The torture of Iraqis by American troops is not just a few "bad apples." Amnesty international has been complaining about it for a year, but neither the American government or media paid any attention until recently with the pictures. Amnesty recently
said that there are
"double standards and double speak on human rights" going on in Iraq, their
"extensive research in Iraq suggests that this [torture]
is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens" and that they have:
"received frequent reports of torture or other ill-treatment by Coalition Forces during the past year. Detainees have reported being routinely subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during arrest and detention. Many have told Amnesty International that they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods often reported include prolonged sleep deprivation; beatings; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding; and exposure to bright lights. Virtually none of the allegations of torture or ill-treatment has been adequately investigated by the authorities."
In an earlier
report Amnesty claimed that:
"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 check points and in house raids. 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. ... 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. For example, US soldiers have shot and killed scores of Iraqi demonstrators in several incidents, including seven in Mosul on 15 April 2003, at least 15 in Falluja on 29 April and two outside the Republican Palace in Baghdad on 18 June. ... No US soldier has been prosecuted for illegally killing an Iraqi civilian. 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. In effect, US soldiers are operating with total impunity. ... Ever since the war began, Amnesty International has been receiving reports of Iraqis who have been taken into detention by Coalition Forces and whose rights have been violated. Some have been held without charge for months. A number of detainees have been tortured and ill-treated. Virtually none has had prompt access to a lawyer, their family or judicial review of their detention. ... Many detainees have alleged they were tortured and ill-treated by US and UK troops during interrogation. Methods reported often include beatings; prolonged sleep deprivation; prolonged restraint in painful positions, sometimes combined with exposure to loud music; prolonged hooding; and exposure to bright lights. Virtually none of the allegations of torture or ill-treatment has been adequately investigated."
Not only is the US torturing Iraqis in the same prisons Saddam tortured Iraqis in, the US is bringing Baathists back into the government. The US is just rebuilding Saddam's old dictatorship, with the US on top. The US has no real interest in bringing "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. The US supports numerous dictatorships as bad as Saddam including Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbeckistan and others. If the US really wanted to spread freedom & democracy it would stop supporting these dictatorships. Therefore it's claims of wanting to bring democracy to Iraq are not credible. The US is just going to install a new puppet dictatorship and possibly pretend it is a democracy.
The last time the democrats were in office they killed at least 2 million people. The highest estimate I've seen for Bush is .25 million. The dems are not the lesser of two evils.
The sanctions on Iraq killed between 1.5 & 3 million people. Add in Clinton's numerous other atrocities like supporting
genocide in Turkish Kurdistan, and inciting war in Bosnia by
shipping Muslim fundamentalist terrorists from Afghanistan to Bosnia (among other things) and he killed quite a few people.
The invasion of Iraq carried with it the potential for a huge humanitarian catastrophe. That fortunetly didn't happen, but the risk should not have been taken. Clinton should have ended the sanctions & seige, that would stop the deaths without taking such a risk. Clinton would not have invaded Iraq earlier, it was necessary to conduct a long seige in order to weaken the population. The reason the US didn't take Saddam out in the Gulf War is that there was a proletarian uprising completely with shoras (workers councils). The US let Saddam stay in power so he could crush the uprising, and assisted him through several means including massacring retreating troops. The US then laid a seige on Iraq which had the effect of wearing the population down and annhiliating the popular movement. Had the US invaded earlier, or not let Saddam stay in power, the US would have had to suppress a working class movement aiming for proletarian democracy. That would have been extremely costly to suppress and it would not have made them look good. In fact, a case can be made that Bush's invasion was premature. If he had waited a few more years there might be less resistance.
If you go solely by their rhetoric, Kerry is worse than Bush. Kerry is even more of a warmonger than Bush. Actual power lies with the state bureaucracy & big business, though, not elected politicians so policy will probably be more or less the same regardless of whom is elected.
If you apply the methodology used by liberals & others who think there's a difference between the parties and that voting makes a different then you find that the democrats are worse. However, actual power lies with the state bureaucracy & corporate elite, not elected politicians. The fact that the democrats record is worse is just a coincidence, both parties implement the same policies given the same situation.
Site Feed