Too late to use rights to justify Iraq war-group

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22508070.htm

LONDON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - U.S. and British leaders George W. Bush and Tony Blair are wrong to retroactively justify the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds, a global rights group said on Monday.

New York-based Human Rights Watch criticised the West for turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's atrocities -- such as the 1988 massacre of Kurds -- at a time when the level of slaughter could have justified armed intervention.

"Only mass slaughter might permit the deliberate taking of life involved in using military force for humanitarian purposes," the group's head Kenneth Roth said in its annual report.

"Brutal as Saddam Hussein's reign had been, the scope of the Iraq government's killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justifiy humanitarian intervention," he wrote in one of the report's 15 essays.

"The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair."

more

[seasat]

1. If human rights were the issue what about Africa?

The torture and slaughter of innocents there is on going. The body count probably easily surpasses Sadaam's record. The atrocities are occuring now versus ten years ago in Iraq during a bloody war and rebellion. Maybe it has something to do with one being a poor area with lower reseviors of oil in the areas of worst human rights abuses.

[Beaker]

15. or Myanmar, or China(the big red one), or Korea(the North one)...

for starters.
and what about past U.S. creation/support for just such regimes in Iran, Chile, Nicarauga,...etc....etc...etc...

It's all about U.S. control of petroleum resources, and nothing else(except maybe a little bit of revenge for Poppy Smirk)

[Fla_Dem]

2. WMD were not the reason in the first place, a quick buck was.

"Brutal as Saddam Hussein's reign had been, the scope of the Iraq government's killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justifiy humanitarian intervention,"


However, I would like to know what would be considered killings of an exceptional and dire magnitude.

[markses]

9. Well, for example

The United States has an atrocious policy of murdering human beings under supposed judicial sovereignty, including minors and the mentally retarded. While this is a gross insult to the notion of universal human rights, it is not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify military intervention to unseat or transform the current US state apparatus. If, however, the US government began systematically murdering, say, large numbers of urban dwellers for whatever reason, then the action might rise to a magnitude where international military action against its government was acceptable.

The point being, that at the time of the illegal invasion, Saddam Hussein's state apparatus, while surely horrible, was no more horrible than many others, and perhaps even less aggregious than some. moreover, there was not a humanitarian crisis unfolding that could be prevented or ameliorated by military action (in fact, the military action itself had the potential to constitute and produce a humanitarian crisis far graver than any under way). Let's take the case of the Congo. One could say that military intervention would improve humanitarian conditions there, rather than causing them to worsen. the very opposite can be said about large swaths of Iraq (though not all). While the people are certainly free of the arbitrary despotism of the Hussein state apparatus, they are in as much - if not, in many cases - more danger from the arbitrary exercise of deadly force by US troops, seemingly arbitrary detention, and certainly the fortunes of an internal insurgent campaign that leaves its random bodies everywhere.

The question then is: have the conditions improved. the answer is yes, probably, in many parts of the country, but no, obviously, in others. I'd expect that one felt much more comfortable living everyday life in say, Samarrah, 1 year ago than today. Will these conditions improve in the future? Noone can tell, and not only because we don't have a crystal ball, but also because we have introduced a fundamental instability into the region. All these things could be factored into the definition of "exceptional and dire," and we can do without the mock outrage of the propagandists on this point.

[KG]

3. bomb the crap out of a country, destroying infrastructure and killing

tens of thousands of innocent civilians is hardly 'humanitarian'.

[Benhurst]

4. Yes, "Shock and Awe" is hardly the tactic of a liberator.

When we helped liberate the France, we worked with the French underground to make certain Paris was NOT destroyed.

There was more of Rotterdam than Paris in the Bush* Crime Family's attack on Iraq.

[JohnyCanuck]

5. Interesting articles re. Human Rights concerns of US foreign policy.

AM ALIYEV was inaugurated as president of the oil-rich Muslim country of Azerbaijan three months ago after an election condemned by international observers as blatantly fraudulent. When members of the opposition tried to protest, they were brutally beaten by police. There followed a massive, nationwide crackdown in which more than 1,000 people were arrested, including opposition leaders, activists from nongovernmental organizations, journalists and election officials who objected to the fraud. More than 100 remain in prison, including most of the senior opposition activists. A new report by Human Rights Watch documents numerous cases of torture, including severe beatings, electric shock, and threats of rape against the opposition leaders. Mr. Aliyev, who succeeded his strongman father, meanwhile has been consolidating dictatorial powers: Most recently he was named director of Azerbaijani radio and television.

