Abuse by Iraq's new Government

[Scarletwine]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10383646%5E2703,00.html

Abuse claims rock Iraqi regime
By AP correspondents in Portland, Oregon
August 09, 2004
IRAQ'S interim Government faces fresh allegations of brutality against its own people after US soldiers reported seeing dozens of prisoners being abused at the Interior Ministry in Baghdad.

The soldiers, members of the Oregon National Guard, reportedly intervened to stop the abuse, but were ordered to back off and return the prisoners to their Iraqi jailers.

The claims were reported yesterday in US newspaper The Oregonian. The paper also published photographs purporting to be of the abused prisoners, including one of a 14-year-old boy.

The incident allegedly occurred on June 29, one day after the US-led coalition in Iraq transferred power to the interim Government headed by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

It follows claims that Mr Allawi shot dead six suspected insurgents at an Iraqi police station soon after taking power. Mr Allawi has strenuously rejected the allegation.

The US embassy in Iraq told The Oregonian that the US had raised questions about the June 29 "brutality" with Iraqi Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib.

The embassy would not comment on what response, if any, was received, but said the soldiers "acted professionally and calmly to ease tensions and defend prisoners who needed help".

The Oregonian, which had a reporter embedded with the Oregon guardsmen, said the incident occurred after Iraqi officials announced a crackdown on crime, when police and security forces arrested about 150 people in a Baghdad neighbourhood.

Captain Jarrell Southall gave the newspaper a written account of the incident and other guardsmen, speaking on condition of anonymity, interviewed in Iraq echoed his account, the newspaper said.

On June 29, while the Oregon guardsmen were on patrol, a scout positioned in a tall building looked through the telescopic sight on his rifle into the Interior Ministry courtyard.

He saw a man beating a prisoner with a rod or a stick, took photographs and radioed battalion headquarters to report the abuse.

Battalion commander Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Hendrickson led a group of soldiers to the compound and entered the detention yard unchallenged, according to Captain Southall. The guardsmen then separated the prisoners from the Iraqi policemen.

"Many of these prisoners had bruises and cuts and belt or hose marks all over," Captain Southall said. "I witnessed prisoners who were barely able to walk."

The soldiers freed the prisoners, gave them water and administered first aid. US military police arrived and disarmed the Iraqi policemen, according to Captain Southall.

Colonel Hendrickson led some of the guardsmen into a nearby building and found a room containing "even more prisoners, all in the same sad shape as the prisoners found in the outer area", Captain Southall said. They also found "hoses, broken lamps and chemicals of some variety" that might have been used as torture devices.

But after Colonel Hendrickson radioed for instructions, he was told to return the prisoners to the Iraqi authorities and leave the detention yard. Neither Colonel Hendrickson nor others interviewed by The Oregonian would say who gave the order.

Military police have opened investigations into the suspicious deaths of 48 Iraqis while in the custody of British troops, a jump of almost a third from figures previously disclosed, British newspaper the Independent on Sunday reported yesterday

http://www.oregonlive.com/galleries.../olive/slide_show_wcard.ata?index=6&g_id=2436

This is disgusting. The sSenate is investigating the incident to try to find out who issued the orders to stand down.

 

[verte76]

This is pretty damned uncool. I wonder how the investigation will go? Disgusting.........

 

[nbcrusader]

I wonder at what point will the Iraqis be able to govern themselves??

 

[Scarletwine]

I really don't see a Democratic gov't emerging. Now with the Judge Chalabi being charged with murder, and the Temp Pres being outed as a criminal, it looks more and more like Pinochet only supported by active US military.

 

[STING2]

I really don't see a Democratic gov't emerging. Now with the Judge Chalabi being charged with murder, and the Temp Pres being outed as a criminal, it looks more and more like Pinochet only supported by active US military.

Your basing that opinion on a few reports about a couple of incidents, several of which are probably untrue. Its going to to take years to develop a strong and stable democracy in Iraq and declaring that this is Pinochet supported by the US Military, after the removal of one of the worst dictators in history only 15 months ago, is simply inaccurate. Take a look at the great work that is being done by hundreds of thousands of brave coalition troops and civilian personal as well as hundreds of thousands of brave Iraqi's. They deserve are support as well as reports on their success's which outnumber the one's the media likes to report.

 

[Diemen]

So are you saying we should ignore these reports of torture and possible murder/forgery on the part of Iraqi officials, because overall good is being done?

Of course those doing great work deserve support - however, highlighting those abusing their power in no way diminishes that support.

several of which are probably untrue

According to whom, might I ask? The fact that these allegations haven't been proven wrong yet is awfully troublesome in my eyes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

They must be investigated and those responsible for abuses held to account, the glorious thing about Iraq today is that there is a free press which is critical of its government, this means that the people will know about these things and will not stand for them. Freedom of Speech and Democracy at work.

