Torture in Iraq said to be worse now than under Saddam

Nimh, it's not you to post something like this.

There is a considerable difference between a state-sanctioned and approved torture and a kidnapping/torture. We even have sick bastards here in America that rape and torture their victims before killing them. To say that what is happening now is because Saddam is no longer in control is rather like comparing apples and oranges.

It's a ruse and it saddens me to see you link such things as that leads me to believe you buy into the story.

Neither Habibi nor the article he has posted state the this situation has occured because Saddam is no longer in power. The inference is hard not to draw though, that it arises because an invasion which was not followed by effetive control of that long-suffering nation is the cause. Nevertheless, your self-righteousness (a particular talent of yours) is misplaced.

Don't make sh!t up.

Really? I doubt a victim of torture would agree with you.

Really? You don't think the headline Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam' makes that implication?

Tell me, what exactly is that headline implying?

No.



That torture seems to be more widespread after the fall of Hussein. Neither the article nor the headline state that it is more widespread because Hussein is no longer in power.

Yes, there is (on a level of principle, if not, as Joe points out, for the victim).


You do. Not a whole lot of them though. Because you have a state of law. An imprefectly but reasonably effective rule of law.

What you do not have is a state of anarchy. Which is what they have in much of Iraq.

And yes, the increase in brutal kidnappers is directly related to the level of anarchy in the country. So yes, there is a direct link to the political change.

In a democratic rule of law, people are rarely tortured - never by the state, and the chance of falling in the hand of a torturing individual are relatively limited.

In the police state of Saddam's Iraq, there was little individual crime - but that didnt do anyone any good because instead, people were tortured by the state.

In the continuing anarchy of post-invasion Iraq, the state doesn't - well, actually, the state does still also torture, but a lot less; but on the other hand, there's an escalation of people being kidnapped and tortured by both political and criminal thugs.

And according to many, the result is that there is now even more torture than under Iraq.

Observing that is not a "ruse". It is a completely valid observation, and as such, something we have to face up to. To be alarmed by. You too.

Ok, I'll buy that.

So, torture was better when Saddam was around? Did they use less painful techniques? Perhaps offer an aspirin or something?

All very much to the point. To which i would add the observation that such torture is more wide-spread due to the failure of the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad to have delivered on the promise of creating an effective government in Iraq, nevermind a democratic one.

Quite. If torture is more widespread now after Saddam, it is not because Saddam is gone, but because those who came after him have made such a mess of things that Iraqis are now even less safe than they were under Saddam. Thats one hell of an indictment.

To put it this way: If the invasion hadnt been so completely f*cked up through lack of planning and expertise, perhaps - perhaps not, but perhaps - a more stable state might have appeared. A state that would not anymore be a dictatorship like Saddam's, but would still have been more able to protect its citizens from the rampant violence that has come to plague the country now.

If there is now more torture even than under Saddam, that doesnt say anything good about Saddam; the fact that it is worse EVEN than under Saddam (when, as we all know, it was horrendous) is an indictment of the incompetent chaos that has followed.

"Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'", in this context, obviously = there is more of it.

After the 1918 armistice, it was negotiated that American troops would occupy large portions of Germany, which they did in 1919, principally in the Rhineland. Not only was there no widespread lawlessness in American occupied areas, there was a lot less than much of the rest of Germany, until the Weimar Government got a grip on the country.

In 1945, Douglas MacArthur landed on an airfield near Tokoyo, and not refused to wear a sidearm when it was offered to him by his staff. He then drove to a hotel in Yokohama, and when the hotelier offered him a steak (god know how much trouble the man had in even finding a steak in starving Japan), and his staff told him not to eat it because it might be poisoned, he replied that that was nonsense, and that it looked delicious, and he proceeded to eat it, without ill effect. He understood the Japanese people, and his every action said "I am in charge, cooperate and all will be well." It was. People stopped in the street and bowed as his car passed. He was photographed with the Emperor, and most Japanese people had never seen a photograph of their Emperor, unless it had been taken when he was the Crown Prince. The occupation was such a small burden that when the Korean War broke out, we didn't have sufficient troops in Japan to effetively respond--because we didn't need them there, and had reduced our forces there. MacArthur in general, and George Marshall in particular, were prepared for the occupation and acted effectively and immediately.

