U.S. Arrest of Sunni Party Leader Foments Unrest

Front-paged at BooManTribune.com.

Muhsin Abd al-Hamid [PHOTO LEFT, at a press conference on May 23, 2005] is the head of the Sunni's Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP). In 2003, the "Sunni professor at Baghdad University and author of more than 30 books on the interpretation of the Koran" was named by Paul Bremer to the Interim Governing Council.

Monday morning, Juan Cole alerts us, Hamid "was hooded and taken away after US troops broke windows in his home and allegedly mistreated him and his sons." Hamid's three sons were also taken away, reports Al-Jazeera, which has the most up-to-date, detailed report.

Islamic Party official Alaa Makki calls the raid "a low point in the history of Americans in Iraq." Iraq's president is demanding his release by U.S. troops:

(He's being released. See update below fold.)

Update [2005-5-30 10:20:37 by SusanHu]:

US: Arrest of Sunni leader a mistake. (The U.S. is releasing him.)

US forces in Baghdad have acknowledged they had detained Iraqi Sunni leader Muhsin Abd al-Hamid in error and said they were releasing him.

"This morning coalition forces detained and interviewed Muhsen Abd al-Hamid. Following the interview it was determined that he was detained by mistake and should be released," a statement issued by the US military said on Monday.

From earlier reports:

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has called for the immediate release of the leader of Iraq's main Sunni party who was arrested by US forces, a statement from his office said.

"President Talabani expressed his surprise and unhappiness at the arrest of the leader of the Islamic Party and called for his immediate release," it said.

"The Presidential Council has not been consulted ... and feels that treating a political personality of this level in such an arbitrary way is unacceptable."

Juan Cole says, "Actually it is not clear under the provisional Iraqi constitution that it is legal for US troops just to go arrest people. The arrest of a major Sunni leader," Cole continues, "will cerainly have an impact on the guerrilla movement. Journalists are already talking about a new potential civil war among the sects."

IIP issued a statement that "this irresponsible behavior will only complicate the situation," reports China View.

The Fallujah Factor: Cole points out that the IIP "initially announced that they would take part in the parliamentary elections, then declared neutrality because of the November, 2004, Fallujah campaign."

About that declaration, Australia's The Age reported in November 2004:

A leading Sunni Muslim political party pulled out of Iraq's US-backed interim government today in protest at the onslaught by American forces on the rebel-held city of Falluja.

"The Iraqi Islamic Party has decided to withdraw from the government in protest against the attack on Falluja that is harming the people," said Mohsen Abdul Hamid, senior party official and member of Iraq's provisional National Assembly.

Al-Jazeera provides more details on the raid and detention of Hamid and his three sons:

Abd al-Hamid's wife, Muhsin Abd al-Hamid Awatif Ibrahim told Aljazeera that the US forces ransacked the house.

"They stormed the house, arrested Dr Muhsin and three of our sons, Miqdad, a first Secretary at the Foreign Ministry, and Yasir, Deputy Head of the Sunni Waqf [endowments]. They took their mobile phones and some money from the house," she said.

"They have scattered all the contents of my house, and took our money, jewellery and our ID cards and passports," she added.

"They even wanted to arrest me too, but I told them I had leukemia so they left me," she said.

No reason was given for the arrest, and the US military in Baghdad was not immediately able to confirm the incident.

Makki slammed the arrest as "a low point in the history of Americans in Iraq".

He said more than 200 members of the party were currently being held without charge in US detention centres in the country.

All the more surprising, Makki added, was that the action came a day after Iraqi government spokesman Laith Kubba had welcomed a statement by the Sunni party against violence threatening the country's fledgling democracy and social fabric.

The statement, reports Al Jazeera, "had also warned the government against transforming security forces into an instrument of repression under the control of Shia Muslims who now dominate the political scene."

The title of Juan Cole's blog entry today is "30 Dead, Dozens Wounded by Guerrillas In Response to Operation Lightning."

It appears that lightning has struck Mr. Hamid and the Iraqi Islamic Party.

_______________________________

PHOTO ABOVE, CAPTION: "Mohsen Abdul Hamid, the head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, speaks at a press conference in Baghdad, Iraq Monday, May 23, 2005. U.S. troops detained Hamid along with his three sons and four guards on May 30, 2005." photo: Yahoo/China View

_______________________________

•  So ...

  U.S. forces arrest a professor who's written 30 books on the Koran.

