Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

BBC report that makes depressing reading:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm


Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.

Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.

Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.

The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.

He told journalists at a briefing in Geneva that he had yet to visit Iraq, but he was able to base his information on autopsies and interviews with Iraqis in neighbouring Jordan.

"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," the Austrian law professor said.

"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," he added.

Brutal methods

The UN report says detainees' bodies often show signs of beating using electrical cables, wounds in heads and genitals, broken legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns.

Bodies found at the Baghdad mortuary "often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances".

Many bodies have missing skin, broken bones, back, hands and legs, missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails, the UN report says.

Victims come from prisons run by US-led multinational forces as well as by the ministries of interior and defence and private militias, the report said.

The most brutal torture methods were employed by private militias, Mr Nowak told journalists.

The report also says the frequency of sectarian bloodletting means bodies are often found which "bear signs indicating that the victims have been brutally tortured before their extra-judicial execution".

It concludes that torture threatens "the very fabric of the country" as victims exact their own revenge and fuel further violence.

Mr Nowak said he would like to visit Iraq in person, but the current situation would not allow him to prepare an accurate report, because it would not be safe to leave Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone where the Iraqi government and US leadership are situated.

Maybe they should let Saddam loose and set him back up to rule again. If the Iraqi's don't like the coalition helping and they can't co-operate amongst themselves to put their country right, maybe they deserve to have Saddam Hussein back. So far he seems to be the only person who was able to control the infighting Iraqis. So sad.

kanelli wrote:Maybe they should let Saddam loose and set him back up to rule again. If the Iraqi's don't like the coalition helping and they can't co-operate amongst themselves to put their country right, maybe they deserve to have Saddam Hussein back. So far he seems to be the only person who was able to control the infighting Iraqis. So sad.

It is sad - but with hindsight it appears to me that this is all a failure of planning and the result is unacceptable suffering of the Iraqi people.

It's not a choice between the 'Coalition' or the Saddam regime, in terms of ideology in my mind. The difference is that there was a sense of order before - a stability that comes with a government infrastructure.

What went wrong was that the infrastructure was totally destroyed and is not yet restored - anarchy is the result in any nation if there is no infrastructure/government to protect rights, security and provide essential services.

My considered opinion is that the tragedy that is Iraq is down to the US and UK bungling of the whole thing - taking us to war on false pretences, protecting oil interests but not security of people and woeful planning and wishful thinking (remember Rumsfeld saying Iraqis will welcome the US with flowers!)

Compounding the tragedy is the fact that this was all predicted by the majority of world opinion in the run up to the war.

I think that Iraq should have been treated as it had been - international pressure was working and there weren't weapons of mass destruction. The people should have been given the chance to make their views known - a popular government may have emerged, as it did in Georgia, Ukraine etc.

But then again, perhaps the US was afraid of a popular government - one chosen by the people - just like we have in Iran, Lebanon and Palestine?

Therefore, it is not the Iraqi people's fault that things were relatively better under Saddam but a major indictment on the UK and US for making things worse for the Iraqis - as predicted by many convincing and voiciferous statesmen and commentators.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafi,

Dont you think also its so strange that the judge for the trial has been changed for the 3rd time. the last judge was "fired" 2 days ago because he simply said to sadam during the trial on TV: ((You are not a dictator)). Immeditly after that they fired him. thats silly...

Intimacy - it's just a mess.

I have no love for Saddam and think he was brutal - the crimes against the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war and the actions against opposition (be they Kurds or Marsh Arabs) were reprehensible.

What gets me is the hypocrisy. Iraqis are now worse off than they were under Saddam - and Saddam was supported and armed by the same people who are now denouncing him.

And when you look around the region and the world, you see that there are other despots who are 'wise' enough not to cross the US or even pay homage to the US and they are left free to continue oppressing their people.

Hypocrisy sucks.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf,

I agree with some points and i dont with some others mate.. but thats totally fine

That's cool Intimacy - I'd be worried if everyone agreed with all my views (especially as I keep finding out I was wrong! )

My views on Saddam are coloured by the fact I worked with some Kurds in the early 90s in London who were in exile and spoke out in the Media about the oppression of Saddam in Iraq. The one person I knew was a spokesman for the group and appeared on TV and radio on many occasions - but at the time Saddam was being supported by the US and their efforts did not result in any actions.

Cheers,
Shafique

But what about the responsibilities of the Iraqi people? They are the ones engaging in the sectarian violence. This is the time for them to be united, not split up into religious and political camps that they will kill fellow Iraqis over. Yes, the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified, but what is done is done. You can't keep blaming the coalition for the civil war that is about to break out. They are now trying to contain it.

kanelli - humans are humans, remove the rule of law from any nation and chaos ensues. Just look at the aftermath of any invasion from the last century - if law and order is not restored there is chaos as it becomes a matter of survival of the fittest.

There are thugs and criminals in all societies - they are only kept in check by the presence of laws, police and ultimately the military.

What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is down to weakness in Government infrastructures.

This is just human nature and can be seen in all societies. There are many instances of the breakdown of law and order in the US for example - look at the LA riots after Rodney King verdict, and more recently look at the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina. It took the military to go in and restore order in New Orleans.

As for blame for the strife - I have to say that I'm one of those who do blame the coalition, for if they hadn't gone in as they did, I don't think the Iraqis would be suffering as they are now. And having gone in, if they'd planned better and had an equivalent of a Marshall plan for Iraq, that too would have mitigated the mess we're in.

The tragedy is that too little is still being done and civil war is taking place.