When we entered Germany in 1945, not only did we have civil administration officers and staff ready for the occupation, they had already been working in France, and were experienced as well as being prepared for the task.

But when we entered Iraq, although they had been warned in advance of the need by experienced military officers, this administration was not prepared to administer the nation effectively. Local military commanders with no training or experience in civil administration were left to fill the gap. Although they have done a very good job, they simply hadn't the staff, the resources or the experience to effectively administer the nation.

There are a lot of significant differences between Iraq in 2003, and Japan and Germany in 1945. But some of those differences point out the failure of this administration to effectively prepare for and to respond to the problems of the occupation. In Kurd-controlled areas, the militia have been effectively protecting and policing those areas since long before the invasion--and although there have been incidents which were caused by disaffected Sunnis, the Kurd-controlled areas have remained largely free of violence.

In the rest of the country, you have a Sunni minority, many of whom were members of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, and who therefore have no longer any part in the governance of the country. They still have, though, their resentments, and an agenda to seize power again if they can. You have a Shi'ite majority with a lot of grudges to settle, and the appeal of extremist militias is only strengthened by the failures of administation. We cannot guarantee reliable electrical service, clean water and sewage and waste removal, schools, public safety or employment. We are spending a fortune, largely to no purpose as regards the needs of the population, and all promises that the occupation would be financed by Iraqi oil have proven false, because we can't even protect the wells, the pipelines and the refineries. With an appalling unemployment rate, many young men have nothing to lose by joining a militia and going off to torture and kill their Sunni or Shi'ite enemies.

The Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad screwed the pooch badly on this one. It didn't have to be true that things would get worse after Hussein was deposed--but it has happened that way because this administration has f*cked up everything it touched in Iraq.

Amen, Setanta.

I remember telling Tico once,

'Just because the police are wrong, doesn't unbeat your ass.'

Same thing here. You think the people being tortured really give a damn that it is a militia, or the US-sponsored Iraq government torturing them, instead of Saddam? Please

Cycloptichorn

It's what can be done about it that is the difference. Regimes can be changed to stop the state sponsoring of torture. Criminals, until they are caught, will continue their barbaric ways. Surely you understand that.

At no time did I imply the victims cared one way or another who was torturing them.

Much of the torture which is currently going on is state-sponsored. I mean, you do realize that the Iraqi government is torturing people in their detention centers, and that the sectarian militias which are torturing people are ran by the leaders of the Iraqi gov't?

Cycloptichorn

The Iraqi government is doing what it can to rid the nation of the very militias that are most responsible for these atrocities. I am sure they are aware of the problems they are facing. If you, or anyone else, have any suggestions on how they can do that, I am sure they would appreciate the help.

This is ridiculous. The Iraqi government isn't doing a damn thing to get rid of the militias. Can you show what steps they have taken to do this? I doubt it.

The reason, of course, is that many of the militias are ran by the same Religious Extremists who run the gov't. They have absolutely no intention of disbanding the militias, and don't even disagree with what they are doing.

I'm not sure you have a full grasp of the extent of sectarian conflict that exists in Iraq these days.

Cycloptichorn

The Iraqi government have created a set of laws. One of those laws demands that paramilitary groups should be merged with the nation's authorized security forces. They are also gathering weapons and weapons cache's from many neighborhoods as Iraqi and US forces go through them in an attempt to disarm the militia's.

It's not an easy process and will take time. An over night solution is not possible and no amount of whining about the situation will speed it up. All it does is reinforce the belief that Iraq has no hope and will never be a stable, democratic country.