Despite legitimate concerns, Saddam Hussein has received an appropriate and fair trial, both in light of the specific details of the judicial proceedings and in light of the political nature of war crimes justice in an anarchic system of states.

In response to criticism following news of the mistreatment of Iraqis at the US prison in Abu Ghraib, some media personalities and politicians suggested that the treatment of these prisoners ‘‘would have been even worse’’ had former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still been in power. It was hypothesized that the contemplation of this argument has undesirable consequences because counterfactual thinking can elicit both contrastive and assimilative effects. In the reported study, participants considered how the prisoners at Abu Ghraib (...) would have been worse off under Saddam. The results revealed that generating downward counterfactuals made participants feel better about Abu Ghraib (thereby evidencing contrast), and also lowered ethical standards regarding how the US should treat prisoners of war in the future (thereby evidencing assimilation). (shrink)

Der erste amerikanische Krieg von 1991 gegen Saddam Hussein war moralisch falsch. Man muss kein radikaler Pazifist sein, um zu diesem Urteil zu kommen, denn dies Urteil ergibt sich auch dann, wenn man die drei Kriegsziele ernst und beim Wort nimmt, die George Bush zur Rechtfertigung des Kriegs angeführt hat. In der Tat sind es auf den ersten Blick löbliche Ziele, Kuwait von der Besatzung durch irakische Truppen zu befreien, Saddam Husseins Militärmacht einzudämmen und für eine gerechte (...) Weltordnung zu kämpfen. Doch wenn man die Opfer in den Blick nimmt, die der Krieg kostet, ändert sich das Bild – die Kriegsopfer wiegen schwerer als der erhoffte Vorteil des Kriegs, und also war der Krieg moralisch unverantwortlich. (shrink)

The title of this book echoes a phrase used by the Washington Post to describethe American attempt to kill Saddam Hussein at the start of the war againstIraq. Its theme is the notion of targeting (skopos) as the name of an intentionalstructure in which the subject tries to confirm its invulnerability by aiming todestroy a target. At the center of the first chapter is Odysseus’s killing of the suitors;the second concerns Carl Schmitt’s Roman Catholicism and Political Form; thethird (...) and fourth treat Freud’s “Thoughts for the Times on War and Death” and“The Man Moses and Monotheistic Religion.” Weber then traces the emergenceof an alternative to targeting, first within military and strategic thinking itself(“Network Centered Warfare”), and then in Walter Benjamin’s readings of“Capitalism as Religion” and “Two Poems of Friedrich Hölderlin.”. (shrink)

How do we know right from wrong? Do we even have moral knowledge? Moral epistemology studies these and related questions about our understanding of virtue and vice. It is one of philosophy’s perennial problems, reaching back to Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Hume and Kant, and has recently been the subject of intense debate as a result of findings in developmental and social psychology. Throughout the book Zimmerman argues that our belief in moral knowledge can survive sceptical challenges. He also draws (...) on a rich range of examples from Plato’s Meno and Dickens’ David Copperfield to Bernard Madoff and Saddam Hussein. (shrink)

The “Freedom Agenda” of President George W. Bush for the Middle East assumed that the liberation of Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the start of political change would trigger the process of democratization of the entire region. Encouraged by financial and economic support, Arab countries should have been willing to implement political and educational support, which would lead to the creation of civil society and grassroots political changes initiated by society itself. A number of mistakes (...) made by the Bush administration in Iraq has not only caused the mission of the democratization of Iraq to be a failure, but also influenced the situation that today Iraq is closer to being a failed state than a democracy. (shrink)

Research in the discipline of international relations finds that the great democratic powers are less likely to pursue revisionist policies. This investigation challenges this argument by showing that the United States' decision to oust Saddam Hussein's regime in March 2003 was consistent with a modified version of John Mearsheimer's theory of offensive realism, which finds that great powers' motivation is global hegemony. This article is divided into three sections. The first section considers the value of Mearsheimer's theory and (...) reworks it by adding domestic variables to explain why states abandon defensive strategies for offensive ones. The second section shows how pre-9/11 American foreign policy strategy was, for the most part, status quo oriented, and section three explains why and how the Bush administration introduced a revisionist foreign policy strategy after the 9/11 attacks. This investigation concludes by showing how the 2003 Iraq War is the first step in the United States' quest for global hegemony. (shrink)

