The toman diaries

Mullah Krekars attorney speaks

fredag, februar 20, 2004

You all know about the north Iraqi group Ansar al Islam, and its former leader mullah Krekar. Krekar is in Norway and is being prosecuted by what seems like the entire norwegian legal apparatus. The allegations have been varying, the first terrorist-allegation was dropped a few months ago, but there are now 'new' evidence around.

The claims are that Krekar has been directly involved in many attacks in Iraq, even though he resigned as leader a long time ago to move to norway and live with his refuge family. Ansar al Islam is the prime link between Saddam Hussain and Al-Quaida, and as long as the US doesn't find the WMD they claimed were in Iraq, the group seems like the only justification left talking about. But noone has evidence of such a link.

So what do you do?
Without evidence, you need to make evidence appear legal or otherwise, and this it seems, is what the US, Iran (yes, iran), Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Økokrim (Norwegian Police' Economic Crime Unit, by the way the one that lost when accusing DVD-Jon...) in norway have done. Krekar was recently released (again) from custody because the court found that the 'new' evidence, namely information aquired from a few ex-ansar al islam members wasn't any good.

Why? These members were tortured into saying the right things. Krekars attorney says they have firm and detailed evidence of this. They've been kicked, beaten, put naked in the freezer, gotten arms broken.
First they're interrogated by american military, then left for the group opposing ansar al islam, PUK, to torture, then interrogated again by the americans, then PUK, and then finally, the norwegians come in. They 'were present' at the interrogations, and so they say noone was tortured into saying anything.

Imagine youself being tortured every time you do something you're not supposed to do. Again and again. Wouldn't you try to say what you're supposed to say? What the interrogators want to hear? Thought so.

The justification factor

Certainly, Ansar al Islam is violent. The US is violent. Saddam was violent. Other groups in Iraq are violent. Israel is violent. Groups in Iran are violent.
I just heard an interview with a (female) socialist expert who lived in Iraq for quite some time. She compared Iraqi affairs, where a lot of groups in northern Iraq have control over limited areas and constantly fighting, she compared it to Norway around year 1000, when there were lots of 'småkonger', little kings, ruling here and there.

Who are we to take one of those groups and compare them with our civilized (dangerous word nowadays) lives in the west? Who are we to superimpose our way of living on their affairs? What if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran started accusing John Kerry of adultery? Claiming thats bad in Iran so he must be put in jail in Iran? With a "fair trial"?

Oh the dangers of trying to prove something you want to be true. I'm currently reading Jan Guillou - Coq Rouge