|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
Death penalty on the rise in US-occupied Iraq
By James Cogan
20 June 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The US-backed Iraqi government is currently imposing the death
penalty at a rate only surpassed by China, Iran and Pakistan.
According to Amnesty International, just three men were executed
in 2005, following the reintroduction of capital punishment. In
2006, at least 65 were hung, including the countrys former
dictator Saddam Hussein. This year, at least 30 to 40 more people
have been executed, and another 50 to 60 are waiting on death
row at a high security prison in Baghdads Kazimiyah district.
Under any circumstances, the death penalty is barbaric. In
Iraq, however, it is also being used as a tool to terrorise a
population that is deeply hostile to the continued US-led occupation
and supportive of armed resistance. Alleged insurgents are not
treated as prisoners of war, but as common criminals who are afforded
none of the protections of the Geneva Convention. They are detained
in US or Iraqi government prison camps for interrogation then
ultimately charged and tried in the Iraqi civilian courts. Growing
numbers are being given the death penalty.
Little attention is being given in the international media
to the issue. The execution of alleged insurgents raises the question
as to whether the Iraqi people, like others who have been subjected
to colonial conquest, have an inalienable right to resist, using
the methods of guerilla war.
Hina Shamsi, a lawyer with the US-based Human Rights First,
explained this month that the justification for refusing to treat
insurgents as combatants in a legitimate war is that the US occupation
handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi government in
June 2004. From that point, she told Associated Press, anti-US
guerillas have been considered unprivileged belligerents,
mere criminals.
David Crane, an international criminal law specialist at New
Yorks Syracuse University, told Associated Press the insurgency
was illegitimate because elections held in January and December
2005 had created a sitting government, an elected government
that is not resisting the US.
The attempt to criminalise Iraqi resistance on these grounds
turns reality on its head. The US invasion of Iraq in March 2003
was an illegal act of aggression. Iraqs government was overthrown
by force and direct American rule imposed upon the country. Elections
were conducted under the barrels of American guns and only candidates
acceptable to Washington were permitted to take part.
Since March 2003, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been
killed. Millions have been turned into refugees. Every aspect
of social infrastructure has been devastatedfrom health
care to electricity and sewerage provision. Infant mortality has
soared and life expectancy has plummeted. At the same time, attempts
are being made to open up Iraqs oil industry for foreign
energy corporations to plunder.
The true criminals are the Bush administration and all those
within Iraq who have given legitimacy to its neo-colonial actions.
The present Iraqi government, by accepting the occupation, has
demonstrated it does not speak for or represent the Iraqi people.
According to David Crane, however, resistance would only be legally
recognised if the Iraqi people rose up as one.
On the basis of this twisted argument, Iraqis, fighting a guerilla
war against the overwhelming superiority of US firepower, face
being charged with crimes punishable by death. As many as 40,000
alleged members of the resistance are already languishing in overcrowded
US and Iraqi government-run detention centres. An independent
monitor of the prisons in Baghdad told Newsweek last month:
Torture and abusive behaviour are widespread. The
conditions will most likely worsen over coming months, as the
US military is currently detaining people at the rate of 2,000
per month.
Many are held without charge for months. Those that are eventually
tried face a court system that is notoriously under-staffed and
corrupt. Trials take place without adequate defence for the accused.
There are ongoing allegations that confessions extracted through
torture are being accepted as proof of guilt.
Amnesty International has documented the case of Shihab Ahmad
Khalaf, a former colonel in the Iraqi army who was detained in
January 2005 on charges of involvement in terrorist acts.
A month later, he confessed to travelling to Pakistan
in 2001 for terrorist training and to receiving instructions from
Syrian intelligence. His confession was broadcast on a program
called Terrorism in the Grip of Justice, a reality
TV show on Al-Iraqiya state television featuring senior officers
of the US-created Interior Ministry.
To discredit insurgents, many of the other confessions on this
bizarre show included lurid admissions to homosexuality and rape,
as well as guerilla attacks on US and government forces. In numerous
cases, those who appeared on the program retracted their confessions
as soon as they had access to a lawyer, and accused the Wolf Brigade
of the Interior Ministry of torturing them.
Khalaf repudiated his confession in March 2005. Nevertheless,
he and a man he implicated, Abdullah Kelana, were put on trial
on November 23, 2005. The court hearing lasted just 45 minutes.
The judge refused to accept evidence that Kahlaf was in the Netherlands
at the time he had confessed to being in Pakistan. On the basis
of his admission of guilt, both men were sentenced to death for
threatening security and stability, formation of armed groups
and using cars for the purpose of bomb attacks. The sentence
was upheld on appeal and Khalaf has not been heard of since September
2006. He is either still on death row or has been executed.
Amnesty believes other Iraqis have been sentenced to death
on the basis of confessions extracted through torture that they
never retracted in court due to fear. In a report published in
April, it stated:
It appears that in practice, many detaineesin particularly
those suspected of capital offensesmake their first confession
while interrogated at police stations or other detention centres
under the control of the Ministry of Interior. Detainees who have
confessed to offences at a police stationincluding those
who confessed as a result of torture or ill-treatmentare
frequently escorted by staff of that station to their first appearance
before an investigative judge. Amnesty International is concerned
that in such circumstances detainees may have feared further torture
or ill-treatment by police or other security forces and therefore,
may have reiterated their previous confession in front of the
investigative judge. (See Unjust
and unfair: The death penalty in Iraq, April 20, 2007)
In a recent case, a 25-year-old technician was detained by
Interior Ministry police in October 2006. He was allegedly repeatedly
tortured with electric shocks and burns to his legs. Upon appearing
before a judge, he confessed to murder. He was sentenced
to death on February 13, 2007. Lawyers who saw him in March have
stated he denied any involvement in the killing for which he was
charged. He is either still on death row or has been executed.
Among other recent confessions that have led to
a death sentence is that of a man who admitted mortaring the US
headquarters in the Green Zone and an Algerian citizen who confessed
to shooting down an American helicopter and taking part in an
ambush of seven marines. In March, six men were reportedly sentenced
to hang for having being found with the components necessary to
rig up an improvised explosive device (IED). All of these crimes
are acts of war.
The Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI), which was established
by the US occupation in 2004 to specifically deal with insurgents,
had tried 1,800 alleged fighters by February 2007 and convicted
over 1,500. In the case of an estimated 270 people, the sentence
was death. Others received draconian sentences ranging from 15
years to life imprisonment. Hundreds more trials are likely to
have taken place over the past four months.
Prisoners are being convicted under the 2005 Anti-Terrorism
Law. Terrorism is defined as any criminal act carried
out by an individual or an organised group, targeting an individual,
a group of individuals, groups, public or private organisations,
and causing damage to private or public property with the aim
of undermining security and stability or national unity, or instilling
fear, terror and panic in people, or creating chaos in order to
achieve terrorist goals.
This definition is so broad as to include any action carried
out by Iraqi guerillas against the US occupation forces and its
local collaborators. By contrast, American troops and mercenary
contractors employed by the occupation act with virtual impunity.
Each day, Iraqis are killed in air strikes and house raids, or
shot for simply getting too close to US or contractor checkpoints
and convoys. No contractor has faced prosecution, and only a tiny
handful of cases of war crimes by American soldiers have ever
made it to court.
See Also:
US commander warns Iraq war will go on
for a decade
[18 June 2007]
Pentagon admits US surge
in Iraq has yielded only more carnage
[15 June 2007]
Iraq on edge following second bombing
of Shiite Al-Askariya mosque
[14 June 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |