More Torture Than Under Saddam???

[zynner]

Baghdad official who exposed executions flees London Guardian / Jonathan Steele | March 3 2006 Faik Bakir, the director of the Baghdad morgue, has fled Iraq in fear of his life after reporting that more than 7,000 people have been killed by death squads in recent months, the outgoing head of the UN human rights office in Iraq has disclosed. "The vast majority of bodies showed signs of summary execution - many with their hands tied behind their back. Some showed evidence of torture, with arms and leg joints broken by electric drills," said John Pace, the Maltese UN official. The killings had been happening long before the bloodshed after last week's bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. Mr Pace, whose contract in Iraq ended last month, said many killings were carried out by Shia militias linked to the industry ministry run by Bayan Jabr, a leading figure in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri). Mr Pace said records, supported by photographs, came from Baghdad's forensic institute, which passed them to the UN. The Baghdad morgue has been receiving 700 or more bodies a month. The figures peaked at 1,100 last July - many showing signs of torture. Reports of government-sponsored death squads have sparked fear among many prominent Iraqis, prompting a rise in the number leaving the country. Mr Pace said the morgue's director had received death threats after he reported the murders. "He's out of the country now," said Mr Pace, adding that the attribution of the killings to government-linked militias did not come from Dr Bakir. "There are other sources for that. Some militias are integrated with the police and wear police uniforms," he said. "The Badr brigade [Sciri's armed wing] are in the police and are mainly the ones doing the killing. They're the most notorious." Some Iraqis accuse the Mahdi army militia, linked to the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, of seizing and killing people. But Mr Pace said: "I'm not as sure of the Mahdi army as I am of the others."

Are the Iraqis better off now than with Saddam Hussein?

[Matt W]

Zyner, please follow this format when posting stuff to Breaking News:-

This specific debate forum is for breaking news. Do not post opinion, old news, op-ed, etc. It is for what the networks report as current and major. New Topic Format in the Breaking News Forum: 1) An exact article title (copy the title they used), 2) Link to article, 3) Quoted excerpt, 4) Your opinion (optional)

Can you get a link for this? Thanks.

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1721366,00.html

Quote by: Matt W Can you get a link for this? Thanks.

Matt, the best way to find the link is to Google the headline, minus any punctuation.

Anyhow to the substance of the post: How are the present death squads superior to the Saddam-era secret police? Is the presence of occupation troops resulting in "democracy" for the Iraqi people? Things like freedom to dissent, rights of due process and all the other hallmarks of freedom?

Or, as I have contended throughout the occupation, is this war just a smokescreen for US control of Iraq and tyranny by the global Empire??

[Osborn F Enready]

The first solid clue was when we passed the order to disarm the Iraqi populace.

This war was a mistake, or a well concealed plan for organized chaos resulting in what we have, which is a out of control deficit, reckless defense spending, oil money missing, increase in oil prices, a forced reduction in social programs due to budget failure, a concentration of executive and federal power, etc etc etc.

I am betting on concealed plan. Coincidences like this, at this level, are unknown in the physical world except maybe the idea of life itself.

[xyzer]

Or, as I have contended throughout the occupation, is this war just a smokescreen for US control of Iraq and tyranny by the global Empire??

I question your assertion Patrick? A closer look at whats really going on might relieve your tension.
At present US troops are doing less and less aggressive action and are merely trying to back up Iraqi military and police efforts at control of violence and maintenance of order. I think this refutes your using the word 'control' of Iraq. We have minimized the military control aspect.

Certainly the tyranny accusation is unfounded. If we were tyrannical we would slaughter all the heads of opposition groups and set up a puppet government overseen by our military. That is not the case! We have been standing by as the various factions try to get a government together. No small task in an area noted for tribalism and anti democratic governments.

Bottom line the antiwar liberals in this country have no patience with an endeavor their Congress and President put them in. No patriotism! No spine! No will to succeed!
Thus to them this whole thing should play out like a flic or TV drama..within a certain time frame..with the good guys always winning within the hour..and with little cost for victory. Not more than a price of admission and a bag of popcorn!

