Bush Has a Lot to Answer for on Iraq Torture

By Elizabeth Holtzman

Wednesday 16 June 2004

At a Senate hearing last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that President George W. Bush never ordered torture in connection with abusive interrogations of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and violated no criminal laws of the United States. But the attorney general did not describe what the president did order with respect to these interrogations - and he refused to turn over key documents to the Senate.

The attorney general's self-serving sweeping denial disqualifies him from investigating and holding accountable those responsible for these interrogations. Ashcroft should appoint a special prosecutor to do so.

Under a little known statute, any American involved in the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, including the president of the United States, could be guilty of a federal crime.

The War Crimes Act of 1996 punishes any U.S. national, civilian or military, who engages in a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach means the "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of prisoners. If death results, the act imposes the death penalty.

The possibility of prosecution must have haunted President Bush's chief lawyer, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. In order to reduce "the threat" of prosecution for the brutal interrogations of Taliban and al-Qaida members, Gonzales urged President Bush (in a January 2002 memo) to opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the war in Afghanistan. Although Gonzales doesn't mention that top officials could be targets of prosecutions under the War Crimes Act, plainly that is his concern. The president followed his advice.

Gonzales' logic was simple: Whenever the Geneva Conventions applied, so did the War Crimes Act of 1996. Since President Bush has repeatedly stated that the Geneva Conventions apply to Iraq, the War Crimes Act clearly applies to willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Whether the gimmick of opting out of the Geneva accords precludes War Crimes Act liability for Afghanistan remains to be seen.

Clearly, U.S. personnel subjected Iraqi detainees to inhuman treatment, such as forcing hooded prisoners into stressful positions for lengthy periods of time, using dogs to intimidate and bite naked prisoners, dragging naked prisoners on the ground with a leash around their necks, forcing prisoners to engage in or simulate sexual acts, beatings and on and on.

There is no shortage of evidence to document the inhuman treatment, including the notorious photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners as well as Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's inquiry, which found "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses." The UN high commissioner for human rights recently reached similar conclusions. The International Red Cross repeatedly protested the treatment of Iraqi detainees.

The key question is how high up the responsibility goes for these abhorrent acts. The War Crimes Act covers government officials who give the orders for inhuman treatment as well as those who carry them out. Since the War Crimes Act punishes for inhuman treatment alone, prosecutions under that act can by-pass any disagreement over the exact meaning of torture - and whether the Justice Department's absurdly narrow definition is correct. In addition, under international law, officials who know about the inhuman treatment and fail to stop it are also liable.

We need to know what directives Bush gave for CIA and military interrogations in Iraq. We also need to know what the president and his subordinates, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, knew about the inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners - and when they knew it and what they did about it.

Bush must stop claiming that the problems lie with just a few bad apples. That is simply not true. We know that orders for inhuman treatment came directly from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top military officer in Iraq. But we don't yet know where he got his orders. Similarly, the president should disclaim the contention that his powers as commander-in-chief override U.S. criminal laws; it smacks of President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful claim of "national security" during the Watergate scandal, and is baseless.

We simply cannot prosecute only the "small fry" for this scandal that has undercut our mission in Iraq and besmirched our reputation. We have to demonstrate that the rule of law applies to everyone responsible, including the president, if the evidence warrants - as we did in Watergate. There must be a thorough investigation of the higher-ups, and that requires a full congressional inquiry and the appointment of a special prosecutor.

The horrendous mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners has disgraced the United States and endangered our troops and citizens. The best way to vindicate our country and undo the damage done to Iraqi prisoners is to ensure that everyone responsible is held accountable - without exceptions. We may pay a terrible price if we fail to do so.

Elizabeth Holtzman is a former congresswoman, New York City comptroller and Brooklyn district attorney. She served on the House Judiciary Committee during impeachment of President Richard Nixon
Paranoid Dot Calm

I completely Agree with the commentary.
Interesting Reading.

Paranoid Dot Calm,

Thank you for nice words.
Yup, nice words.

I'm sure you'll post the documents that shows the torture at Abu Ghraig came from the White House.