Interesting that Diemen disregards the clarifier "probably" in stings statement, when I hear a charge like the Prime Minister personally shot 6 men at a prison in front of Americans but my evidence is unnamed Iraqi sources who cannot give an exact time or date then I would say that it probably isnt true. Do you subscribe to guilty until proven otherwise when it comes to serious charges leveled against a government? I personally think that these matters should be investigated properly before judgement may be reached, as does Stiing who is merely pointing out that many of these claims are very serious but lack substantiating evidence.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

They must be investigated and those responsible for abuses held to account, the glorious thing about Iraq today is that there is a free press which is critical of its government, this means that the people will know about these things and will not stand for them. Freedom of Speech and Democracy at work.

Free press? The Iraqi government banned al-Jazeera. Freedom of the press is meaningless if it extends only to those whose editorial policy the government agrees with.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The ban on Al Jazeera is for one month, I personally think that such a ban could be a good thing - by removing the propaganda element of the insurgency violence may be reduced, if violence doesnt go down then reinstate. But look at any Iraqi newsagent and there are hundreds of different newspapers and magazines from all over the world. There are home grown papers that are highly critical of the Government, Iraq is not turning into a police state, it is trying to consolidate power in a government, once the power is in the hands of a state and not the factions many of these more extreme measures will be removed.

 

[Diemen]

They must be investigated and those responsible for abuses held to account, the glorious thing about Iraq today is that there is a free press which is critical of its government, this means that the people will know about these things and will not stand for them. Freedom of Speech and Democracy at work.

Interesting that Diemen disregards the clarifier "probably" in stings statement, when I hear a charge like the Prime Minister personally shot 6 men at a prison in front of Americans but my evidence is unnamed Iraqi sources who cannot give an exact time or date then I would say that it probably isnt true. Do you subscribe to guilty until proven otherwise when it comes to serious charges leveled against a government? I personally think that these matters should be investigated properly before judgement may be reached, as does Stiing who is merely pointing out that many of these claims are very serious but lack substantiating evidence.

I didn't mean to disregard "probably" - rather I meant to highlight it that he disregarded those accusations by simply saying they were "probably untrue." Perhaps my interpretation of his post was wrong, but it seemed like he was glossing over the bad simply because he feels the good needs more attention. Which it does, but glossing over some fairly serious charges (formal charges have been filed against several high-profile Iraqi government officials) to do so isn't right IMO.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I agree with that, the charges against the Chalabi's seem very politically motivated, its unfortunate really that the new legal system in Iraq is being manipulated for political gain but at least its independent and justice will be done. I just hope to see Iraq in 5 years as a country building up without a growing insurgency (this can only happen when US troops are off the streets, its not just a case of them being there - they can be usefull, but having Iraqis do the patrolling of the streets and not having US targets may help, as would a rebuilt Iraqi economy) and most groups engaged in moving forward, the alternatives are too frightening to focus on, there can be no room for error in building Iraq - make or break stuff because if Iraq fails then it will be a power vaacum and the results would echo across the Middle East and dramatically alter the course of the WoT.

 

[kobayashi]

The ban on Al Jazeera is for one month, I personally think that such a ban could be a good thing - by removing the propaganda element of the insurgency violence may be reduced, if violence doesnt go down then reinstate. But look at any Iraqi newsagent and there are hundreds of different newspapers and magazines from all over the world. There are home grown papers that are highly critical of the Government, Iraq is not turning into a police state, it is trying to consolidate power in a government, once the power is in the hands of a state and not the factions many of these more extreme measures will be removed.

on what do you base this contention that Al Jazeera is a propagandistic tool of insurgent violence? is the Al Jazeera in question here a regional (Iraq) broadcast or does the outlet only provide one global feed?

if they are inciting violence, then, yes their broadcasts should cease. but if their influence is being inflated, then the ideals of the press and speech have been comprimised.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Al Jazeera may well be the most progressive broadcaster in the Arab world but thats like saying that your the tallest dwarf, it may sound impressive at first - but it winds up reflecting in a negative manner (not that I have anything against dwarfs).

Terrorism always has a political aim, its propaganda - designed to make people pay attention to the cause. This is the reason terrorism works so welll against totally open societies, we cannot hide an attack and the press will cover it. This is a good thing, however when a broadcaster has direct contacts to the "insurgents" and they run the demands it can put more people in danger, by cutting the propaganda element there is a clear possibility that the frequency of attacks will be reduced. Now I know that this is a global problem and that hostage taking is generally directed at foreign governments and companies but a one month trial to see if there is a drop could be a good thing. There is most certainly a free press in Iraq now and I dont think that will be threatened by the moves against Al Jazeera. As one Iraqi translator put it, you have to be careful in Iraq today, you cannot give the people a freedom overdose, that is what this is about, limiting the freedom to spread the message of the insurgents in exchange for a little security - we will see if it takes, even though a lot of Iraqis can get the sattelite feed.