Current debate over the motives, ideological justifications, and outcomes of the war with Iraq have been strident and polarizing. _A Matter of Principle _is the first volume gathering critical voices from around the world to offer an alternative perspective on the prevailing pro-war and anti-war positions. The contribu-tors—political figures, public intellectuals, scholars, church leaders, and activists—represent the most powerful views of liberal internationalism. Offering alternative positions that challenge the status quo of both the left and the right, these essays claim (...) that, in spite of the inconsistent justifications provided by the United States and its allies and the conflict-ridden process of social reconstruction, the war in Iraq has been morally justifiable on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, a flagrant violator of human rights, a force of global instability and terror, and a threat to world peace. The authors discuss the limitations of the current system of global governance, which tolerates gross violations of human rights and which has failed to prevent genocide in places such as Bosnia and Rwanda. They also underscore the need for reform in international institutions and international law. At the same time, these essays do not necessarily attempt to apologize for the mistakes, errors, and deceptions in the way the Bush administration has handled the war. Disputing the idea that the only true liberal position on the war is to be against it, this volume charts an invaluable third course, a path determined by a strong liberal commitment to human rights, solidarity with the oppressed, and a firm stand against fascism, totalitarianism, and tyranny. (shrink)

This article adds to earlier research revealing that the American news media did not discharge their responsibility as a watchdog press in the post-9/11 years by failing to scrutinize extreme and unlawful government policies and actions, most of all the decision to invade Iraq based on false information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction arsenal. The content analyses presented here demonstrate that leading US news organizations, both television and print, did not expressly refer to human rights (...) violations when they reported on the torturing of foreign detainees during “enhanced interrogations” in US-run prison facilities abroad and the killing of civilians, including children, in US drone strikes overseas and outside theaters of war. Moreover, by framing torture and the “collateral damage” caused by drone-launched missile attacks episodically rather than in the context of human rights, the news media failed to alert the American public to the grave humanitarian violations in the so-called war on terrorism during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. (shrink)

The United States is at a critical crossroads in its foreign policy and its relationship to the international community. Indeed, the very existence of an international community, rooted in the authority of the United Nations and capable of enforcing its resolutions, is from Washington's contemporary perspective an issue of contention. The foreign policy of the administration of George W. Bush has demonstrated, both before and after the tragic events of 11 September 2001, a willingness to undertake major initiatives unilaterally when (...) these are deemed to be in the vital interest of the United States specifically or of international order generally. In light of the inability of the United Nations to exercise collective will in the effort to disarm the aggressive regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, 1991-2003, Washington's determination to act alone or in coalitions-of-the-willing to secure international order is a welcome alternative to the international community as it is presently constituted. (shrink)

Frontier Justice is a gripping, eye-opening exploration of the world-wide refugee crisis. Combining reporting, history and political philosophy, Andy Lamey sets out to explain the story behind the radical increase in the global number of asylum-seekers, and the effects of North America and Europe’s increasing unwillingness to admit them. He follows the extraordinary efforts of a set of Yale law students who sued the U.S. government on behalf of a group of refugees imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay; he recounts one refugee (...) family’s harrowing journey from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to contemporary Australia via the world’s most dangerous ocean crossing; and he explores the fascinating case of Ahmed Ressam, the so-called Millennium bomber who filed a refugee claim in Canada before attempting to blow up the Los Angeles airport. Lamey casts new light on a host of broader subjects, from the reasons why terrorists who pose as refugees have an overwhelming failure rate to the hidden benefits of multiculturalism. Throughout Lamey’s account, he focuses on the rights of people in search of asylum, and how those rights are routinely violated. But Frontier Justice does not merely point out problems. This book offers a bold case for an original solution to the international asylum crisis, one which draws upon Canada’s unique approach to asylum-seekers. At the centre of the book is a new blueprint for how the rights of refugees might be enforced, and a vision of human rights that is ultimately optimistic and deeply affirmative. (shrink)

Genghis Khan is supposed to have said, “Man’s highest joy is victory: to conquer one’s enemies, to hunt them down, to deprive them of their possessions, to make their loved ones weep, and to bed their wives and daughters.” Today, no ruler would dare utter such sentiments, and what the Khan called man’s highest joy would now be condemned everywhere as crimes against humanity and “grave breaches”—lawyerspeak for the most serious war crimes. Nevertheless, the U.S. killed more civilians in a (...) few minutes at Hiroshima than the Golden Horde did in its ruthless conquest of China; and the last ten years alone have witnessed civil wars and genocides of nearly incomprehensible cruelty and atrocity. Whether we think of General Mladic handing out candy to Muslim children in Srebenica shortly after ordering thousands of their fathers and brothers shot, or doped-up child soldiers in Sierra Leone chopping the arms off other children, or Saddam Hussein gassing Kurdish villagers, we confront the perplexing phenomenon that the past half-century has combined an incredible outpouring of humanitarian laws, treaties, and declarations with levels of wartime criminality that may exceed those in the Thirty Years’ War. Any light that philosophers might shed on this grotesque disconnect between moral ideals and reality would be welcome. So would more focused inquiry on the moral basis of international humanitarian law, or on the distribution of blame among politicians, perpetrators, planners, and passive supporters of mass atrocities. (shrink)

