All of this — do it if so inclined.

Neal Ascherson has a new* article here.

*First published on 18 May 2006 but as far as I can tell, only made generally available on intertubes for the first time now.

Alan Dershowitz’s advocacy of new rules to codify pre-emptive state attacks in the era of “war on terror” is partisan sophistry with chilling historical echoes…[.]

I think I tend towards agreement with him (Ascherson that is).

I also agree with Zizek when he said…

Even the ‘liberal’ argument cited by Alan Dershowitz is suspect: ‘I’m not in favour of torture, but if you’re going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.’ When, taking this line a step further, Dershowitz suggests that torture in the ‘ticking clock’ situation is not directed at the prisoner’s rights as an accused person (the information obtained will not be used in the trial against him, and the torture itself would not formally count as punishment), the underlying premise is even more disturbing, implying as it does that one should be allowed to torture people not as part of a deserved punishment, but simply because they know something. Why not go further still and legalise the torture of prisoners of war who may have information which could save the lives of hundreds of our soldiers? If the choice is between Dershowitz’s liberal ‘honesty’ and old-fashioned ‘hypocrisy’, we’d be better off sticking with ‘hypocrisy’. I can well imagine that, in a particular situation, confronted with the proverbial ‘prisoner who knows’, whose words can save thousands, I might decide in favour of torture; however, even (or, rather, precisely) in a case such as this, it is absolutely crucial that one does not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle: given the unavoidable and brutal urgency of the moment, one should simply do it. Only in this way, in the very prohibition against elevating what we have done into a universal principle, do we retain a sense of guilt, an awareness of the inadmissibility of what we have done.

Which is all analogous to Scoop’s post below I reckon. That is — don’t rely on fucking lawyers for guidance on anything except how to ‘get off’ stuff that you are guilty as fuck of.

Ian Kershaw discusses what would have happened if Stauffenberg had successfully killed Hitler:

the war in Europe would have continued until Germany’s defeat or capitulation. This, though, would almost certainly have come much earlier with Hitler dead. Millions of lives and immense destruction would have been avoided had Stauffenberg been successful.

What about within Germany? Perversely, the chances of democracy being rapidly established might have been diminished rather than enhanced by a successful coup. There would certainly have been a new “stab-in-the-back” legend, of the sort that had bedevilled German democracy. And the leading figures in the antiHitler plot, divided among themselves apart from the need to be rid of Hitler and end the war, were not democrats. Some even wanted to hold on to Nazi territorial gains. A natural human reaction is to regret Stauffenberg’s failure to kill Hitler. But it was probably better that Germany’s defeat was total, and inflicted from outside, so that Germans, too, could see the full extent of the disaster which Nazism had inflicted upon their country, and on the world.

By Kershaw’s own reasoning millions of lives and immense destruction could have been avoided, yet he argues (on the basis of longer term political concerns about Germany) that complete defeat was necessary - perhaps as a good historian should. Kershaw’s argument seems strong with regard to the long term political goals, but given that if Stauffenberg’s had succeeded millions of lives may have been saved, isn’t it a little bit more than a “natural human reaction” to regret his failure?

Further to my 8 August Comment is Free article on two Kurdish men sentenced to hang in Iran, I recently received from UK-based supporters of Adnan Hassanpour and Abdolwahed Boutimar a file of text documents and photos. If there are any Farsi readers of this blog who could take a look at these, please get in touch.

A little background for those of you not familiar with the case…

Two dissident Iranian journalists from the country’s Kurdish minority have been sentenced to death for being “enemies of God”. Adnan Hassanpour is a professional journalist on the editorial staff of the Kurdish news magazine, Asou (Horizon), which was banned in August 2005 during a crackdown by the Iranian culture ministry. Abdolwahed Boutimar is a activist and writer specialising in environmental affairs.

Following their arrest, Hassanpour and Boutimar were charged with membership of the PKK-linked political organisation and guerilla army Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistanê (PJAK). The enemies of God bit is related to the charge of “Moharebeh”, which is levelled against those who engage in armed resistance and espionage. Hassanpour and Boutimar were tried in a ‘Revolutionary Court’ with only a state-employed duty solicitor to represent them, and in short order convicted and sentenced to hang. The Iranian regime has put no evidence into the public domain to support the charges, and the EU has spoken out against the death sentence.

Please refer to the CiF article (also published on my own site) for further details of the case, and also the support blog established by supporters of Hassanpour and Boutimar.

Not that there are many public details of the case. Khalid Khedri, a research student currently living in Southampton, has provided me with bits and pieces, but from what I can see they don’t add much, and serve more to help keep the story in the public eye. And that is sorely needed. The reaction to the CiF article was poor, and the case of Hassanpour and Boutimar has received very little UK-wide media exposure. There is a short news report on the BBC website, and a BBC regional TV broadcast featuring Boutimar’s Sheffield-resident brother.

Hassanpour and Boutimar are reported to be on hunger strike in Sanandaj jail, and having been so for over 40 days they must be in a very poor state of health. The 20 August appeal deadline has now passed, and I’ve yet to hear of any developments on this front.

Instead of arguing over whether Hassanpour and Boutimar are journalists or terrorists, and the nature and legal status of the PKK and its affiliates, we should focus our attention on two young men facing imminent execution, and the struggle of a people now largely forgotten by their fair-weather friends in the west.

A bitter irony: Following the Nazi mob attack in Mügeln, Saxony Minister President Georg Milbradt of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) warned against a “rush to judgement.” Milbradt said Saxony was a place “open to the world.” He described the Mügeln incident as “economically damaging” to Saxony.

Well, that certainly is an interesting way to put it. We say: If that’s where it hurts, let’s make them really feel the pain. Make them pay!

www.muegeln.com

In recent weeks the US bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with nuclear weapons has come under scrutiny. Some argue that the decision was a war crime, other argue it was not. There are similar debates to be had about the UK’s bombing of Dresden with conventional arms, but what about one of the most celebrated bombing missions of World War II? It is immortalized in film, a revised Stephen Fry scripted version of which is to appear in cinemas in 2008, the theme tune of which is played at England football matches. I refer to the Dambuster attacks, otherwise known as Operation Chastise.

The attacks had a relatively minor effect on the German war machine, although there were additional effects on German agriculture, morale, future bombing strategies, and Stalin’s view of the UK. However, in 1977 the Geneva Conventions Protocol I was agreed. Article 56 states:

Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

A war crime?

So is the majority of the British public, who I suspect would hold up the Dambuster attacks as an admirable example of ingenuity and courage in a war against Nazism, celebrating a war crime?

Or is the application of such international law to historical events, taking place within the context of a worldwide struggle for survival, a mere intellectual game of little value to real debates about international law?

¨There is a difference between terrorism and communism, communism has an ideology¨

John Humphries on Radio 4 this morning in relation to Al Qaeda.