View Full Version : U.N. expert: Iraq torture may be worse
Firetxmi
09-21-2006, 02:26 PM
U.N. expert: Iraq torture may be worse
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 4 minutes ago
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body's top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.
Reports from Iraq indicate that torture "is totally out of hand," he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
Nowak added, "That means something, because the torture methods applied under Saddam Hussein were the worst you could imagine."
Some allegations of torture were undoubtedly credible, with government forces among the perpetrators, he said, citing "very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centers."
"You have terrorist groups, you have the military, you have police, you have these militias. There are so many people who are actually abducted, seriously tortured and finally killed," Nowak told reporters at the U.N.'s European headquarters.
"It's not just torture by the government. There are much more brutal methods of torture you'll find by private militias," he said.
A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office cited worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women.
Iraq's government, set up in 2006, is "currently facing a generalized breakdown of law and order which presents a serious challenge to the institutions of Iraq" such as police and security forces and the legal system, the U.N. report said, noting that torture was a major concern.
Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq and said such a mission would be unfeasible as long as the security situation there remains perilous. He based his comments on interviews with people during a visit to Amman, Jordan, and other sources.
"You find these bodies with very heavy and very serious torture marks," he said. "Many of these allegations, I have no doubt that they are credible."
According to the U.N. report, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the U.N. report said Wednesday.
It attributed many of the deaths to rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward civil war.
___
Associated Press writers Bradley S. Klapper in Geneva and Nick Wadhams at the United Nations contributed to this report.
Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_torture
joedirt
09-21-2006, 02:56 PM
what a shame and yet we cant hold anyone in our government accountable when this has all happened because of there leadership and there decisions. they let moqtada sadr build his militia under there noses and slowy get more and more power they let the Shiites take over the interior ministry and abuse its power. they sidelined the Sunni's to punish them for Saddam but in turn gave a unfair amount of power to the Shiites this is the result of complete incompetence and its a real sad thing that its going to probably only get worse.
Yes, I was waiting for this one to get posted!!!!!
U.N. expert: Iraq torture may be worse
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 4 minutes ago
Torture in Iraq may be worse ...[snip]...
Lots of accusations, no evidence presented. None, Absolutely None. I like it when people use the words "may", "possible", or some other derivation, it relieves the writer of the article of any obligation to provide credible facts.
he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein."
(he refers to Nowak, head of some UN agency that nobody cares about). Who are the "people" making these statements. Why is it everytime there is an accusation against the US it's always some anonyomous person. Lots of vague, anonyomous accusations apparently count as "news" these days.
Some allegations of torture were undoubtedly credible, with government forces among the perpetrators, he said, citing "very serious allegations of torture within the official Iraqi detention centers."
Allegations do not mean "proof" or "he(they) did it." Yet Elaine seems to believe fact and opinion are interchangeable.
Nowak has yet to make an official visit to Iraq
This just tops it off. The guy making an accusation hasn't gone there.
So let's sum up this article shall we? We have no facts, not one was presented, vague accusations propped up by anonymous sources, and the main guy hasn't gone to Iraq. How is this close to responsible journalism? Does this chick understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"??? Apparently not....
Yes, I was waiting for this one to get posted!!!!!
Lots of accusations, no evidence presented. None, Absolutely None.
Well, I cannot quote how many people were killed and tortured by Saddam so it's hard to say how much worse the situation is now but ...
...
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".
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm
CruddyLeper
09-21-2006, 04:29 PM
It's all very subjective because there are no firm reliable figures on what it was like in Saddam's time, which lasted decades.
I'm not saying it's a picnic over there right now... but only positive way I can see to combat the situation is nailing a few perps to lamposts as an example. Or similar.
UN would be better off coming up with positive ideas for solution rather than just hot air based on people's memories of "the good old days".
chuckster
09-21-2006, 06:28 PM
This is crazy. The violence in Iraq IMHO is because if two reasons. First, there are not currently enough boots on the ground to contain it, yet no UN member will contrubute more troops to help the situation. Also, Iran is stimulating ****e militias but the UN will not take any action. It just wants more 'dialogue' with Iran. In short, they will complain about events in Iraq and undermine the US effort there whenever the opportunity presents itself, but be darned if they actually take any action to improve the situation.