I'm sure of it.

Of course, even the opinion piece you posted doesn't make that accusation. The writer simply wants more info-- as does everyone else.

But that really doesn't matter, does it?
By the way, here's some food for thought, by Walid Phares, Middle East Scholar and MSNBC Analyst.

Interesting how US critics are so outraged by the Abu Ghraib scandal seem so nonplussed by prison abuse in the region.

I guess that explains why Darfur (for starters) is off the radar for so many human rights advocates...I mean, who cares-- only a million and a half have died...

What Abu Ghraib Scandal?
By Dr. Walid Phares

When the Abu Ghraib prison abuse crisis exploded, I analyzed the reactions coming from the Arab World. In an election year, the stakes are high for all parties involved. Each side wants a convenient "truth." The Bush administration talked about "bad apples." While on the offensive, the opposition talks of a "systemic problem."

President Bush went on Arab TV, while his opponents rushed to speak on behalf of the "humiliated Arab world." But as General Abuzeid put it since Day One, it sounds as if "the issue is making more noise in the U.S. than in Iraq." In fact, the Arab-speaking General got it somewhat right. We in America, were more concerned about "our" image than about the actual incidents themselves. The Arab World obviously reacted, but not exactly as many politicians fantasized.

When I asked individuals from different Arab countries what would they think about Bush's outreach, answers varied. Everybody was sickened by the ugliness of the pictures, but beyond the graphics there were two types of reactions.

The anti-Americans were not difficult to guess. With al-Jazeera's incitement, natural anger mutated into hysteria. Suddenly, religion was cited heavily. Very few made a distinction between the psychological illness at Abu Ghraib and the future of Iraq. Actually, the Jihadist networks found a lethal political weapon and exploited this all the way. They think they caught America by its mentally weakest soldiers. More than sanctions against the guards, they want to flush the American-led Coalition out of Iraq, and Bush out of the Oval office. In this jihad "home run," the architects of the Abu Ghraib crusade against "U.S. immorality" enlisted European elites too. The oil chained establishment from Paris to Berlin is wailing. Manhattan's UN is mourning.

But there are other people in the region who see the crisis through a different lens. In Beirut, amazement was mostly about George W. Bush addressing Arab TV. Lebanese were certainly disgusted by the aired images but they were stunned by the fact that a U.S. President was "talking" to Arab citizens. The region is infested with worse ugliness than the prison scandal, yet no one can remember any Arab leader addressing his people about abuse.

"Our dictators never showed up on any media, at anytime, for any picture" said many Syrians, "despite 28 years of horrors in their detention centers." Thousands of citizens were tortured in al Mazza, the Syrian equivalent of Abu Ghraib, yet no one lifted a finger. Many in the region have their own horror pictures, but who will publish them as long as no Americans were involved?

From Iraq, other voices blasted the media: "What was happening in the same cells of Abu Ghraib under the Baath defies human logic. The awful photos of today would be only appetizers," said Saddam's survivors. "We have pictures, we have documents, but that won't please your elites."

These survivors invited the world to visit the mass graves, to see piles of corpses, but to to avail. Shiites are cheap, unless they join the anti-American chorus. Their pictures won't make it to BBC, let alone the Arab networks. Southern Sudanese repeated that one million blacks were decimated. They have pictures of naked African men, women and children taken into slavery. Their problem is that were not taken to Abu Ghraib

The list is long, but the pattern is one. Deep down, Mideast underdogs know that the pornographic scandal in the U.S. manned prison was hijacked by the bullies of the region.

Under their dark skin, the victims of the region's systemic horrors know very well that, with few exceptions, America's political culture is the anti-thesis of all the political ideologies of the region. Despite the ugliness of Abu Ghraib pictures, the Arab World needs to send those uglier pictures from the region's concentration camps. It needs to uncover the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth, everywhere in the region.

Maybe the evil done to prisoners in Iraq, will uncover the wider evil in the whole region
Paranoid Dot Calm

I believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq for their oil reserves. Britain
had the same premise.
No .... I can't prove it.
But, this is not L.A. Law.
I'm simply trying to express a view I hold.