Azerbaijan, in short, might look like a good place for President Bush to start implementing his frequently declared policy of "spreading freedom" to the world -- and in particular the greater Middle East. Instead he is doing the opposite. The president and his top aides have embraced Mr. Aliyev, excused his fraud and ignored his human rights violations -- not to mention reliable reports of his personal corruption. The administration waived congressional restrictions to grant Azerbaijan $3 million in military aid and is winding up to give still more. The Pentagon is talking with Azeri officials about the possible use of bases for U.S. operations. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Baku last month to confer with Mr. Aliyev. When asked about the electoral fraud, he replied: "The United States has a relationship with this country. We value it." Said Mr. Aliyev proudly: "The United States is a strategic partner."

<snip>

It's clearly expedient for Mr. Bush to back Mr. Aliyev, just as for decades U.S. governments found their interest in propping up dictators in the Persian Gulf. But Mr. Bush himself has said -- in one of his several major speeches about democracy -- that such policies were mistaken. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," the president said two months ago. "In the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." It may take the United States decades to overcome the legacy of embracing corrupt dictators in the Arab world. The least Mr. Bush can do is avoid repeating the mistake in the new oil states of the Caucuses and Central Asia -- beginning in Azerbaijan.

Above from Our Man in Baku (Washington Post Article)


6/26/03: Let me introduce you to our presidents new best friend, President Karimov of Uzbekistan.

President Karimov government was awarded $500m in aid from the Bush administration in 2002. The SNB (Uzbekistan's security service) received $79m of this sum.

The U.S. State Department web site states "Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested." and "The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique

<snip>

Human Rights Watch has learned that the body of Muzafar Avazov, a 35-year old father of four, showed signs of burns on the legs, buttocks, lower back and arms. Sixty to seventy percent of the body was burnt, according to official sources. Doctors who saw the body reported that such burns could only have been caused by immersing Avazov in boiling water. Those who saw the body also reported that there was a large, bloody wound on the back of the head, heavy bruising on the forehead and side of the neck, and that his hands had no fingernails.

"These deaths reveal the horror of Uzbek prisons," said Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Europe and Central Asia Division. "It seems the small signs of progress on torture we had seen were mere window-dressing, intended to hide Uzbekistan's persistent problem and placate international critics."

Our President's New Best Friend Boils People Alive (Warning link contains disturbing photos of above torture victim)

[BigBigBear]

8. Let's not forget

that whack job Niyazov, similarly jailing and torturing his population in Turkmenistan.

[jokerman93]

6. Is this a polite way of saying something?

Maybe this a polite way of saying Junior Bushco has been spinning for more than a year now to invent false (but morally palatable) imperatives for their reprehensible invasion (not war) -- and it has presented to the world community and the American public no cogent justification for doing so.

[catmandu57]

7. There was never a justification for this war

The UN inspections have shown to be more effective in finding and destroying any wmds that saddam had. No, this was all about stealing a diminishing natural resource to enrich and keep in power the already rich.

[markus]

10. My Q) for the pro-IRW crowd: why do you keep changing the subject

everytime we bring up your lies to justify this war?

That is essentially what they are doing. Wether you're talking to a friend or on a radio call in, never let them draw you into the "Saddam was bad" argument.

The answer is: if you're case for war was so good, why do you try to change the subject everytime I bring it up?

[criticalmass]

11. Shari'a is back in Iraq

Has anyone read Riverbend's Baghdad Burning blog lately? Shocked the hell out of me. Go read.

"On Wednesday our darling Iraqi Puppet Council decided that secular Iraqi family law would no longer be secular- it is now going to be according to Islamic Shari'a...I usually ignore the emails I receive telling me to 'embrace' my new-found freedom and be happy that the circumstances of all Iraqi women are going to 'improve drastically' from what we had before. They quote Bush (which in itself speaks volumes) saying things about how repressed the Iraqi women were and how, now, they are going to be able to live free lives....But I'm telling everyone now- if I get any more emails about how free and liberated the Iraqi women are *now* thanks to America, they can expect a very nasty answer."

Getting zero press over here, of course.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. Since first hearing that...

I have been telling everyone I can about that -- "liberation" and "freedom" MY ASS.

:grr:

[DevilsAdvocate2]

13. This is a duplicate thread

Discussed earlier at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=331400

[NNN0LHI]

14. Pulled post by originator