[gr8fuldaniel]

From the Times Online UK, the last 2 paragraphs:

Link ‘Driller Killers’ Spread a New Horror in Iraq <snip> According to Pace, the cases of torture and extrajudicial executions now exceed those under Saddam’s rule. “Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo your basic right to freedom of expression and thought, you were physically more or less okay,” he said. “Now you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to anyone.”

Read the rest of the story only if you have a strong stomach. They are using electric drills. This is the democracy we brought them.

[PatrickHenry]

You wanna talk PRICE, xyzer?

PRICE?

You don't wanna go there...

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: xyzer Bottom line the antiwar liberals in this country have no patience with an endeavor their Congress and President put them in. No patriotism! No spine! No will to succeed!

If Hannibal Lecter needed a cheer squad, you would be the go-to guy.
Torture is Patriotic now?
That would make me an ex-patriot.

[Boetie]

xyzer posts: ...with an endeavor their Congress and President put them in.

What endeavor? All they did was turn everything upside down to see what happens. Now that it's being pointed out Iraq is on the brink of civil war, all Bush Jr can do is sit on the sidelines doing the Pee Wee Herman imitation, "I meant to do that." :rolleyes:

[jose]

I never believed the invasion was about oil. If America was motivated by the need for cheap oil all they had to was to lift the sanctions against Iraq and pay the basterds

What was the reason for the invasion? Iraq could never have been a threat to the USA. We all know that the US administration knew that. We know for sure that the US does not act purely for the sake of justice, nor has it ever before invaded a country for the purpose of promoting true democracy there. So what was the reason?

To get at the reason you only need to look back to what the neocons were aiming at back in 1996, in their advice to Netanyahu. In the paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the need to overturn the Oslo Accords and Middle East peace process is emphasised. The paper advises that Yasser Arafat be blamed for every Palestinian terrorist action; it specifically called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and also the Ba'athist regime in Syria; and it further recommended the use of force against Iran.

The neocon's only concern, then and now, is the strengthening of Israel's hand in the region. They may dress their objectives in the garb of American interests, but if you look at their actions objectively and logically you will see disclosed as their first and foremost priority the defence and strengthening of Isreal.

To understand what will happen next you need to look at Israel's interests more so than those of the USA. What threat could Iran possibly pose on the USA or EU. None whatsoever. But a Shiite led Iraq joining forces with Iran cannot be tolerated by Israel. So we must expect further turmoil and upheaval in the region. and a break up of Iraq into three smaller states would suit the Israels book
and bush lacking in any real plan went along

[jose]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The first solid clue was when we passed the order to disarm the Iraqi populace. This war was a mistake, or a well concealed plan for organized chaos resulting in what we have, which is a out of control deficit, reckless defense spending, oil money missing, increase in oil prices, a forced reduction in social programs due to budget failure, a concentration of executive and federal power, etc etc etc. I am betting on concealed plan. Coincidences like this, at this level, are unknown in the physical world except maybe the idea of life itself.

Under saddam just about everyone had there own weapon if anyone hated him that much they could have fired on him, if thier aim failed it would cost thier family, but no one did try to kill him ,now they (the Americans) disarm the people and remove the last defense against an installed Dictator
A free man with a loaded weapon

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: jose Under saddam just about everyone had there own weapon if anyone hated him that much they could have fired on him, if thier aim failed it would cost thier family, but no one did try to kill him ,now they (the Americans) disarm the people and remove the last defense against an installed Dictator A free man with a loaded weapon

A wonderful observation.


Clearly, it cannot be fear that kept the Iraqi populace from acting, as evidenced by the constant attacks on our military, which is far more capable the Sadam's ever was. We have superior range, weapons, and night vision among other caapabilities that Saddam only dreamed of employing.


Old George Bush is running out of excuses.


I also think a lot of the motivation for the invasion was Saddams refusal to cower to the US, and stick to the official story. Any, and all truths that leak out of Saddam's mouth have to be suppressed, or weaved into the official accounts. I wager that is a lot of the motvation for suppression of the media coverage, and court transcripts.