There are two articles further down which deal with the
Euro-Dollar Wars.
I edited this post and moved them down the thread.

Britain was in the fray of a huge financial scandal with Shell Oil.
This scandal was a far greater fraud than Enron or WorldCom.
It would of meant the collapse of the British banking system.

Watts forced out over Shell oil reserves fiasco

In fact, Shell Oil re-categorized approximately 3.9 billion
barrels of oil and the natural gas equivalent, comprised
of two thirds (2.7 billion barrels) related to crude oil and
natural gas liquids, and one third (1.2 billion boe or
roughly 7.2 trillion standard cubic feet ) related to natural gas.


Lots of people share that opinion-- that initself doesnt make it so.

If the war were indeed about oil, all the US would have to have done is vote for the dropping of sanctions in Iraq.

They would have saved themselves billions and not have to face the PR blitz.

I too, don't agree that the war need have been a necssity-- but to make it only about oil is patently absurd.
Paranoid Dot Calm

Hey! ResearchOK

Well, if it was not about oil, then you actually believe that it
was about giving Iraqi's the right to vote?
It's not hatred of our liberal democracy, but hatred of our policies
that fuels terrorism.

They are there for oil. It is a National Security issue for them.
If you read the .pdf file and the link concerning the Euro Dollar
sales, you can't simply ignore it.

This is what I've read:

Daylight robbery, Bush-style: Iraqis fail to regain control of oil revenue

Sistani: Iraqi government lacks legitimacy

Full sovereignty for Iraq after 30 June?
The definition of the term "sovereignty" has always been controversial in political science.


Text: Latest UN draft resolution on Iraq
The council is to vote on the draft on Tuesday

June 8 2004

Fake Sovereignty

Q&A: The handover in Iraq
Power in Iraq is to be formally handed over to an interim Iraqi government by the coalition or occupation forces on 30 June. But what will this mean in practice? BBC News Online looks at the key issues.


Iraqis fail to regain control of oil revenue
The latest Iraqi attempts to recover control of the country's oil revenues from the United States appear to have hit a dead end with a special delegation being rebuffed in its bid to secure UN help.


Iraq oil - the target for years
The country's oil reserves stand at about 115 billion barrels
US policy towards Iraq has always been shaped by the country’s rich oil resources, its strategic location on the Gulf and its regional weight.


UN Panel Says CPA is Mismanaging Iraq’s Oil Revenues

Iraq’s ‘Sovereign’ Government to Have Little Control Over Oil Money

The new "Iraqi government" has indeed been granted
sovereignty, but sadly only in the United States and by our
media. Someone should tell the Iraqis.


The farce of the Iraqi “handover”

"Mr. President, Iraq is sovereign."

With a simple handwritten note, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice made her bid to author one of the biggest and most brazen lies of our lifetimes. No, Iraq is not sovereign, far from it.

Iraq today remains occupied by a large, primarily US, military force of nearly 150,000. The presence of a foreign army is without popular support from the Iraqi people. Far from being embraced, the occupation has given rise to a local resistance prepared to give their lives to drive those they view as invaders from their homeland. In the 48 hours since Rice penned her note to Bush, four American soldiers have lost their lives and at least eleven more have been wounded.

A massive dis-information campaign has been waged in the US to convince the public that "Iraqis" now control their own fate. But the reality is that the Bush administration has hastily authorized our military to recall thousands of recently discharged veterans in an attempt to bolster an occupying force faced with fierce resistance.

The hasty Saigon-style exit of US overseer L. Paul Bremer III may not have been an escape, but it looked like one. Bremer's departure did however serve to draw attention away from the arrival of his replacement. The new American "Ambassador" to Iraq, John D. Negroponte, arrived almost without mention, a "diplomatic" force 1,700 strong in tow. If you have any misconceptions about Negroponte's mission in Iraq being a diplomatic one, put them to rest now. Mr. Negroponte's specialty is not diplomacy, it is mass graves. As US Ambassador to Honduras during the Reagan administration, he was the Iran-Contra point man in the region.