  "Hamid, aged in his late 60s, is regarded as a moderate Islamic leader and has headed his party since the 1970s." -- from China View newspaper

  Was his crime speaking out against Operation Lightning? Is the U.S. blaming him for the counter-insurgency? What do you think?

  by SusanHu on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:46:43 AM PDT

  •  who could have thought

    there would be another "low" point in our actions in Iraq.

    by Miss Devore on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:51:24 AM PDT

•  From the Times UK:

  Here's the link:
  

  The arrests came on the second day of Operation Lightning, the Iraqi-led anti-insurgent offensive in Baghdad that Mr Abdul-Hamid's party opposes, believing security forces will trample over innocent people's rights.

  
  Hmm, ya think?

  by sheba on Mon May 30, 2005 at 06:59:33 AM PDT

  •  Yup!

    Thanks for this key contribution, Sheba.  Yup, yup, yup.  

    Boy, this is really going to solve the insurgency/counter-insurgency problem.

    by SusanHu on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:06:39 AM PDT

•  Are These Fuckwads

  running a competition to see who can screw things up to the highest level with the least possible intervention?

  Somewhere there is a list that says, "Whatever you do in Iraq, you must never, under any circumstances, do the following."

  So far they seem to be hitting them all.

  Fucked up, waaaay beyond all recognition.

  by Deep Dark on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:14:01 AM PDT

•  Krystallnacht for Sunnis

  Good thing there's no comparing Iraq and Germany, else people might say that.

  by cskendrick on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:16:34 AM PDT

  •  It's intimidation...

    They're releasing him now.  But.

    They rensacked his home, roughed him up -- and roughed up his three sons, terrified his wife who had to use her leukemia to keep them from taking her too.  

    And they've upset all the Sunnis who belong to this party.

    Great job, guys.   But, it was meant to terrorize.... and I'm sure it'll have a chilling effect.
    

    by SusanHu on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:20:22 AM PDT

    •  Gee,

      I wonder if, after they "unarrested" everybody, the "security" forces gave back the money, jewellery, ID cards and passports that they confiscated when they ransacked the place. I'm thinking not.

      Hell, I wonder if they even apologized.

      Argh.

      by sheba on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:39:52 AM PDT

      •  And how about the sons?

        They have yet to be "unarrested," along with assorted "houseguests."

        And all this on Memorial Day yet. Half of Arlington must be rolling in their graves at the bumbling incompetence of today's U.S. military.

        by matt n nyc on Mon May 30, 2005 at 02:48:19 PM PDT

        •  Ahhhh...

          You are implying then, that in other wars this didn't happen? There were gentlemanly knocks on the door, conversations over tea? No stealing of food or money for hungry forces to use, no "attack first", ask questions later if anyone survives?

          by AllisonInSeattle on Tue May 31, 2005 at 02:28:29 AM PDT

    •  WTF Did They Arrest Him

      in the first damn place?  WTF did they gain?

      Intimidation?  WHY?

      Just piss off everybody in the general area.

      I swear it's like Dumb And Dumber are running this thing.

      I'll stop sputtering long enough to "recommend".

      Just friggin crazy, you ask me.

      by mattman on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:41:44 AM PDT

    •  I think it's stupid arrogance, not intimidation

      I don't think this guy was targeted - I think he was swept up in an ingnorant raid designed more to placate tough guy leaders in the Pentagon than provide security to the Iraqi people. It was a fool's errand like every single other action we have  taken in Iraq.

      Many in the military are brilliant and effective. Those thriving under Bush and Rumsfeld are not.

      by joejoejoe on Mon May 30, 2005 at 08:03:33 AM PDT

      •  The "brilliant and effective" ones

        are also "thriving" ... but in their retirement homes in Florida.

        by matt n nyc on Mon May 30, 2005 at 02:50:43 PM PDT

      •  Or perhaps we are being used

        don't think this guy was targeted - I think he was swept up in an ingnorant raid designed more to placate tough guy leaders in the Pentagon than provide security to the Iraqi people.

        On the other hand there might some shadowy figure our forces have gotten good tips from in the past who in fact now has a different agenda, is not interested the Americans anymore, and thinks that helping to push the country toward civil war is his best path to a long period in power.

        by Fred in Vermont on Mon May 30, 2005 at 03:52:28 PM PDT

        •  Inclined To Agree

           there might some shadowy figure our forces have gotten good tips from in the past who in fact now has a different agenda, is not interested the Americans anymore, and thinks that helping to push the country toward civil war is his best path to a long period in power.