ElHombre
09-21-2006, 06:41 PM
What can they do? The UN doesn't have any troops of its own and other nations are understandably reluctant to send troops to help pull the US's dick out of the grinder.
haze99
09-21-2006, 10:20 PM
Hell let's just reinstate Saddam, put the sanctions back on and restart the No-Fly zones! Life for the average Iraqi was so much better!
WTH! What countries are reluctant? Angola? Belize? oh I forgot Burma! Seems you left out the UK, Georgian Republic, Australian, & El Salvadoran troops that are there now!
Hell the UN pulled-up tents pegs and left after the August 2003 bombing. Why? Their half-ass "security" structure!
mailmannz
09-22-2006, 01:47 PM
What can they do? The UN doesn't have any troops of its own and other nations are understandably reluctant to send troops to help pull the US's dick out of the grinder.
Even if the UN did have its own troops that still doesnt guarentee that they would actually be used effectively does it!
Mailman
This just tops it off. The guy making an accusation hasn't gone there.
So let's sum up this article shall we? We have no facts, not one was presented, vague accusations propped up by anonymous sources, and the main guy hasn't gone to Iraq. How is this close to responsible journalism? Does this chick understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"??? Apparently not....
Well, here is John Simpson reporting from Iraq:
Each day, bodies are found with appalling injuries, particularly in Baghdad.
At the Baghdad mortuary, I was told that more bodies now showed signs of torture than of a clean death.
But new figures show that the picture is worse in other ways. The number of violent deaths for July and August reached a total of 6,600 - 13% higher than the figure for the previous two-month figure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5371394.stm
This is crazy. The violence in Iraq IMHO is because if two reasons. First, there are not currently enough boots on the ground to contain it, yet no UN member will contrubute more troops to help the situation. Also, Iran is stimulating ****e militias but the UN will not take any action. It just wants more 'dialogue' with Iran. In short, they will complain about events in Iraq and undermine the US effort there whenever the opportunity presents itself, but be darned if they actually take any action to improve the situation.
UN comprises of 192 countries including USA. It is easier for USA to ask individual countries to provide troops than the UN organization. Some US generals gave their estimations how many troops are needed to occupy and stabilize Iraq. Their numbers were ignored.
Sarcastic person would ask: What was the Pottery Barn policy again?
ElHombre
09-22-2006, 05:28 PM
Even if the UN did have its own troops that still doesnt guarentee that they would actually be used effectively does it!
What kind of an arguement is that? They don't have troops, they're not going to be given troops. Speculating on what they might do with troops they don't have is like someone pointing out what they'd do with a billion dollars while waiting in the unemployment line.
What countries are reluctant? Angola? Belize? oh I forgot Burma! Seems you left out the UK, Georgian Republic, Australian, & El Salvadoran troops that are there now!
You forgot Poland. (sorry, folks. couldn't resist) I'm talking about a group of countries that helped us in the Gulf War. The kind of help that sent thousands of troops and/or billions of dollars. Instead, we have the 'Pottery Barn' rule.
loganinkosovo
09-22-2006, 05:49 PM
When has a UN "Expert" been correct about anything?
Who are torturing the people? Not Coalition troops, thats for sure!
ElHombre
09-22-2006, 06:02 PM
When has a UN "Expert" been correct about anything?
There's the one who was right about Iraq not having WMDs... David Kay, IIRC.
Who are torturing the people? Not Coalition troops, thats for sure!
Re-read the article. It's right at the top. Here, I'll make it easy.
Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.
budgie
09-23-2006, 06:21 AM
Yes, I was waiting for this one to get posted!!!!!
Lots of accusations, no evidence presented. None, Absolutely None. I like it when people use the words "may", "possible", or some other derivation, it relieves the writer of the article of any obligation to provide credible facts
Bodies keep turning up dead with signs of torture. Dozens a day in Baghdad alone according to the nightly news. This is common knowledge.
(he refers to Nowak, head of some UN agency that nobody cares about). Who are the "people" making these statements. Why is it everytime there is an accusation against the US it's always some anonyomous person. Lots of vague, anonyomous accusations apparently count as "news" these days.
The American Right doesn't care much about the UN but there are six billion other people in the world...
Allegations do not mean "proof" or "he(they) did it." Yet Elaine seems to believe fact and opinion are interchangeable..