 

[verte76]

I don't care how much good is being done, if someone does something wrong, it's wrong. Just because the guy's name isn't Saddam Hussein doesn't justify abusive behavior. I had a feeling this would happen. It's naive to assume that Allawi is some sort of savior.

 

[Klaus]

A_Wanderer

"Banning Bad News in Iraq"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/10tue3.html?th

As interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi is supposed to be guiding Iraq toward democratic elections. Yet in his first six weeks he has begun yielding to the same kind of authoritarian mentality that has stifled democracy in too many neighboring states. His latest target is Al Jazeera, whose sometimes sensational news coverage is the Arab world's principal source of uncensored information. Claiming that Al Jazeera's extensive coverage of terrorist kidnappings and other crimes encourages continuing violence, Mr. Allawi's police shut down the station's Baghdad bureau on Saturday for at least 30 days. The office will be allowed to reopen only if Al Jazeera agrees to change its policies.

Thwarting Al Jazeera's news coverage will not halt the violence that has been tearing Iraq apart for the past 16 months. But it may spare Mr. Allawi the embarrassment of having that violence so visible to a worldwide audience. It may also give his government a freer hand to abuse human rights and pursue personal political vendettas in the name of restoring law and order.

Al Jazeera's professional, provocative and partisan news coverage has no exact parallel in the United States, in part because the journalistic context in which it operates fortunately has no parallel here. Before the station began broadcasting in 1996 with financial support from the emir of Qatar, Arab viewers were largely limited to tame and uninformative state broadcasting outlets. Now tens of millions of people across the Arab world see news that their own governments would prefer to keep quiet.

That has repeatedly gotten Al Jazeera into trouble with authoritarian Arab governments - a precedent that Mr. Allawi should not be so eager to follow. The station has also drawn sharp criticism from Bush administration officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for its stridently Arab nationalist tone and the graphic details of its Iraq war coverage.

More sensitivity and less stridency on Al Jazeera's part would certainly be welcome. But on the whole, it has been a healthy and crucially important force for change. It often stands almost alone in holding the actions of previously unaccountable governments up to public view and encouraging broader public debate. Mr. Allawi's government is supposed to be pointing the way toward a more democratic Iraq in a more democratic Middle East. By moving against Al Jazeera, it does just the opposite.

 

[kobayashi]

when a broadcaster has direct contacts to the "insurgents" and they run the demands it can put more people in danger, by cutting the propaganda element there is a clear possibility that the frequency of attacks will be reduced.

this seems very much like a ruse to me.

while bearing in mind that Iraq does not have the most developed regulatory infrastructure in place, it is troubling that the content and tone of a broadcaster or media outlet can so easily be utilized to engineer its shutdown, albeit temporary. this is especially true given that the signals of this same broadcaster are recieved in homes around the world, including the united states.

al jazeera's role in broadcasting civilian death numbers during the ongoing Iraqi conflict

 

[verte76]

They shouldn't have shut down al-Jazeera. A true democratic government shouldn't worry about the press. It can denounce it, but why does it have to *ban* it? This seems excessive to me.

 

[nbcrusader]

Kind of a chicken and egg situation. Iraq is not a full democracy, yet giving free press rights may hinder its ability to become a full democracy - especially when it is surrounded and influenced by non-democratic countries.

 

[verte76]

It has been claimed that none of Iraq's neighbors--not even Turkey--wants Iraq to become a democratic state. This is a heck of a hurdle if it's true. Of course the Turks are petrified of a Kurdish state.

 

[STING2]

So are you saying we should ignore these reports of torture and possible murder/forgery on the part of Iraqi officials, because overall good is being done?

Of course those doing great work deserve support - however, highlighting those abusing their power in no way diminishes that support.



According to whom, might I ask? The fact that these allegations haven't been proven wrong yet is awfully troublesome in my eyes.

How about having some "BALANCE" in media reporting. Unfortunately, only news that is negative is often reported, leaving a false impression about the situation in the country.

There are many people who would like to see the new government in Iraq fall apart and certainly lending support and space to unsubstantiated reports about abuses does not help things. It becomes a way insurgents and terrorist can try an discredit the new government among the population.

If someone came on the forum and claimed you had murdered 6 people, I would have to say that claim was probably untrue.

Lets remember that there are terrorist and insurgents throughout Iraq that are going to be using every tactic to defeat, disrupt, and discredit the new government in Iraq. If people have evidence of serious wrong doing, then lets examine it.

But lets not jump to conclusions which the media does all to often. One gross example is the so called JENIN MASSACRE of 2002. People claimed that the Israely Defense force murded 7,000 Palestinians in the space of a couple of days of fighting in Jenin. UN inspectors later went in and discovered that only 46 palestinian civilians had died and all were the result of accidents.

