US violate rights in Iraq

[Intifada]

(taken from aljazeera)

The human rights situation in Iraq remains "critical" one year after the launch of the US-led invasion, Amnesty International has said.

In a report published on Thursday, the London-based group estimated that more than 10,000 civilians had been killed since the invasion began on 20 March last year.

Condemning "flagrant violations" of human rights in occupied Iraq, Amnesty said, "One year after the war on Iraq was launched, the promise of improved human rights for Iraqi citizens remains far from realized."

"The past year has seen scores of unarmed people killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at checkpoints and in house raids," it said.

Torture

"Thousands of people have been detained, often under harsh conditions, and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated and some have died in custody."

It said that "scores of civilians have been killed apparently as a result of excessive use of force by US troops, or have been shot dead in disputed circumstances."

Apart from compensation paid to victims' families, "no US soldier has been prosecuted for illegally killing an Iraqi civilian," the organisation noted.

"Iraqi courts, because of an order issued by the US-led authority in Baghdad in June 2003, are forbidden from hearing cases against US soldiers or any other foreign troops or foreign officials in Iraq," said Amnesty.

"In effect, US soldiers are operating with total impunity," it said.

Violence

"Violence is endemic, whether in the form of attacks by armed groups or abuses by the occupying forces," it said, accusing resistance fighters of targeting civilians as well as the occupation forces of "crimes against humanity".

"The human rights situation remains critical," concluded Amnesty, whose report was compiled from numerous visits to Iraq since the launch of the invasion.

"For the next year to be better than the last, the occupying forces, Iraqi political and religious leaders and the international community must make a real commitment to protecting and promoting human rights in Iraq," Amnesty said.

"Iraqi civilians are still being killed every day."

More than 10,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed "as a direct result of the military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation," it said.

"The figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings."

Amnesty said the US-led occupation recognised holding around 8,500 detainees. "However, one Iraqi human rights organisation put the number of detainees at 15,000," it said.

"Many detainees have alleged they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation," the report said.

[BOZG]

I would have put 10,000 civilan deaths as an extremely conservative number.

[shakermaker]

how i'm not suprised?!
of course that is obvious...

[Capitalist Imperial]

Unfortunately such collateral damage and incedentals are a part of war that we have not yet been able to fully avoid.

War will never be an antiseptic operation. Had Iraq capitualted before the US had to take action in response to Security council resolution 1441, all of this bloodshed could have been avoided. However, Iraq wanted to play hardball.

Though statisitcs of such a scale are hard to confirm anyway, the fact remains that there is one party responsible for this tragedy: Saddam Hussein and the now defunct Baath'ist regime.

Benevolent U.S. action is justified per securty council resolution 1441, and wjhat the US did was a good thing, as history will show.

[Intifada]

Unfortunately such collateral damage and incedentals are a part of war that we have not yet been able to fully avoid.


"collateral damage". you make me sick!


Had Iraq capitualted before the US had to take action in response to Security council resolution 1441, all of this bloodshed could have been avoided.

had the u$a and britain given the inspectors time, war would have been avoided.



the fact remains that there is one party responsible for this tragedy: Saddam Hussein and the now defunct Baath'ist regime.


im sorry, but didnt america and its coalition declare war on iraq? saddam had no WMDs. its a fact, admit you were wrong.


Benevolent U.S. action is justified per securty council resolution 1441, and wjhat the US did was a good thing, as history will show.

just wait a few years. another 9/11 and it will happen all over again.

this war can NEVER be justified

[kingbee]

CI,

"but iraq wanted to play hardball"

id hardly blame the iraqi goverment for wanting to fight. if someone declares war on you, then you do not lay down and die.

would you?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If they decide to put up a fight, then they should expect to suffer some casualties, eh?
But that isn't really the point.
I'm not turning on you guys or anything.

What America did that was immoral was invade a defenseless country that wasn't at all threat to us or anyone that we would be helping out by occupying Iraq. And yes, I am talking about the Iraqi people. Yes, they were oppressed by Saddam, but in the long run, the exploitation of their labour, the capitalist claiming of their resources, and the unpopular governemnt, and the concentration of power in the hands of men who have foreign interests and economic interests are far, far worse than what could have been achieved without an US occupation.