Well, somebody is torturing Iraqis and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are well known. If an Iraqi shows injuries commensurate with torture and says he was beaten by prison guards guards or if a Sunni body turns up dead in a Shia neghbourhood with signs of torture, the conclusions should be pretty obvious.
This just tops it off. The guy making an accusation hasn't gone there...
He hasn't been to Iraq? Well we have telephones and internet connections now so why risk his life? The UN was chased out by an al Qaeda bomb last I checked. Al Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq before the invasion.
Bear in mind the majority of those here who supported and still support the war, who agree with Bush's assessment that everything is rosy for Iraq's future, who hide their warmongering behind 'support the troops' sloganeering have also not shown their support by making an appearance in person. I don't think going to Iraq is a prerequisite for being aware of what is happening over there.
So let's sum up this article shall we? We have no facts, not one was presented, vague accusations propped up by anonymous sources, and the main guy hasn't gone to Iraq. How is this close to responsible journalism? Does this chick understand the difference between "facts" and "opinions"??? Apparently not....
Are journalists responsible for reporting only facts or can they also report opinions presented as opinions. That's what I see here.
Oh, that and and the media-hating Right tilting at windmills again...
Ezekiel25:17
09-24-2006, 03:39 AM
But yet Human Rights watch estimate that a qauter of a million Iraqis were killed under Saddam. Where were the UN Human rights during Saddam's rule?
Bodies keep turning up dead with signs of torture. Dozens a day in Baghdad alone according to the nightly news. This is common knowledge.
I guess, on a technicality, I have to give you that one. Saddam never left bodies lying around, he did the mass burial thing.
The American Right doesn't care much about the UN but there are six billion other people in the world...
You didn't address the central point about vague and anonyomous accusations.
Well, somebody is torturing Iraqis and the abuses at Abu Ghraib are well known. If an Iraqi shows injuries commensurate with torture and says he was beaten by prison guards guards or if a Sunni body turns up dead in a Shia neghbourhood with signs of torture, the conclusions should be pretty obvious.
No one is saying things are a tea party over there, but the stretch that people are making that there was less atrocities when Saddam was in power is a joke. The main difference now is the news media can go around reporting such things, before they couldn't.
Bear in mind the majority of those here who supported and still support the war, who agree with Bush's assessment that everything is rosy for Iraq's future, who hide their warmongering behind 'support the troops' sloganeering have also not shown their support by making an appearance in person. I don't think going to Iraq is a prerequisite for being aware of what is happening over there.
Not really following you on this post. Even Bush admits things aren't "rosy" over there, and things are much harder than expected.
Are journalists responsible for reporting only facts or can they also report opinions presented as opinions. That's what I see here.
Oh, that and and the media-hating Right tilting at windmills again...
I don't have a problem with opinions presented as opinions, but this article(and most of the news media) doesn't present opinions as opinions, rather they present opinions as facts. It was that UN guy's opinion that things are worse than when Saddam was in charge, yet the article presents that opinion as if it were a fact. That's a problem.
budgie
09-25-2006, 08:40 AM
But yet Human Rights watch estimate that a qauter of a million Iraqis were killed under Saddam. Where were the UN Human rights during Saddam's rule?
Supporting sanctions and a no fly zone that severely limited Saddam's ability to inflict such terror on his people.
budgie
09-25-2006, 08:48 AM
No one is saying things are a tea party over there, but the stretch that people are making that there was less atrocities when Saddam was in power is a joke. The main difference now is the news media can go around reporting such things, before they couldn't.
Not really following you on this post. Even Bush admits things aren't "rosy" over there, and things are much harder than expected.
It was that UN guy's opinion that things are worse than when Saddam was in charge, yet the article presents that opinion as if it were a fact. That's a problem.
I didn't read the article that way. Quotes are representations of opinions, not fact. As for Bush's assessment read my post again. I charge that he's overly optimistic about the future of Iraq.
Look i'll go out on a limb here and say something that neocon's and pro-invasion types are going to have a tough time swallowing, but it's just my opinion.
Iraq was better off under Saddam.
Now before you all go and quote that out of context I qualify the statement below for the record:
Yes some things could have been done to imprve the lives of Iraqis such as easing sanctions, but under no-fly zones and a regime of sanctions and inspections (which yes, should have been more properly enforced), he was no longer a threat to his people or his neighbours.