The new Government in Iraq should not have to disprove every unsubstantiated charge coming from Unknown(aka terrorist and insurgent) sources.

 

[Klaus]

If the Iraqi government thinks that al-jazeera is unbalanced, fine.
Just make a better newsstation (like bbc?)
If it's good people will listen to it.
But outlawing a mediastation like al-jazeera is counterproductive for democracy and stability in iraq
(see also my nytimes posting)

 

[Klaus]

ps if you want to judge yourself you can access al-jazeera at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
maybe it will be interesting to read the articles and find out if they were closer to the truth than we (at least i) expected

 

[Scarletwine]

Now all reporters have been banned from Najaf. No one can tell what war crimes are commited on civiians then.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10478772^401,00.html

Iraqi officers threaten reporters
By Stephen Farrell
18aug04

IRAQI police have threatened to kill every journalist working in the holy city of Najaf, where US forces are locked in a tense stand-off with Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army.

After a series of veiled warnings to leave on Sunday, two marked police cars pulled up at dusk outside the Sea of Najaf hotel on the outskirts of town, where Arab and Western journalists are staying.
Ten uniformed policemen walked into the hotel and demanded that the al-Arabiya, Reuters and AP correspondents go with them.

Journalists told them they were not there, but the policemen found and arrested Ahmed al-Salahih, the al-Arabiya correspondent, who the day before had been given a special exemption from the earlier eviction orders.

A uniformed lieutenant then told the assembled journalists and hotel staff: "We are going to open fire on this hotel. I'm going to smash it all, kill you all, and I'm going to put four snipers to target anybody who goes out of the hotel. You have brought it upon yourselves."

After pushing and shoving in the foyer, another policeman pointed his gun towards a member of the staff, but was disarmed by an Arab television journalist.

The police left, taking the al-Arabiya correspondent with them, drove 300m and fired warning shots.

The attempt to drive journalists from Najaf came as US marines - supported by the nascent Iraqi army - step up the pressure on Sadr, whose forces remain in control of Najaf's old city and sacred shrine to Imam Ali.

The Government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is acutely sensitive to the maelstrom that would erupt if the shrine were to be damaged, and the media crackdown may be an attempt to limit the negative publicity should it be hit during any military operation.

After US marine commanders last week issued a hawkish threat "to finish this fight that the Moqtada militia started", Mr Allawi moved swiftly to defuse alarm even among his own senior government officials, reassuring Iraqis: "The holy shrine will remain safe from all attacks that could possibly harm its sacredness."

Any military operation will be hampered by the fact that Sadr's hundreds of fighters inside the old city and cemetery have grown by about 2000, swelled by volunteers who marched through US lines at the weekend to act as human shields. Yesterday they paraded around the marble white-tiled courtyard inside the golden-domed mosque, effectively turning it into a giant stadium for rallies to the renegade Shia cleric.

All were unarmed but insisted they would pick up the guns of any Mehdi fighters killed in renewed clashes.

In the streets outside the shrine, terrified Iraqis hid inside their homes, with intermittent fire between the US tanks and Mehdi Army guerillas, who have planted huge booby traps on almost every street. Few ordinary Najafis will now stray beyond their doorsteps.

- From The Times

 

[verte76]

Najaf is to Shi'ite Muslims what Rome is to Catholics. They'd better be careful not to attack this shrine. That would probably even piss off the Sunni Muslims. Some Sunnis have actually been sharing their mosques with Shi'ites. Of course alot of what happens depends on Sistani. If he's really sick, that's bad news because he is interested in stopping the fighting. There's another Grand Ayatollah in Iraq who's from Pakistan and very anti-American, and another one is not political, he's basically a "quietist". There is one other Grand Ayatollah in Iraq, but I forget what I read about him.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So going into a holy site to remove a threat is wrong as opposed to going into a holy place and launching morters and RPG's out of it which is alright? (I know you didnt say alSadr was right but this is a point). When an armed group uses a holy site as a base of violence it becomes a lefitimate target, I wouldnt suggest bombing it for that would be overkill, I would think that a well planed attack to swiftly terminate those inside and return the control to the people of Najaf would be better, the rats have taken over the castle and the people are not happy. This cultural sensitivity over safety mentality can really help out anybody who wants to run a campaign against the Iraqi government, all you have to do is shoot from a mosque and you have immunity.

 

[verte76]

Yes but just imagine the very idea of the Vatican being bombed. Maybe I'm a little more sensitive about that because I'm Catholic. Then transport yourself to Iraq, and imagine a big-time shrine, one of the most important not just in Iraq but in the entire Shi'ite Islamic world. It's unfortunate that Al-Sadr is exploiting the place. I think this is disgusting and stupid. It's a delicate situation, especially as it's just hit the wires that they broke the ceasefire and there's fighting there again.