The Iraqi people are now going to work for American bosses instead of for their own good. Now, I'm not suggesting that they were previously working for the good of their own societies, but socialism could have been achieved if America had kept it's troops out of Iraq. If America cared so much about the welfare of the Iraqis, they could have helped or funded an opposition party or militia that could have overthrown Hussein and installed better leadership. The leadership installed by the US will neither serve the Iraqis in terms of security or prosperity.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

capitalist imperial, you are the exact conservative mold. you're the type that thinks we have to be the international policemen. that everybody must do what we say and that all countries should yield to our every request. how can you blame the government that was itself, attacked? thats comparable to blaming jews for the holocaust (not the same obviously, but the same idea. you can't blame the defense for the attackers).... the war was not justified. the matter could've been handled diplomatically. conservatives wonder why people in the middle east hate us... um.... need i say, 'duh!'????

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 07:56 PM
Unfortunately such collateral damage and incedentals are a part of war that we have not yet been able to fully avoid.

War will never be an antiseptic operation. Had Iraq capitualted before the US had to take action in response to Security council resolution 1441, all of this bloodshed could have been avoided. However, Iraq wanted to play hardball.

Though statisitcs of such a scale are hard to confirm anyway, the fact remains that there is one party responsible for this tragedy: Saddam Hussein and the now defunct Baath'ist regime.

Benevolent U.S. action is justified per securty council resolution 1441, and wjhat the US did was a good thing, as history will show.
:rolleyes: I suppose the collatoral damage of 3,000 people in taking down the World Trade Center was also a part of that war as well? Please, try not to post something blatantly hypocritical for just one day.

[AmericanZionist2004]

The fact that you actually get your news from Al Jazeera says a lot about you. Furthermore, what happened to all those human rights Saddam Hussein violated? You are a morally bankrupt person, and I also find you intellectually dishonest.

[Intifada]

The fact that you actually get your news from Al Jazeera says a lot about you. Furthermore, what happened to all those human rights Saddam Hussein violated? You are a morally bankrupt person, and I also find you intellectually dishonest.

aljazeera posted the news. yes that is true but read the report by amnesty international.

read this report (http://news.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140062004)



Furthermore, what happened to all those human rights Saddam Hussein violated?


they were terrible. what did you beloved fucking american government do?

what about the human rights that israel violates in occupied territories?

what about the human rights abuses in pakistan?

what about the human rights abuses in saudi?

what about the human rights abuses in uzbekistan?

i find you very ignorant and hypocritical. rather like george w bu$h.

[AmericanZionist2004]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:21 PM

The fact that you actually get your news from Al Jazeera says a lot about you. Furthermore, what happened to all those human rights Saddam Hussein violated? You are a morally bankrupt person, and I also find you intellectually dishonest.

aljazeera posted the news. yes that is true but read the report by amnesty international.

read this report (http://news.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140062004)



Furthermore, what happened to all those human rights Saddam Hussein violated?


they were terrible.



And here's what you have to remember. Had you your way a year ago, they would still be going on today. Then, "were" would not apply.


i find you very ignorant and hypocritical. rather like george w bu$h.

Thanks. Coming from you, I consider that a compliment. :)

[lucid]

This shit is great!

I'm sure you commies have just as hard of a time understanding our ideals as we do yours. I mean, most of the crap I read on this board is biased bullshit from both sides. But a lot of you commies just have blind hatred towards the USA and if the US government came out and said screwing pigs is not allowed anywhere you peeps would go grab your vasoline just to spite us. Then there is the social misfit named RAF that pops in every now and then making posts that are as empty as this one and calls everyone son. Can't pay for better entertainment :D

Ihatebush, the UN gave Saddam 12 years to do follow through with the demands you ignorant fuck stick. You where 4 years old when this shit happened. So fuck off until you have a clue.

[Intifada]

And here's what you have to remember. Had you your way a year ago, they would still be going on today. Then, "were" would not apply.


no it wouldnt. read this


The war in Iraq ended a brutal regime but there were no ongoing human rights violations on a scale which could justify the US-led invasion, Human Rights Watch has said in its annual report.


Although Saddam Hussein had an atrocious human rights record, his worst actions occurred long before the war and there was no ongoing or imminent mass killing in Iraq when the conflict began, the advocacy group said.

US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair cited the threat from Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction as their main reason for attacking Iraq.

But as US-led occupation forces have failed to find evidence of such weapons, both leaders have also highlighted the brutality of the regime when justifying military intervention.

Human Rights Watch, however, said such claims were invalid.

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

Atrocities such as Saddam's 1988 mass killing of Kurds would have justified humanitarian intervention, Roth said.

"But such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter," he added. "They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."

Roth believed, however, that the toppling of Saddam had improved conditions for Iraqis.

Security situation

"For the moment I would say that Iraq is better off, but (that) alone doesn't justify an intervention of a humanitarian kind," he told a news conference. He expressed fears that the security situation could deteriorate, leading to chaos and civil war that would leave Iraqis worse off than before.