To say that the matter of the legality of the armed conflict against Iraq in 2003 was divisive is an understatement. The primary justification given by the UK government for the lawful nature of the Iraq war was an implied mandate from the Security Council. The implied mandate was said to be derived from a combination of Security Council Resolutions 678 and 1441. Many international lawyers remain unconvinced that such a mandate can be inferred from those resolutions. There is agreement (...) among both supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq that Saddam Hussein’s regime had an appalling human rights record. This was known to the coalition governments; indeed, Tony Blair expressly made the "moral case" for war on the basis of Hussein’s human rights violations. The legal justifications offered for the conflict by the UK government, however, did not refer to humanitarian intervention. This paper investigates whether it is possible that, despite the fact that the justification was not raised by the UK, it can provide a defence to any claims that the UK acted unlawfully, or that individuals committed an international crime, by initiating the attack on Iraq. (shrink)

This article explores book of poems entitled Requiem for Saddam Hussein and Other Poems for the Poor in Spirit by Konrad Góra in the light of animal studies. Looking at the poetic and beyond poetic activity of its author, this work reffers to Joanna Żylińska's question about ethical living founded on understandig of life both as zoe and bios. Think of the special opposition of village and city is trying to read this book in connection with mentioned vision (...) of life. These both areas shows presentifications and redefinings of persona in poems from Requiem and beyond poetic activity. By concentrating on poems specific for „nature” and „civilization this research will show how the mechanism of subordinating bare life works and how it concerns to both sides of the opposition of village and city. This article ask also for non-victims community, position and power of modern literature and involvment. (shrink)

Début 2003, un très important dispositif de guerre a pris position dans le Golfe. On soupçonne le dirigeant de l'Irak, Saddam Hussein, de disposer "d'armes de destruction massive" et de s'apprêter à en faire usage contre les Etats-Unis d'Amérique. On lui prête même, contre toute évidence, des liens étroits avec Oussama Ben Laden, le commanditaire présumé des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 à New York et à Washington. Le 19 février 2003, alors que s'intensifient les préparatifs de la (...) première guerre "préventive" de l'histoire - elle est alors imminente -, René Major et l'Institut des hautes études en psychanalyse reçoivent Jean Baudrillard et Jacques Derrida pour débattre de la situation. Débat intense, où chacun oppose ses analyses, autant qu'à son interlocuteur, à la situation elle-même, testant leur validité théorique : Qu'est-ce qu'un événement? Qu'est-ce qui résiste du réel, quand le virtuel lui dispute l'hégémonie de la représentation? Qu'y entre-t-il de l'inconscient? De quelle autorité dispose encore le droit, même international? Ces questions demeurent pressantes, aujourd'hui, que René Major "actualise" dans la présentation et la postface qu'il fait à cet échange exceptionnel. (shrink)

President Kennedy once said, “Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.” The purpose of my presentation this evening is to show why a strike against Iraq is dangerous, unjustified, and unnecessary. Since Saddam Hussein has not engaged in any aggressive behavior since the Gulf War, launching an attack would be pre-emptive in nature.

The study will focus on the relationship between the representations of God’s image in the Bible and on film. How is transcendence presented and what is Christology like in film production in the time that is either negligent of the religious and the transcendental or tries to reduce it to a matter of human intellect? How does Christ differ in the films by Pasolini, Zeffirelli and Gibson? Can Jesus Christ the Saviour be replaced by a popular action movie hero? The (...) paper will deal with religion from another perspective, namely, it will try to see whether religion has truly disappeared from the public life as it is sometimes assumed. How were the ideas about God used or misused by some politicians and leaders, such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and George W. Bush? What to do if the media enable us to perceive how religion is made political and how politics is made religionist? (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: The Tragedy of 9/11 Security Terrorism Foreseeable Consequences versus Actual Consequences Chauvinistic Consequentialism The Nonmilitary Context of the War against Terrorism The Invasion of Afghanistan The Invasion of Iraq An Alternative to the Invasion of Afghanistan An Alternative to the Invasion of Iraq Further Nonmilitary Steps to Stop Terrorism From Chauvinistic Consequentialism to Utilitarianism Another Foreseeable Consequence of the Invasions Haven't I Forgotten that the World is Better Off without Saddam Hussein? The Purpose (...) of this Assessment. (shrink)

Australia’s monopoly grain exporter, AWB, was the largest provider of kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program.The full extent of AWB’s complicity and the failure of its corporate culture became apparent as a result of two inquiries, commissioned by the United Nations and the Australian Government, both of which operated with almost complete transparency. The paper examines the nature of transparency – as virtue, duty, technique and outcome – and uses the Oil-for-Food inquiries as (...) a case study to show how transparency has exposed unethical behavior and brought about organizational change. Some potentially damaging effects of transparency and the implications for business and society are also discussed. (shrink)