Anyway - I'm going to try and post less on politics over this coming month and will try and concentrate on the spiritual - praying for peace and justice.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:kanelli - humans are humans, remove the rule of law from any nation and chaos ensues. Just look at the aftermath of any invasion from the last century - if law and order is not restored there is chaos as it becomes a matter of survival of the fittest.

There are thugs and criminals in all societies - they are only kept in check by the presence of laws, police and ultimately the military.

What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is down to weakness in Government infrastructures.

Shafique
Definately agree with the above.

Kanelli,
Kill off the functioning security in any country, and you get a power vacuum and ultimately lawlessness.

Look at Afghanistan after the Soviet war. Abandoned with no govt = civil war as different mobs tried to be opportunists.

Look at Somalia, same thing.

Look at what Israel did to the PA, tried to kill off the security so the Armed groups cause more internal chaos.

Iraq has different peoples. Everyone talks about Sunni and Shia...but what about the Kurds? Kurdistan was a huge area before...and these people now have no recognition apart from a little bit of automony. the Shia were part of the greater Persia and the Turkomen from the Slavic Turks. It is such a diverse country.
- the worst move the US + UK made was to abandon the Iraqi army -
which meant militias gained a foothold. as a result you have a clash of opportunists who want to gain a little slice, after all these years.

Conspiracy theorists say the Coalition did this purposely and need the chaos to remain in the country.
I personally think they just screwed up big time!

One thing that most folk seem to be missing is that the US & UK went in on a supposed high moral ground to stop the torture and killings, yet have proven themselves to be just as bad, if not worse.

Well humans are humans after all - it doesn't matter what land mass they come from, what religion they practise etc. Humans can be very cruel to each other under the right circumstances. No one shoud be feeling morally superior at all - history proves it.

What good does blaming the coaltion do now? What does it really accomplish towards making Iraq a secure and thriving country?

If Iraq was sent to a shrink the shrink would tell Iraq to stop blaming others and take responsibility for making changes in her own life. It is her life in the end, isn't it?

kanelli wrote:
What good does blaming the coaltion do now? What does it really accomplish towards making Iraq a secure and thriving country?

What it accomplishes is to see that they DO NOT repeat the same acts, for instance in...Iran or elsewhere. The point is that the US & UK went into Iraq on faked intentions such as the fear of Weapons of Mass Destruction and to supposedly free the population from tyranny & oppression - they made a big deal of the Human rights abuses under Saddam's regime, yet have proven to be far worse because they carry out the same practices, only they do it covertly and deny it.

I find it strange that you don't like apportioning blame in this thread against the Coaltion, but are more than happy to blame the entire Muslim population in this thread... http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?

kanelli wrote:Maybe they should let Saddam loose and set him back up to rule again. If the Iraqi's don't like the coalition helping and they can't co-operate amongst themselves to put their country right, maybe they deserve to have Saddam Hussein back. So far he seems to be the only person who was able to control the infighting Iraqis. So sad.

You make it sound like the US & UK were doing Iraq a big favour by helping out and not for their business interests. Let's be clear on this, the whole invasion was about Oil and money - nothing else.

If that's not the case, why haven't the US already sent troops to Darfur...? Easily answered isn't it? No cash to be made. Time you woke up to world politics and the lying by Bush & Bliar.

GSRider wrote:What it accomplishes is to see that they DO NOT repeat the same acts, for instance in...Iran or elsewhere.

GSRider

You are spot on. The problem Kanelli is the there is no acountability for Western leaders.
Milosevic is sent to the War crimes tribunal...yet no mention of US AND UK for two screw up wars, where it was both illegal and untold thousands killed.

You may think that its easy for Iraq to pulll itself together and stop the problems...but the main problem is that the coalition are STILL the Occupiers!

While they are there, they have made it clear they will not allow an Iran style govt - even if the people wanted it. So much for democracy on that level. Any govt that comes in will be of their choosing to suit their interests - not the iraqis.

for any small progress to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan the coalition need to exit. They have caused the trouble, are not interested in cleaning it up. They have made the world an even more dangerous place for all Europeans such as myself.

GSRider wrote:One thing that most folk seem to be missing is that the US & UK went in on a supposed high moral ground to stop the torture and killings, yet have proven themselves to be just as bad, if not worse.

You can only take Moral statements with a pinch of salt by countries who are amongst the worst culprits.

I never said anything in my posts about those countries doing the Iraqis or the world a favour by ousting Saddam. That is your assumption.

All of the responses deal with separate issues - and valid issues. However, the fact is that Iraq needs security and a bright future to happen NOW. People sitting on their asses blaming the coalition for invading in the first place does not tackle the issues that matter most in Iraq at this time.

Another example for Kanelli. Look at the rape/theft/murder that happened inside refuge camps in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (because there was no law).

If you want to solve the problem you have to tackle the root cause, and the root cause here is the coalition.

kanelli wrote:I never said anything in my posts about those countries doing the Iraqis or the world a favour by ousting Saddam. That is your assumption.

No you implicitly implied it by saying the following:

kanelli wrote:Maybe they should let Saddam loose and set him back up to rule again. If the Iraqi's don't like the coalition helping and they can't co-operate amongst themselves to put their country right, maybe they deserve to have Saddam Hussein back.

The Iraqis never asked the UK & US to 'help' them.

That's the good thing about threads on forum, it's difficult to go back on what was said previously...

Actually, no that was sarcasm in that initial post, but you missed it. I still don't see where I even implicitly claimed that it was right for the coalition to go in and "save" Iraq in the first place. You are still inferring things that are not there in black and white.