Of all the pretexts for invading Iraq, it was the humanitarian argument that came closest to holding water. Both George Bush and Tony Blair argued that the invasion was necessary to free the Iraqi people from torture and protect their human rights from a regime which murdered its own people. So you'd expect an end to these practices and some significant improvement in human rights in Iraq now that the government has changed. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong. A recent report [DOC] issued by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq has strongly criticised the Iraqi regime for widespread human rights violations. One example:
There are serious allegations of extra-judicial executions taking place which underline a deterioration in the situation of law and order. The bodies of 36 men, blindfolded, handcuffed, bearing signs of torture and summarily executed, were found on 25 August near Badhra. Families of the victims reported to the Human Rights Office that the men had been detained on 24 August in the Al Hurria district of Baghdad following an operation carried out by forces linked to the Ministry of Interior. A similar incident was reported to the Human Rights Office involving 11 males who had been allegedly detained by forces linked to the Ministry of Interior on 10 July in Seba’ Abkar district of Baghdad and who were found dead three days later at the Medico Legal Institute.
Other sections of the report raise concerns about mass-arrests and detentions without trial, indiscriminate use of force, ill-treatment of detainees, and "the systematic use of torture during interrogations at police stations and within other premises belonging to the Ministry of Interior". The Iraqi government, meanwhile, does not seem to care - despite concerns repeatedly being raised, they have done nothing to stop the killings. Again, you really have to wonder if it was worth killing (at latest count) almost 28,000 innocent Iraqi civilians simply in order to replace one group of murdering torturers with another - or whether the "liberal hawks" whose good intentions led us down this road to hell will be apologising anytime soon...
The fact you are able to tell us about it IS an improvement.
ReplyDeleteAnon - remind me which barriers these were that prevented anyone in the west from criticising Saddam's regime before it fell..?
ReplyDeletehmmm how about Saddam's regime?
ReplyDeleteActually I think your comment is a result of a misunderstanding - I am not saying people in the west could not critique Iraq - I am just that the information was generally not available for them to do it accurately. And how many people in the region (with any ability to do anything) would have seen that critique (or paid any attention to it) anyway?
and finally - even if people in the west had that information - how many would have bothered?
Genius (and I can only assume you use that name ironically).. you consistently take the prize for the most tortured logic on here.
ReplyDeleteApart from the fact there was an abundance of information (but you'd have to look to those nasty commie lefty channels like Z-Net) about Saddam's regime, to justify the invasion and f*cking up of a country on the basis that "wow, now the mainstream media know where it is" is just moronic.
Man we should just nuke North Korea right now, 'cause then the CBS cameras could just follow the mushroom clouds to track down that sorry-assed state (much simple than having newsreaders learn geography or history). Then we could all watch it from our armchairs and congratulate ourselves what an improvement it was and how essential our global intervention really was!
>I can only assume you use that name ironically
ReplyDeleteI like how it makes people like you spout swear words and ad hominems.
Anyway - I'm afraid your off on a whole other tangent and not being very serious about it.