The answer to the first question is clear enough. The Bush administration desperately needs a foreign policy success to obscure the outcome of its war in the Gulf: hundreds of thousands killed and the toll mounting as a long-term consequence of the devastating attack on the civilian society; the Gulf tyrannies safeguarded from any democratic pressures; Saddam Hussein firmly in power, having demolished popular rebellions with tacit US support. US government interests and goals are hardly concealed. Washington seeks (...) "the best of all worlds," New York Times chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman explains: "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," a return to the days when Saddam's "iron fist held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia," along with the Reagan-Bush administrations, which gave unwavering support to their murderous ally. These images, however, cannot be left in the public memory in the United States or elsewhere. The reality can be effaced by what the press describes as the. (shrink)

The torture memos released by the White House elicited shock, indignation, and surprise. The shock and indignation are understandable -- particularly the testimony in the Senate Armed Services Committee report on Cheney-Rumsfeld desperation to find links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, links that were later concocted as justification for the invasion, facts irrelevant. Former Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney testified that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The (...) more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results"; that is, torture. The McClatchy press reported that a former senior intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue added that "The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein 's regime... [Cheney and Rumsfeld] demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.... 'There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder'.". (shrink)

In recent months, the President and other members of his administration have openly declared their desire and intent to achieve "regime change" in Iraq. And since previous methods of ousting Saddam Hussein--economic sanctions and coups d'etat --have obviously failed, the President is seriously considering even more dramatic options, including full-scale military invasion. How should we evaluate that proposal? There are a number of important ethical questions that we must address before waging war.

This is a response to Mark Turner’s claim that Saddam Hussein’s use of the phrase “mother of all battles” provoked the widespread use of the “mother of” idiom as a metaphorical association of motherhood with efficiency and power. I suggest a cruder, less salutary, but more plausible interpretation of that use.

Palace of the End is a dense triptych of monologues exploring alternative narratives - albeit based in real facts - behind the events and the headlines surrounding the war in Iraq. Borrowing its title from the former royal palace where Saddam Hussein’s torture chamber was located, Thompson’s docudrama is structured as a chain of monologues telling three real-life stories set in the context of the war in Iraq. The play conveys three unconventional interpretations of the realities of war: (...) that of a young American soldier convicted for her misconduct at Abu Ghraib, the prison that stands as one of the most controversial symbols of the American-led Iraq invasion; a British scientist and weapons inspector who denounces what he understands as the false arguments given by his country’s leaders for engaging in a distant war; and an Iraqi mother whose life was shattered firstly by Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime, and later by the American first Gulf War. Each story is an enthralling and gut-wrenching reflection of one of the contemporary world’s most studied and controversial conflicts. The play gives voice to three different kinds of war victims, insofar as their political subjectivities and their moral conundrums are concerned. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Vagaries and Vicissitudes of WarRichard W Sams III remember standing in the kitchen of our home on Camp Pendleton—a United States Marine Corps base in Southern California—listening to National Public Radio (NPR) and doing dishes in the fall of 2002. President Bush announced to the world that he was considering a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Saddam Hussein harboring weapons of mass destruction (...) (WMD). Three months later, as a Navy Family Physician, I deployed with a surgical company in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Reflecting on the situation with a like-minded close friend, I was not sure— would this be a just war? A necessary war? In my mind, it did not rise to the level of conscientious objection, yet the rightness of invading another country with all the anticipated death and destruction was not clear.En route to Kuwait, we laid over in Spain. While fixed to a TV in a holding area, I watched the Secretary of State make a case to the United Nations (UN) and the world that removing Hussein from power would protect us from mobile anthrax labs that could kill tens of thousands. I thought to myself, Either he is absolutely right, and we are protecting our country and the rest of the free world, or he is terribly mistaken and we are embarking on a disaster.As we trained, prepared, and waited in our tents to invade, we listened to the news on “Voice of America” with a hand crank radio. Thousands of citizens from nations around the world protested. Pope John Paul II, a man well acquainted with the tragedy of war, even spoke out about the planned invasion. “War is not inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.” He admonished our leaders that war needed to be the very last option. As a man of faith, I was troubled by his resolute, thoughtful opposition to the crusade I was embarking on. As the day of the invasion approached, scud missiles flew over our camp and we scurried into bunkers, day and night, with our gas masks donned to protect us from possible WMD attacks. In March, with the announcement of a “shock and awe” missile attack on Hussein’s palace, the invasion commenced.Within a day of flying by helicopter into enemy territory to set up a surgical company, the fog of war set in. A series of mass casualties streamed in from nearby Nasiriya. We received dozens of injured enemy combatants and American soldiers. Most troubling were the civilians. An entire extended family fleeing for their lives stumbled into an Iraqi minefield meant for us: a mother dead, the men with shrapnel wounds, and an aunt lost both of her legs. Then there was the little boy. By doctrine, our leaders reassured us we would not care for children. Yet, out of instinct, the field corpsmen scooped up all injured, including children, and [End Page 170] brought them to us. The five-year-old’s legs were blown to bits. We had no pediatric supplies. The anesthesiologist heroically intubated the child’s tiny airway with a urinary catheter and placed an adult IV. The surgeons corrected the wounds the best they could. Hours later, in futility, we performed chest compressions on his tiny mangled body.A day later, the worst sandstorm in a decade struck the area. We struggled to keep the patient-filled tents erect. A Marine appeared on the scene out of the darkness (you could not see beyond your nose in the storm) exclaiming we were going to condition one—lock and load our weapons due to an imminent threat. As healthcare professionals, Geneva Conventions dictated we were to use weapons only in self-defense. We chambered our 9-millimeter pistols to defend our patients and ourselves while Marines formed a defensive perimeter. I thought to myself, Great I’m gonna be shot up and die during a freaking sandstorm in Iraq. Hours later, we were told to stand down. The threat was not from approaching enemy combatants but from shepherds running from the crossfire. I had a small nervous breakdown, sleep deprived and under duress... (shrink)