In 1984 the Reagan administration's plan to ignore the will of Congress and crush the duly elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua was in full swing. Money was coming in from the sale of arms to Iran, the CIA was training death squads to kill anyone who opposed the Reagan agenda, and someone had to coordinate those efforts. That someone was John D. Negroponte.

Specifically, Negroponte is charged by human rights groups with running political cover for the CIA sponsored Honduran Intelligence Battalion 3-16. Battalion 3-16, led by General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, a graduate of the School of the Americas, was directly responsible for the disappearance of thousands of Nicaraguans who did nothing more than resist a foreign overthrow of their chosen leaders.

Fast forward, Iraq 2004. Newly US-appointed interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi is a CIA favorite and has vowed to "crush" the resistance. John D. Negroponte arrives in the nick of time to play the role of Ambassador, and all players are in place. Yes, Abu Ghraib was bad, but what's coming could easily be far worse.

The elaborate and expensive "Iraqi Rule" charade is a made-for-American-TV production being thrown together literally on an hour-to-hour basis. The parading of former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein provides vivid insight into the desperate, even frantic, bid to maintain a veneer of order in the eyes of US voters.

With mind-boggling, chorus-line precision, every major corporate news agency in the US shouted, in unison, on cue: "Legal Custody of Saddam Transferred to Iraqis." For the record, Saddam is under US military armed guard now and will be until he dies. The rest of it is 100% grade-A, all-American bovine feces. Although it should be noted that the nephew of accused Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi, Salem Chalabi, has been cast in the role of Judge in Saddam's made-for-TV trial: that should prove interesting.

It is difficult to imagine how Saddam Hussein can get anything approaching a fair trial. His testimony would be an embarrassment to the current occupants of the White House who for so long funded and supplied him, benefiting from his repression of true Iraqi interests. All this knowing well the scope of his crimes. So, once again, it's the all too familiar, rock-and-hard-place scenario.

No, Iraq is not sovereign, not by a long shot, and there isn't anyone in Washington that wants it to be anytime soon. No one knows that better that than those telling the lie. No, there is no multi-national force. It's George W. Bush in control of the US military and his cronies reaping the profits.

Lost in all this are those who pay the price of war, those whose lives are torn apart or ended and forgotten. When all the money has been made, and deposited, and spent, who will remember those who carried the rifle or lost the leg? When we leave Mesopotamia, and we will, who will think of the child crushed beneath the wheel of greed?
Paranoid Dot Calm

Hey! ResearchOK

This is the final point in my submissions to you.
I needed to post the article and not simply a link because
it's from the New York Times and yuh gotta join in order to
read it.


The World Sells Out Iraq
by Mark LeVine, Ph.D.

From the text of Tuesday's UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the return of "full sovereignty to the people of Iraq" on June 30, one would think that the people of Iraq should be dancing in the streets. They're not, and with good reason. With this resolution, the United Nations, indeed the world, has sold out Iraq.

How could this be so when the Security Council, including Muslim members such as Pakistan, Algeria and the Iraqi Prime Minister himself, unanimously supported the resolution? And when the United States actually negotiated with rather than ignored other Security Council members and modified its original language to appease their concerns.

Letlook at the reality underneath the rhetoric of renewed international cooperation: As the New York Times has reported, it now turns out that the Prime Minister of Iraq, Iyad Allawi, was a paid CIA assassin in the 1990s who organized several car bombings in Baghdad that killed civilians, including school children. How can the world take seriously Allawi's proclamation that withdrawing US troops would be "a disaster for Iraq" when they're made by a former US intelligence operative without local support who owes his position in the country entirely to the United States? And with Allawi supervising Iraq's transition how can we expect free and fair elections when they could possibly—likely, in fact—lead to a government that would call for the removal of US and British forces, and even pursue investigations and legal actions against Iraq's most recent occupiers?