While Saddam massacred many people in the first decade or so of his reign, the last true bloodshed was just after the 1991 war to quell an uprising that the US encouraged then abandoned. Since then he had been a nasty dictator but really no worse than many of Bush's 'partners' in the war on terror. he was a toothless tiger and the daily bloodletting and spiralling Chaos in Iraq is worse than Iraqis had to endure under saddam at the time of the invasion.
annihilation
09-25-2006, 12:58 PM
Thats already a given, Iraq was better off with saddam in power than with Bush trying to rebuild it.
The difference between Saddam ruthlessness and todays ruthlessness is that under saddam it was controlled and organized and ran by 1 organization. You knew if you ****ed with saddam and saddam only you would get killed. Today its everyone and their mothers causing terror. You back 1 group or look a blind eye to 1 group, then you just made enemies with 6 other groups. Today is a free for all with everyone just killing everyone. Atleast with saddam is was controlled. Also he was nice enough to bury the bodies and not use IEDs.
Worse part its not getting better anytime soon. We dragged our name in the mud internationally for a mother of all FUBAR because our president thought jesus was talking to him. Lets not forget the little devil of a man the VP, he had his fingers in this whole thing too.
You Saddam lovers are insane.
I can't imagine there were this many Hitler lovers in the 40's.
I didn't read the article that way. Quotes are representations of opinions, not fact. As for Bush's assessment read my post again. I charge that he's overly optimistic about the future of Iraq.
Look i'll go out on a limb here and say something that neocon's and pro-invasion types are going to have a tough time swallowing, but it's just my opinion.
Iraq was better off under Saddam.
Now before you all go and quote that out of context I qualify the statement below for the record:
Yes some things could have been done to imprve the lives of Iraqis such as easing sanctions, but under no-fly zones and a regime of sanctions and inspections (which yes, should have been more properly enforced), he was no longer a threat to his people or his neighbours.
While Saddam massacred many people in the first decade or so of his reign, the last true bloodshed was just after the 1991 war to quell an uprising that the US encouraged then abandoned. Since then he had been a nasty dictator but really no worse than many of Bush's 'partners' in the war on terror. he was a toothless tiger and the daily bloodletting and spiralling Chaos in Iraq is worse than Iraqis had to endure under saddam at the time of the invasion.
Quoted for Truth.
I can't believe someone actually said Iraq is better off under Saddam, and meant it. That's a bit like saying Europe was better off under Hitler. Europe needed that strong central bad guy to keep all the different groups from killing each other. Look how bad Europe turned out now that it has democracy.
It's amazing there are people in this world that think tyranny is better than democracy or that people are better off living in fear(of Saddam), rather than living in hope(of democracy).
annihilation
09-25-2006, 02:44 PM
Quoted for Truth.
I can't believe someone actually said Iraq is better off under Saddam, and meant it. That's a bit like saying Europe was better off under Hitler. Europe needed that strong central bad guy to keep all the different groups from killing each other. Look how bad Europe turned out now that it has democracy.
It's amazing there are people in this world that think tyranny is better than democracy or that people are better off living in fear(of Saddam), rather than living in hope(of democracy).
this will come off mean but.....
I have no interest in providing democracy to those who have no interest to making it their own. Outside of the kurds I don't see any their that really deserve our help, and they were fine in no fly zone region under saddam.
Miles.
09-25-2006, 02:50 PM
Supporting sanctions and a no fly zone that severely limited Saddam's ability to inflict such terror on his people.
While the UN leadership, at the highest levels, was enriching itself with bribes from Saddam.
annihilation
09-25-2006, 02:51 PM
While the UN leadership, at the highest levels, was enriching itself with bribes from Saddam.
Isn't cheney profiting with this war also?
Isn't cheney profiting with this war also?
Not that I know of. Do you have anything tangible which says otherwise?
ed316
09-25-2006, 03:02 PM
Stock options?
annihilation
09-25-2006, 03:03 PM
Not that I know of. Do you have anything tangible which says otherwise?
Halliberton and their non compete / over pricing contracts......He is not on their direct payrole but he owns stocks or something with them still.
this will come off mean but.....
I have no interest in providing democracy to those who have no interest to making it their own. Outside of the kurds I don't see any their that really deserve our help, and they were fine in no fly zone region under saddam.