Palace of the End is a dense triptych of monologues exploring alternative narratives - albeit based in real facts - behind the events and the headlines surrounding the war in Iraq. Borrowing its title from the former royal palace where Saddam Hussein’s torture chamber was located, Thompson’s docudrama is structured as a chain of monologues telling three real-life stories set in the context of the war in Iraq. The play conveys three unconventional interpretations of the realities of war: (...) that of a young American soldier convicted for her misconduct at Abu Ghraib, the prison that stands as one of the most controversial symbols of the American-led Iraq invasion; a British scientist and weapons inspector who denounces what he understands as the false arguments given by his country’s leaders for engaging in a distant war; and an Iraqi mother whose life was shattered firstly by Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime, and later by the American first Gulf War. Each story is an enthralling and gut-wrenching reflection of one of the contemporary world’s most studied and controversial conflicts. The play gives voice to three different kinds of war victims, insofar as their political subjectivities and their moral conundrums are concerned. (shrink)

This article examines precontextualization: the rhetorical act of previewing and contextualizing a future discursive event. I examine how an NBC News broadcast selected verbal–visual representations of the past in order to enact a context for an upcoming discourse moment: Colin Powell’s 2003 United Nations address. The article draws on appraisal analysis, multimodal video analysis and scholarship on the rhetoric of futurity. I show that the NBC journalists who precontextualized Powell’s address on the night before its delivery presented viewers with a (...) supportive context for understanding Powell’s argument. By representing Saddam Hussein as deceptive and even deserving of future violence, the journalists essentially pre-confirmed arguments that Powell employed the next day. More importantly, because the news representations were presented as factual, they allowed viewers little space to consider alternative viewpoints – and little reason to question or resist the seemingly inexorable push for war. (shrink)

Killing the Arab Spring tells the stories of the Arab Spring uprising in 15 Middle East states, from the point of view of a secular Middle Eastern political analyst familiar with the politics, the culture of the people and the history of the area. Dr. Hasan views the vast majority of the Arab rulers deriving their absolute authority from inheritance or military coups, or in the case of the Saudis from conquest, not at the pleasure of the governed. Arab leaders (...) do not believe that government is a trust on behalf of the people. They believe that if there is democracy and their societies are composed of equal and competing individuals, there will be a tendency towards anarchy. People involved in the Arab Spring uprisings demanded inclusive and equitable democracy, social justice and economic development. There were no civil society institutions strong enough to challenge the weapons of authoritarianism that included ideology, repression, payoffs and the solidarity of the crony capitalists. The author argues that Saddam Hussein’s 1980 war on Iran was the spark that started a chain of bloody wars and events which eventually led to the US invasion of Iraq and the Arab Spring uprisings. The revolts and the counter revolts took different forms in each country based on its history, the type of government and the economy. The author argues that the Arab Spring is a step of a long process toward democracy rather than an aberration between periods of authoritarian regimes. To understand the Arab Spring causes and its aftermath, the book provides the reader with a review of the Middle East common culture that includes the history of Islamic religion, Islamic-sects and Arab tribalism, and brief history of each country. There are few activities more controversial than writing history of a nation involved in a conflict. Even while witnessing history unfolding in a country, different historians provide different narratives, different causes and different conclusions. This becomes more obvious when the history of the conflicts is viewed through the prism of the politics of sectarianism ethnicity and tribalism. The author strives for an objective view, but he does not hide his strong support to liberal democracy and human rights. (shrink)