Then therethe issue of torture and other war crimes, not to mention the well over ten thousand Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of the Coalition forces. All of these are completely absent from the Security Council Resolution. It "condemns all acts of terrorism in Iraq" and gives the multinational force "the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq," and goes on to urge countries to prevent the "transit" of terrorists into the country. This is all important, but how could the Security Council not mention the systematic violations of international law by the occupying powers, especially when many of these violations are war crimes, which the UN specifically classifies as acts of terrorism.

And what about the fact the US left the border open for a year and allowed anyone who wanted to enter to do, no matter how nefarious their plans? Or that "all necessary measures" has been clearly interpreted by the United States to justify the indefinite detention, torture and humiliation of thousands of Iraqi civilians and the killings of at least that number by coalition forces, as horribly epitomized by the massacre—without justification, apology or international repercussions—of a wedding party in the desert town of Mogrldeeb two weeks ago.

Similarly missing is any mention of the absolutely deplorable and even criminal state of the countryhealth system, which the US and UK were legally obliged to remedy under the terms of the Geneva Conventions and the 2003 Security Council Resolution authorizing the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Finally, the Security Council has now erased from the UN's institutional memory the legal fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq themselves constituted, in the words of the US Center for Constitutional Rights, "an international crime, a crime against peace—the waging of a war of aggression." As first defined by the United States in the post-World War Two Nuremberg trials, this is the most fundamental international crime there is. How can the Council, whose primary function is "to maintain peace and security," have any legitimacy in the eyes of the peoples—as opposed to governments—of the world if it doesneven acknowledge that the US and UK invaded and occupied a sovereign state with no justification in international law?

Given this situation, itno surprising that one of the Iraqis with whom I met in a recent trip to the country responded to the latest resolution by asking, "How is our civil society supposed to have any hope of functioning in Iraq when it sees that the US can get away literally with murder and torture and no one will speak up for us, including the men appointed by outsiders to lead the country who have little base in our society?" Another activist lamented, "This resolution is the last nail in the coffin of the UN in Iraq," and predicted a continuation of the violence that drove the UN out of the country last summer.

It is now clear that we have returned to the kind of bi-polar world system that characterized the Cold War. Only the last one was between blocs of states, while today the opposing sides—the worldpoliticians and its peoples—are much more unevenly matched. With the United States possessing unparalleled military might, other major powers willing to play along for the right price, and the rest of the worldgovernments and international institutions too weak, scared or coopted to challenge the system, itup to the citizens of the world to come together to fight for true justice, peace and democracy. Sadly, at least in Iraq we can cross the UN off as an ally in this all-important struggle.
Mr. Calm,

Very interesting facts. Maybe Researchok can learn something from all of this.
Paranoid Dot Calm

Hey! ResearchOK

Here is another reason to consider as well.

One thing for certain, it was not for democracy.

Oil, Dollars, Euros And Dead Iraqi's

The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth

Again, youre raising issues that arent relevant- that is to say, they buttres an opinion-- an opinion belied by the facts.

No one has yet to answer the central question-- if the war was about oil, why go through the entire exercise when the lifting of sanctions would have accomplished the goal? After all, who would the Iraqis have sole their oil to-- North Korea?

It is telling that you\ve posted from sources that are ideological, rather than known for their honest opinion-- I mean, MARXIST sources? Asking a Marxist to comment on economics and free trade is like asking a hooker to comment on family values!

In post you quote Ghalil Hassan-- who has been repudiated by lying about the ethnic background of some American diplomats. Not that its at all relevant in the real world, but some people like to drege that kind of thing up, as if it had merit. Some of the posters here know what thats all about.

The fact that you seesm to have relied primarily on anti war sites is not at all impressive. There is an inherent bias (which is neither good nor bad-- it just colors everything with a bias) which also canot buttress your argumnet. The fundamental truths cannot be refuted-- there was no need to go to war if it was only about oil.

All the words written and spoken only serve to obfuscate that fact.

There is, a legitimate argument to made against the Bush Administration in going to war-- but you have yet to make it.

That is also an irrefutable fact.
Paranoid Dot Calm

Hey! ResearchOK

Please don't give me the guff about reliable news sources. I'm
quite able to recognize propaganda.
I read everything I can get my eyes to gaze upon.