               IMHO the Americans in Iraq are getting played by just about every Iraqi who has a score to settle with some other Iraqi, whether the score is political, religious, ethnic, or just personal.  All you have to do is tell the dumbass gringos that Abdul who lives down the block is connected to El Qaeda or the insurgents and bang, poor Abdul disappears into Abu Ghraib.
               I think that's what happened this time. The fact that our people are saying nothing about why he was pinched in the first place points in that direction.  We don't want to admit that we bought a bum steer from an Iraqi with an agenda.

          by angry blue planet on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:36:50 PM PDT

          •  We just can't afford these sorts of things

            We don't want to admit that we bought a bum steer from an Iraqi with an agenda.

            And that we are so ignorant of what is going on politically that we will buy into such a thing even targeting a very well known key political figure.  If it could happen to such a one then nobody in Iraq is safe from being falsely fingered to the Americans.  This is the rare sort of Sunni figure that we are going to need to stick up his head and endorse a constitution and status of forces agreement (where it that BTW?).

            by Fred in Vermont on Tue May 31, 2005 at 04:07:15 AM PDT

            •  Status of Farces

              This is the rare sort of Sunni figure that we are going to need to stick up his head and endorse a constitution and status of forces agreement (where it that BTW?).

              The SOFA is that thing lurking under the big flat rock.  Everyone knows it's there but no one wants to flip that rock over.
              Assuming that a constitution is written and elections under that constitution duly take place--I believe the timetable calls for the vote in December.  OK, then the Iraqis presumably will have a government with the authority to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with the US.  Big Problemo: after all the shit that's gone down, nobody in their right mind can imagine any new Iraqi government negotiating anything of the kind. The Iraqis will want the US OUT, period, end of discussion. No bases. No nothing. Just leave, please.
              So what happens to all those "permanent" bases we're busy building over there?  Is the US going to just leave?  Or will the US risk a war with all the Iraqis by attempting stay on, SOFA or no SOFA?
              Stay fucking tuned...

              by angry blue planet on Tue May 31, 2005 at 05:19:52 PM PDT

•  it's the new policy...

  ...having "won" the war on terrorism, the US is moving on to a new war, on "extremism." See my diary from last night
  http://seesdifferent.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/30/15058/3452

  by seesdifferent on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:36:18 AM PDT

•  Fox News

  Fox was reporting this as IMPORTANT CAPTURE BY US FORCES!!! this morning.

  Bet they'll just forget to even mention it from here on in.

  by Hrubec on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:40:50 AM PDT

  •  Nah, That's Some Other Dude

    Probably Zarqawi's uncle's florist.

    by mattman on Mon May 30, 2005 at 07:44:14 AM PDT

•  SusanHu, you are indefatigable--thanks (n/t)

  by ORDem on Mon May 30, 2005 at 08:07:11 AM PDT

•  I am becoming more...

  and more convinced that the US wants chaos in Iraq.  Don't ask me why, maybe BushCo knows if Iraq stabilizes itself the first thing Iraqi's will want is for the US forces to leave, so maybe BushCo plans on staying in Iraq for a long time, so they need chaos, terror, sectarian strife, probably even civil war, so that BushCo's sinister plans can continue to unfold...whatever they may be.

  by Darth Codis on Mon May 30, 2005 at 12:36:46 PM PDT

  •  Intentional "chaos"

    Abu Khalil, a very insightful commentator on Liberal Street Fighters, seems to agree with you.

    I was saddened to read #6 on his list of "possible reasons" for the U.S. invading Iraq. Saddened that he still takes the U.S. seriously enough to think that there have to be reasons for our banal evil, but also that he would think the U.S. was wilfully and gleefully out to destroy his country:

    The main possible motives I intend to address are:

    1.Securing control over a major oil resource
    2.Creating a country to neocon design and to "Project for the New American Century" requirements
    3.Avenging 9/11
    4.Creating a haven for foreign investment in a rich country
    5.Eliminating Saddam's long-term threat
    6.Intentional Devastation of Iraq
    7.Leading the world into conflict intentionally (or what I call the "Theory of Perpetual War"). This is by far the longest item.

    http://209.200.79.146/ee/index.php?/trifecta/

    by matt n nyc on Mon May 30, 2005 at 03:09:36 PM PDT