The 40th annual New York Film Festival was framed by the refusal of the United States government to grant Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami a visa to attend the screening of his film, _Ten_. In protest Finnish director Aki Kaurismaki, whose apolitical film _The Man Without a Past_ was also on the Festival program, decided not to attend. A week or so into the Festival, Bertrand Tavernier found himself unable to attend his press conference after the screening of his highly political (...) film, _Safe Conduct_, because he was in the hospital. He sent a letter to the Festival apologizing for his absence which made it clear that he had wanted, in addition to discussing his film, to make his own statement about the insult to Kiarostami. Tavernier saluted Kaurismaki for his gesture, but said that his way was to be present at the Festival to raise his voice. Tavernier specifically called attention to the bitter irony of lumping Kiarostami with the Arab terrorists and with Saddam Hussein, only because of his national origin, when the Iranian director had devoted his life to affirming the values of freedom and condemning dictatorship. (shrink)

For thousands of years, political leaders have unified communities by aligning them against common enemies. However, today more than ever, the search for “common” enemies results in anything but unanimity. Scapegoats like Saddam Hussein, for example, led to a stark polarization in the United States. Renowned neuropsychiatrist and psychologist Jean-Michel Oughourlian proposes that the only authentic enemy is the one responsible for both everyday frustrations and global dangers, such as climate change—ourselves. Oughourlian, who pioneered an “interdividual” psychology with (...) René Girard, reveals how all people are bound together in a dynamic, contingent process of imitation, and shows that the same patterns of irrational mimetic desire that bring individuals together and push them apart also explain the behavior of nations. (shrink)

In the past decade, Islam has come to be associated more than ever with images of extremism and violence. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are stock characters in this association, in the aftermath of 11 September and the ‘war on terror’. Lost in all this is a long record of Muslim experience of non-violent change and peace-making. Yet Islam hardly glorifies violence — and does quite explicitly glorify its opposite. History offers much evidence of Muslim tolerance and (...) civil engagement with other faith and cultural traditions. Non-violent Islam could give fresh life to secularism in Muslim societies. It may help steer public space away from state-dominated as well as other forms of political Islam, with their foolish utopias. Realizing the ideals of non-violence is a perennial struggle for Islamic communities around the world - and is part of the struggle for democratic life. (shrink)

In this article, I describe, first, why the American view of the war they were fighting is better described as up-dated 'old war', then I analyse the reality on the ground as a 'new war', and, in the last section, I describe the possibilities for an alternative strategy to reduce the risks posed both to the Iraqi population and to the wider international community, first by Saddam Hussein before the war, and later by the 'new war' itself.

As the war goes on, the casualties inevitably rise: American and British combatants, Iraqi combatants and Iraqi civilians are being killed. How many lives is it justifiable to sacrifice in order to protect American security and to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein 's dictatorship?

As the war goes on, the casualties inevitably rise: American and British combatants, Australian and British journalists, Iraqi combatants, and Iraqi civilians are being killed. How many lives is it justifiable to sacrifice to protect our security, and to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship?

As the war goes on, the casualties inevitably rise: American and British combatants, Australian and British journalists, Iraqi combatants, and Iraqi civilians are being killed. How many lives is it justifiable to sacrifice to protect our security, and to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein 's dictatorship?

Nobody has died yet as a result of the ongoing trials for transferring money internationally without a license of four Harrisonburg men from Kurdish parts of Iraq: Rashid Qambari, Ahmed Abdullah, Amir Rashid, and Fadhil Noroly. However, before coming here they were threatened because of their work for groups associated with the United States, and they were brought here by the United States government as part of Operation Pacific Haven. Saddam Hussein killed members of local Kurdish families. Qambari, (...) convicted on January 30, 2006, has stated, “If I get deported back to Iraq, I will be a nice gift to the insurgents. I will be dead.” Deportation is a possible outcome of his conviction. (shrink)

During the eighties the 'peace movement' became an important actor in Belgian politics. It was able to promote aspects of international relations and defense policy as 'political issues'. The influence on public opinion and political parties was considerably higher in Flanders than in the french speaking part of the country.After the annexiation of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990, the Belgian government reacted more or less as these organisations desired: prudent, promoting UNO-initiatives and diplomatic solutions to the crisis. Therefore, these (...) peace organisationswere attacked or infiltrated by extreme left wing parties, who wanted to support Saddam Hussein who was seen as a symbol of the third world. As a result of these left wing tactics, the peace movement could not act as it did during the eighties : as a broad force with a coherent programme, with organisations belonging to several ideological pillars and with influence on parties which traditionally belong to the government. (shrink)