Iraq was selling it's oil for Euro's and not U.S. dollars.
This was a threat to the American system.

Lifting of sanctions would not of meant the privatizing of
Iraqi oil. Invaision is the only way that could be accomplished.

Yes, the marxist websites are a bastion ot truth and reality.

No doubt the citizens of the former USSR and Eastern Europe miss their old regimes and reliable 'news sources'.

It matters not a whit how Iraq got paid for its oil-- euros or dollars. Learn about it-- called 'spot prices'.

By the way, no Iraqi oil reserves have been privatized.

Look that up, too.
Paranoid Dot Calm

Hey! ResearchOK

Your comment of:
It matters not a whit how Iraq got paid for its oil
-- euros or dollars.

Would only indicate to me that you don't have a
great understanding of world markets and economies.

The Arabs want to sell their oil for Euro's.
This will destroy the U.S. financial system.

In addition, the 21st century belongs to China.
China requires a huge amount of oil to maintain a growth
of 7% this year.
The U.S. needs a "secure" oil supply.

Here is an article which would explain further my point.

The Islamic gold dinar

How will this destroy the dollar?

There are more US dollars in circulation OUTSIDE the US than within.

Matter of fact, Im quite comfortable with my knowledge of economics. Your previous post extolling Marxist economics does make you rather suspect, however, in presenting yourself as understanding financial sysytems.

Foreign exchange-- look it up. In point of fact, oil is paid for in local currencies at the dollar exchange rate, then converted to dollars. Its not rocket science.

Western need for oil will undoutably be filled in part by oil in the former Soviet Republics-- Baku comes to mind. Look it up.

In addition, Canada has the Athabaska tar sands. At the moment, current technology makes exploitatation too expensive.

At the moment.
Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Some of the posters here know what thats all about.

so ypu think I am repudiated by lying about the ethnic background of some American diplomats. All the facts given to you so far just do not seem to make sense to you.

Do you want me to believe only in the sources that you give me? Do you think I can't think for myself? The facts are out and most people know it. Alas! You are blinded with lies.
Youre not making sense.

Are you admitting you lied? Dont you agree that anyone who lies is repudiated?

Besides, like I said, what FACTS?

Do you think conspiracy theories are facts? Do submit that there is somehow a moral equivalence between regimes that exist in parts of the middle east and the US?

Why are you so obsessed with the US? mean, if you really cared about human rights and so on, there are far more egregious violators than the US.

see this:

The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published an op-ed by the paper's former editor Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, titled "The Death of 300,000 People." In the article, Al-Rashed decried the Arab media's indifference to the violence in Sudan. The following is the article: [1]

'They are Not the Victims of Israeli or American Aggression; Therefore, They are Not an Issue for Concern'
"They are not the victims of Israeli or American aggression; therefore, they are not an issue for concern. This is how an approach of indifference towards others outside the circle of conflict with foreigners, and of permitting their murder, is spread as you read and write about the Darfur crisis and consider it an artificial issue, or one unworthy of world protest.

"Is the life of 1,000 people in western Sudan less valuable, or is a single killed Palestinian or Iraqi of greater importance, merely because the enemy is Israeli or American? According to estimates by U.N. delegations inspecting what is happening in the [Darfur] region, 300,000 Sudanese are in danger of liquidation because of the ongoing war there.

"The legal department of the U.N., for its part, says that this is a massacre, and will be treated like Bosnia-Herzegovina, and senior Sudanese officials will be punished like the Serb rulers of Yugoslavia were judged."

'It is a Grave Matter that Government-Sponsored Forces or Militias Should be Allowed to Carry Out the Annihilation of People'
"It is a grave matter that government-sponsored forces or militias should be allowed to carry out the annihilation of people in order to achieve quick or decisive victory. And here is the United Nations, which established legislation requiring intervention and depriving the state of its internal sovereignty, and viewing the matter [of the massacre] as international – which makes it possible to bring the accused, especially the high-ranking ones, to trial.

