members. Millions more were linked to it via trade unions, professional associations and youth organizations. In despotic regimes such as Saddam's it is impossible to live anything resembling a normal life without being sullied by the party in power.

A closer look, however, would reveal the narrowness of the regime's decision-making apparatus. Saddam trusted no one, except (perhaps) his second son, Qusay. He never informed anyone of major decisions, such as invading Iran in 1980 and annexing Kuwait in 1990, in advance.

His was more of a one-man-show than Stalin's in the USSR.

The Governing Council would do well to narrow the tribunal's scope to no more than a dozen or so senior figures, including Saddam. Their trial would, in fact, be the trial of the whole Ba'athist regime and its 35-year criminal record.

Iraq will also have to deal with mid-ranking officials who helped keep the Ba'ath machine in operation. These may number around 3,000 and could be dealt with through a special body, modeled on South Africa's post-Apartheid "truth and reconciliation" commission. Iraq does not need endless trials in which thousands of people are paraded in front of judges for months if not years.

For the rest, the council should prepare a general amnesty covering political crimes committed before the liberation. This would make it possible to bring non-political charges against those involved in other crimes, such as embezzlement, torture, rape, kidnapping, confiscation of private property and racketeering.

The work of the tribunal and the commission should take place in public. The tribunal should allow the leaders of the former regime to choice their own defense lawyers, including from among European jurists.

The tribunal should also invite testimony by foreign citizens, including the families of tens of thousands of Iranians killed in Saddam's chemical attack, and of hundreds of Kuwaitis murdered by Saddam's henchmen in cold blood.

There is no reason why the U.N., the E.U. and other interested foreign organizations should not send observers to the tribunal while the international media is allowed to cover the proceedings on the basis of clear rules.

Whether or not the proceedings should be telecast live is still being debated.

Some Iraqis believe that live telecasts could remind the nation of the show trials organized by Abdul-Karim Qassem, the first post-monarchy dictator of Iraq.

Others, however, insist that live telecasts would have an educational impact, both for the Iraqis themselves and the international public at large. There are still people, especially in the West, who refuse to believe that Saddam headed one of the nastiest regimes in human history.

Another issue debated in Iraq is whether or not to get the tribunal started before an elected government is in place. Some argue that the tribunal may be presented as an instrument of the occupying powers. But that claim could be countered by the fact that the tribunal will have only Iraqi judges.

Despite the obvious difficulties involved, it is best is to start the tribunal as soon as possible. In an electoral atmosphere, the issue could become a partisan one, with some demanding a "sea of blood" to avenge the crimes of Ba'ath while others preach limitless forgiveness. Such a debate could divide the people at a time it needs to remain united in a delicate period of transition.

Holding the tribunal now would enable the interim government that is to be installed by the middle of next year to focus its attention on the future, rather than the past.

E-mail:amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/13193.htm

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.