Funny how OJ, who did not affect my life whatsoever, had his court preceeding televised throughout, yet we can't hear about Saddam who costs the taxpayers an ever increasing burden.


The more time passes, the more obvious it becomes that this is all the fault of the Nation Builders, both the Brits for their failed colonialization attempt, and now the US for elevating it the level of WW III.

[Osborn F Enready]

Jose said: Under saddam just about everyone had there own weapon if anyone hated him that much they could have fired on him, if thier aim failed it would cost thier family, but no one did try to kill him ,now they (the Americans) disarm the people and remove the last defense against an installed Dictator A free man with a loaded weapon

I say:
I agree and well said.

[Livemike]

Quote by: xyzer I question your assertion Patrick? A closer look at whats really going on might relieve your tension. At present US troops are doing less and less aggressive action and are merely trying to back up Iraqi military and police efforts at control of violence and maintenance of order. I think this refutes your using the word 'control' of Iraq. We have minimized the military control aspect.

Trying to minimise and not exercising are two different things. In any case the US does control Iraq and the Iraqi government. They patrol, they arrest, they are the only reason that the "government" survives and thus they control it.

Quote by: xyzer Certainly the tyranny accusation is unfounded. If we were tyrannical we would slaughter all the heads of opposition groups and set up a puppet government overseen by our military.

The tyranny accusation is well-founded, it is founded on the use of arbitrary arrest, torture, the disarming of the population, closing down of opposition newspapers and the sponsorship of government death squads. What is that if not tyranny? The fact that the Americans haven't killed every opposition leader doesn't mean there isn't tyranny, if it did then Saddam wasn't a tyrant since he didn't do that either.

Quote by: xyzer That is not the case! We have been standing by as the various factions try to get a government together. No small task in an area noted for tribalism and anti democratic governments.

The US has not been "standing by" it has been disarming people, arresting them, torturing them, censoring them. How is this not tyranny?

Quote by: xyzer Bottom line the antiwar liberals in this country have no patience with an endeavor their Congress and President put them in. No patriotism! No spine! No will to succeed!

It is not patriotism, spine or "will to succeed" that makes people not want to support the widespread violation of Iraqi rights.

Quote by: xyzer Thus to them this whole thing should play out like a flic or TV drama..within a certain time frame..with the good guys always winning within the hour..and with little cost for victory. Not more than a price of admission and a bag of popcorn!

Exactly what would it take for you to admit that the US is the bad guys in this situation? The US has invaded a country based on lies, disarmed the populace, tortured, murdered, what would it take for you to say "The US is not helping."?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Livemike Trying to minimise and not exercising are two different things. In any case the US does control Iraq and the Iraqi government.

And it will be that way until we leave the country. That's the problem with these foreign entanglements. WE become responsible for the destruction and development of other nations. It's not a burden a rational people would want to bear, in my opinion.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Torture? Well yes, but its for the right reasons, a good cause, not malicious or evil, nothing like this.

[jose]

Quote by: rmnunez Torture? Well yes, but its for the right reasons, a good cause, not malicious or evil, nothing like this.

There never is a right reason for toture, there never is a good cause for torture. torture is always malicious and evil, as are those who defend its use

[rmnunez]

I know of one situation when torture would be neither malicious nor evil -in avoiding a greater harm.

[Osborn F Enready]

RMunez said: I know of one situation when torture would be neither malicious nor evil -in avoiding a greater harm.

I say:
If results were 100% guaranteed before the questioning, and the person being questioned was 100% PROVABLY BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, GUILTY OF KNOWLEDGE THAT COULD BE USEFUL, maybe.

Questionable at best.

[rmnunez]

I wouldn't be so certain, Osborn; the "for the greater good" (or to avoid a worse harm) justification for torture requires certainty over the imminence of a terrorist attack of which the torture victim has knowledge. The requirement of certainty the torture will produce results is another matter which relates to the technique used and features of the victim.