This article evaluates the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the March 2003 attack on Iraq. The author rejects assertions that Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002), standing alone, contained a mandate to employ force; on the contrary, the Resolution was only adopted on the understanding that it did not. The law of self-defense, including its ?preemptive? variant, similarly provided no legal basis for the action because the degree of Iraqi support to terrorism was insufficient and the threat of use of weapons (...) of mass destruction was not imminent. With regard to humanitarian intervention, the suffering inflicted by the Saddam Hussein's regime did not rise to a level allowing intervention. Moreover, international law does not permit forceful regime change except when authorized by the Security Council. However, the author argues that material breach of the 1991 cease-fire in Security Council Resolution 687 released the US and UK from their obligation to refrain from hostilities, thereby reactivating the use of force authorization in Security Council Resolution 678 (1990). This latter justification was the sole official legal justification offered for Operation Iraqi Freedom. (shrink)

Available Again! Long before the "shock and awe" campaign against Iraq in March 2003, debates swarmed around the justifications of the U.S.-led war to depose Saddam Hussein. While George W. Bush's administration declared a just war of necessity, opponents charged that it was a war of choice, and even opportunism. Behind the rhetoric lie vital questions: when is war just, and what means are acceptable even in the course of a just war? Originally published in 1991, in the (...) wake of the first war against Iraq, Just War Theory explores this essential dilemma. With a new preface by the editor, the essays in this indispensable collection move beyond the theoretical origins of just war theory to examine issues faced by military strategists, politicians, social theorists, and anyone concerned with the provocations and costs of military action. Popular wisdom once claimed that notions of just war would become obsolete with the onset of "total warfare," characterized by attacks on civilians and undiscriminating weapons of mass destruction. While the last decade has been ripe with brutality, just war theory is more critical than ever to the future of international relations and public discourse. This readable collection is an invaluable introduction to the debate. (shrink)

The New Imperial Order : the Globalization of the U.S. Empire. It took the U.S. one century to extend their « manifest destiny » from North America to the whole world. In the aftermath of the Cold War, there still seemed to be a red line that the U.S. global empire could not tread easily, represented by the former boundaries of the ex-USSR. After September 11, this red line has been wiped out: U.S. military bases have been established in the (...) heart of the former Soviet Union. The U.S., which acts as the enforcer of capitalist globalization, has widened the gap between its military power and the rest of the world. Thus it can now envisage to establish a quasi-direct colonial rule in Baghdad in contrast with 1991 when it allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power under embargo and scrutiny for lack of an alternative suitable to its interests. (shrink)

It took the U.S. one century to extend their « manifest destiny » from North America to the whole world. In the aftermath of the Cold War, there still seemed to be a red line that the U.S. global empire could not tread easily, represented by the former boundaries of the ex-USSR. After September 11, this red line has been wiped out: U.S. military bases have been established in the heart of the former Soviet Union. The U.S., which acts as (...) the enforcer of capitalist globalization, has widened the gap between its military power and the rest of the world. Thus it can now envisage to establish a quasi-direct colonial rule in Baghdad in contrast with 1991 when it allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power under embargo and scrutiny for lack of an alternative suitable to its interests. (shrink)

The war in Iraq is over. U.S. troops have withdrawn. Saddam Hussein has been overthrown and replaced with a government perceived to be more democratic and more just to the Iraqi people. In late 2011, concurrent with the U.S. withdrawal, strategists suggested that there was “peace at last” in Iraq, a cause for celebration.

During the last 42 years I have been a mediator in 48 countries, in some of them with success. One of the reasons for that success is that I have a certain skill: I've avoided any contact with journalists. For that reason it's with some trepidation that I enter this room and listen to the discussion today which was at such a high academic level and never touched reality.Let me start by posing some questions for you to consider. Are you (...) sure you know what Saddam Hussein stood for in the Gulf countries? I'm not thinking of anything we attribute to him but rather how he thought of it. Are you sure you know what the Serbian position was in the Yugoslavia conflict? Not the way others write it down but the way they thought it. Are you sure you know what Djakarta stood for in connection with East Timor? What were their goals? Do you know what is the meaning of N30 and A16? If you don't know what this N30 and A16 are, I don't think you live in this world. Do you know what it is and do you know what it means at the same time? There is absolutely no way reading the press for you to get behind any of the reasons why we have lousy media and that the media are major contributing factors to violence.So let me formulate it as a thesis: in a conflict you stand for something, you yearn for it but you have a feeling that there is something — whatever it may be — that makes it impossible for others to listen to it; you have a voice but they don't have an ear and whatever you say is twisted into unrecognition, and if you experience that over a period of let us say fifty years you may become tired and you may get the feeling that it doesn't matter the slightest, and you may just as well get violent because that seems to be the only language they understand. So I am saying that the major cause of violence is inattention to the subjective reality of the famous other. There is no other in the world. The construction of the other is: We are all human beings.We may not always like it but the Romans said it much more succinctly and much better than Habermas ever was able to say it: 'altera pars'. Listen to the other side. If you don't have that capacity you're lost. The psychological ability is called empathy. The people who know most about this are called actors, psychologists, sometimes religious people. It means the ability to get into the clothes of the other guy. You don't have to like him: empathy is not sympathy but you should understand his intellectual and emotional logic. (shrink)