I agree in principle that democracy has to be earned. It's not given. I believe in giving the people a chance, if they blow it, that's on them.
Miles.
09-25-2006, 03:12 PM
Isn't cheney profiting with this war also?
Subject change. Nice execution.
Halliberton and their non compete / over pricing contracts......He is not on their direct payrole but he owns stocks or something with them still.
Proof please. I already asked once for something tangible, not just what you want to believe. Give me proof.
Miles.
09-25-2006, 03:18 PM
Proof please. I already asked once for something tangible, not just what you want to believe. Give me proof.
He owns stock in Halliburton. It's a fact. The proceeds go to charity.
Cheney has financial interests in Halliburton through 433,333 stock options worth about $8 million. They are part of a Gift Trust Agreement pursuant to which an Administrative Agent has the right to exercise those options and distribute the proceeds from the sale of the resulting stock to certain charitable organizations.[29] Who that administrative agent is has not been disclosed. All proceeds of the options will be split between the George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area.
annihilation
09-25-2006, 03:22 PM
I agree in principle that democracy has to be earned. It's not given. I believe in giving the people a chance, if they blow it, that's on them.
But how much will that chance have to cost? One thing is giving a helping hand. Some assitance in setting up fair elections, advice, some financial aid if the nation is really deserving. Another one is going to war under their presume behalf, dragging our name and reputation in the international community lower than mud, dying by the thousands, and costing hundreds of billions of dollars, to give them a "chance". Sometimes costs out weigh the reward (specially when we don't get anything except the "good vibes" crap) and its not worth it.
annihilation
09-25-2006, 03:24 PM
Subject change. Nice execution.
Thanks =), but you said this and I had to reply...
"
While the UN leadership, at the highest levels, was enriching itself with bribes from Saddam."
Miles.
09-25-2006, 03:26 PM
Thanks =), but you said this and I had to reply...
"
While the UN leadership, at the highest levels, was enriching itself with bribes from Saddam."
How is accepting bribes from Saddam the same as a US citizen owning stock in a publicly traded company, in which the profits are split between three charities? Please explain.
He owns stock in Halliburton. It's a fact. The proceeds go to charity.
The proceeds go to charity.
How exactly is Cheney profitting from this war? I'm still waiting for proof of that.
annihilation
09-25-2006, 03:35 PM
How is accepting bribes from Saddam the same as a US citizen owning stock in a publicly traded company, in which the profits are split between three charities? Please explain.
Putting aside the charities thing. What if you own stock in a company and you are in the position to assign it luractive contracts with little or no competition. Wouldn't that be considered just as unethical as taking bribes?
Miles.
09-25-2006, 03:40 PM
Putting aside the charities thing. What if you own stock in a company and you are in the position to assign it luractive contracts with little or no competition. Wouldn't that be considered just as unethical as taking bribes?
It would be unethical if there were other companies who can perform the same tasks on the same scale at the same/lower price than Halliburton. That's not the case. Halliburton and its subsidiaries are the one company who are capable of accomplishing these tasks. That is the reason Halliburton was "assign[ed]...lucrative contracts with little or no competition."
Cheney, being the former CEO, knows Halliburton's capabilities well.
Halliburton was also assigned no-bid contracts during the Clinton Administration.**
**Dick Cheney was not serving in the US Government at that time.
budgie
09-28-2006, 11:15 AM
You Saddam lovers are insane.
I can't imagine there were this many Hitler lovers in the 40's.
Keep your labels to yourself. The insane one I'll accept. But I don't think anyone here is a "Saddam lover." Call us silly names but please don't lower the tone of these forums with the usual 'enemy sympathiser' charges.
My words on Saddam from the post above:
While Saddam massacred many people in the first decade or so of his reign, the last true bloodshed was just after the 1991 war to quell an uprising that the US encouraged then abandoned. Since then he had been a nasty dictator but really no worse than many of Bush's 'partners' in the war on terror. he was a toothless tiger and the daily bloodletting and spiralling Chaos in Iraq is worse than Iraqis had to endure under saddam at the time of the invasion.
Not exactly gushing with admiration.
I simply charge that the mess in Iraq today (you can call it 'democracy' but it looks more like anarchy) is worse than in the last few years of Saddam's reign.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.0 Copyright © 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.