HRW says US using 'war rules' in
fight against global terrorism


The 407-page Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 also said the US government was applying "war rules" to the struggle against global terrorism and denying so-called terror suspects their rights.

It suggested that "police rules" of law enforcement should be applied in such cases instead.

"In times of war you can detain someone summarily until the end of the war and you can shoot to kill. And those are two powers that the Bush administration wants to have globally," Roth said. "I think that's very dangerous."

Detention without charge

The New York-based group strongly criticised the indefinite detention without charge of some 660 people, declared to be "enemy combatants" by the American government, at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Most of the detainees were seized in Afghanistan but at least six, according to Amnesty International, were whisked to Cuba from other countries.

"The administration's actions display a perilous belief that, in the fight against terrorism, the executive is above the law," the report said.

US government officials have said the lengthy detentions are vital to intelligence-gathering and that the information gleaned from prisoners has led to arrests around the world.

Guantanamo

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether those held at Guantanamo should be given access to lawyers and courts. A decision is expected by July.

Human Rights Watch was critical of other countries in its report. It said European and other governments were ignoring human rights abuses in the conflict in Chechnya, which Russia characterises as its contribution to the so-called global war on terror.

The annual survey, which was being launched in Britain for the first time, featured 15 essays related to war and human rights including one that argues that allied forces in Afghanistan are "losing the peace" as brutal regional commanders gain control in the vast countryside outside the capital Kabul.

oh and i like how you dodged all the other questions ;)

[Intifada]

the UN gave Saddam 12 years to do follow through with the demands you ignorant fuck stick.

what were these demands?

[lucid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 09:09 PM

the UN gave Saddam 12 years to do follow through with the demands you ignorant fuck stick.

what were these demands?
There where a lot of them. One of them was allowing unfettered access for weapons inspectors to seek WMD. He was supposed to PROVE to the UN that he destroyed them. He didn't he played a stupid cat and mouse game for 12 years and now his psychotic sons are dead, lots of Iraqi citizens are dead or in need of help, and he is in Jail. But of course its the USA's fault not Saddams.

He also wasn't supposed to attack UN planes in the no fly zone. Which he did, over and over and over. But you where still shit'n in diapers when most of this went down.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 07:56 PM
However, Iraq wanted to play hardball.
Here you have shown that you are an dumb imperialist neo-fascist. You think that a government represents a country. So, basically, Bu$h is "we", Saddam is "Iraq". Not only you seem to think that all Iraq's inhabitants decided to defend against the invaders, but you also forget that Saddam was a dictator "you" supported once, according to your own belief. Not surprising from the kind of people that hates "the french".

:rolleyes:

[Intifada]

One of them was allowing unfettered access for weapons inspectors to seek WMD.

iraq had been under an arms embargo since 1991. the inspectors themselves insisted that none of their discoveries presented a valid case for the U$ to invade iraq.
blix said that iraq seemed to be "making an effort" to cooperate (AP report, February 7).

rumsfeld said, "The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation." (CNN, January 15, 2003)

catch 22?


He was supposed to PROVE to the UN that he destroyed them.

in 1998, the IAEA reported that iraq's nuclear capability had been dismantled.

[lucid]

Your talking about stuff that you read. I don't give a damn what Hans Blix says now. I do remember watching video of him and his inspection team being turned away from supsicious sites over and over. Or being forced to wait at the front for a few hours while lines of trucks hauled stuff out of the complex. He did not comply at all. This is a continuation of the Gulf War that was not finished. When a country surrenders like Saddam did there is always treaties that are formed that the loser must abide by to prevent an invasion. It's been like that for thousands of years and your fucked up dreamy logic will not change it. We should of invaded Baghdad during the first War but the UN accepted his surrender. If you feel so strongly about it pack your shit and go join an Iraqi resistance group.

[Intifada]

I do remember watching video of him and his inspection team being turned away from supsicious sites over and over.

i do remember an interview with one of the inspection teams. he said that the coordinates that america gave them, which is where bu$h told them there were WMDs, led to an area of nothing but desert.

it was all bullshit. iraq didnt have WMDs.


If you feel so strongly about it pack your shit and go join an Iraqi resistance group.

i wouldnt mind killing a few imperialist soldiers.

[Osman Ghazi]

When a country surrenders like Saddam did there is always treaties that are formed that the loser must abide by to prevent an invasion. It's been like that for thousands of years and your fucked up dreamy logic will not change it.

Yes, that is called imperialism.
Countries invaded other countries and killed and robbed their peoples for their own material benefit. I see that you think that this type of behaviour is appropriate. I'm afraid that even the dumbest, most apathetic and most conservative citizens of the U$ wouldn't agree with you.