Using Hannah Arendt's theory as a template, this essay analyzes American foreign policy decisions that led to the Iraq war. Obviously, Arendt would find the misinformation concerning "links" between Iraq and al-Qaeda to be problematic, as well as the unjustified allegation of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the Bush administration sought to justify the war in roughly two other ways: the liberation of the people of Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the need to stabilize (...) the region by providing a model for democracy in the Middle East. One may wonder whether Arendt would support the administration's actions for these other reasons, as Arendt was worried about the emergence of nuclear weapons and certainly was against dictatorships in favor of governments that support the public freedom of the people. However, I argue that Arendt's overall political theory would not support the war and may, in fact, give us reasons to believe that it will not produce a fully functioning democracy in Iraq. In conclusion, I will contrast the Bush administration's method to the Arab Spring, which Arendt would more fully support, if the outcome focuses on writing and adopting Constitutions that secure freedom for the people involved. (shrink)

Cette étude se concentrera sur le rapport entre la représentation de Dieu dans la Bible et celle dans le cinéma. Comment la transcendance estelle représentée et à quoi la christologie ressembletelle dans la production cinématographique d’une époque qui, soit néglige le religieux et le transcendental, soit tente de le réduire à un cadre intellectuel ? Comment le Christ diffèretil dans les films de Pasolini, de Zeffirelli ou de Gibson ? Jésus Christ le Sauveur peutil être remplacé par le héros d’un (...) film d’action ? Cette étude examinera également la religion d’un autre point de vue, celui de la question de savoir si elle a véritablement disparu de la vie publique comme il est parfois supposé. Comment les idées sur Dieu sontelles utilisées ou malmenées par certains hommes politiques et dirigeants, à l’instar d’Oussama ben Laden, Saddam Hussein ou George W. Bush ? Que faire lorsque les médias nous permettent de nous rendre compte de la politisation de la religion et la « religionalisation » de la politique ? (shrink)

Ova će se studija usredotočiti na odnos između načina predočavanja Boga u Bibliji i na filmu. Kako se prikazuje transcendencija i kako kristologija izgleda u filmskoj produkciji u vremenu koje se ili nemarno odnosi prema religioznom i transcendentalnom ili ga pokušava sažeti u doseg ljudskog intelekta? Kako se Krist razlikuje u filmovima koje su režirali Pasolini, Zeffirelli i Gibson? Može li se Isus Krist Spasitelj zamijeniti popularnim filmskim akcijskim junakom? Istraživanje će religiju istražiti i iz jedne druge perspektive, naime je (...) li ona doista nestala iz javnoga života kao što se ponekad pretpostavlja. Kako ideje o Bogu upotrebljavaju ili zloupotrebljavaju neki političari ili vođe, kao što su Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush? Što učiniti kad nam mediji omoguće da uočimo politizaciju religije i religizaciju politike? (shrink)

Die Studie macht das Verhältnis zwischen den Darstellungen des Gottes in der Bibel und jenen im Film zum Fokus. Auf welche Art und Weise wurde die Transzendenz präsentiert und wie die Christologie in der Filmproduktion erscheint, zu Zeiten, die sich als nachlässig gegenüber dem Religiösen sowie Transzendentalen zeigen, beziehungsweise beides auf eine Sache des menschlichen Intellekts zu reduzieren gedenken? Wie verschieden ist Christus in den Filmen Pasolinis, Zeffirellis und Gibsons? Kann Jesus Christus, der Heiland, durch einen populären Aktionsfilmhelden ersetzt werden? (...) Die Arbeit setzt sich mit der Religion aus einem anderen Blickwinkel auseinander, nämlich versuche ich festzustellen, ob die Religion tatsächlich aus dem öffentlichen Leben verschwunden ist wie mitunter angenommen. In welcher Manier wurden die Ideen von Gott von bestimmten Politikern und Führern gebraucht bzw. missbraucht, wie zum Beispiel Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein und George W. Bush? Was gilt es zu tun, wenn uns die Medien ermöglichen, wahrzunehmen, wie die Religion politisiert und die Politik religionisiert wird? (shrink)