"Is this what the Sudanese want? I imagine that the Sudanese leadership, with its political and security sense, cannot possibly agree to get involved in the most dangerous accusation that can be leveled at it – namely, genocide. Everything that they have built for their own interest will collapse in a single moment if they leave things to murder squads or militias that have broken out of the authority of their leaders. There will be no one that can stop international trials, and none would stand by the accused leaders, and they will meet the same end as Milosevic, who believed that the world would never intervene and that the political balance would never tip and bring down his regime, and that the ally state Russia would never abandon him, and that even should his regime be overthrown, it was inconceivable that he would be brought to international trial. Now he rots in a prison cell, like any other prisoner, wishing history could turn back so he could rectify his deeds."

'It is Important to Understand the World After the Fall of Belgrade'

"Therefore, it is important to understand the world after the fall of Belgrade. For this was an important turning point in the way international bodies understand the meaning of national rights and the inviolability of sovereign states.

"It is no exaggeration to ring the warning bell to alert the Sudanese government [to the fact] that what happened to the Fur of Sudan, and what may yet happen to them, is a matter of the utmost seriousness. None here are talking about the political aspect, which is not a matter of controversy, for we are in favor of the unity of Sudan, and first of all Darfur. However, this should not go together with the massacre of thousands of people, or throwing them out of their villages and letting state-sponsored militias protect their rights as they see fit. No! This measure will in fact ultimately lead to the state being accountable for the end result.

"As for Arab intellectuals who see nothing in the world but the Palestinian and the Iraqi causes, and who consider any blood not spilled in conflicts with foreigners to be cheap and its spilling justifiable – they are intellectual accomplices in the crime. Before them, the Serbs used historical justification, modern analogies, and permitting the murder of other ethnic groups to impel their army to kill Muslims and to convince the people of the justice of the campaign."

I do not disagree that the Sudanese government should be held responsible and appear before a world court. But why not also the US and Israel? Are they of higher status than all of us.

By the way what do they feed you in the US so that you can't even think straight.

If we are to put all the killers in jail, we have to put all of them.

Why do we befriend Saudi Arabia with the highest number of human rights abuses, Hoe about Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and so on. I'll tell you. Because they follow the American order. They are safe.

Every drop of blood is valuable. This is why we should not have wars. Wars that always start at the command of the US to suite their own foriegn agenda. It is good for the american adminstration to have the Sudanese kill each other so that the world will not pay any attention to whatever is happening in Iraq, Palastine and so on. It is all (MADE IN THE USA)
Since when Do I make sense to you. It's been 2 months and I still do not make sense to you. The reason is that you do not like people who make sense. You like to live in your propoganda world. Listen what CNN and Fox news are saying. No other article, news clip from me or anyone who do not agree with you make sense.

You see if you are driving on a highway and you see that all cars are driving in the opposite direction, don't you stop and think that perhaps I am going against the traffic.
Yes, the US and Israel are of a higher status than other countries in the region. They are functioning democracies. No, they are not perfect-- but if you want to play the comparison game, we can.

There is no moral equivalence between almost all the countries in the region and the US or Israel.

As for the tired, blame America drill...read this. It's from another Arab paper.


America reacts in pursuit of its interests, ideals

In Rami Khouri's June 26 commentary, "How the US and Israel misunderstand the Arab world" Americans once again hear an attempt to define us as either ignorant or culturally deaf in our relationship with a foreign people steeped in history, culture, wisdom and some other unique features. With all due respect to Khouri, it's a tired argument that misses some essential realities of America and its relationship with Israel. Forget the cultural differences argument; it's a red herring, a chimera used again and again to create some level of ethnic superiority.

The same philosophy has been used from places as close to home as Mexico, where the image is the dumb "Yankee-Gringo," to Europe with the wild cowboy, to the Japanese "Gai-jin." All cover the same territory, that Americans are hopeless outsiders, without the capacity to understand the fine nuances and wisdom of the local ancient culture and therefore, just don't get it, which is why we are too stupid to understand what the rest of the world understands.

Khouri adds further excuses for American ignorance and Arab ethnic superiority by stating we're biased and have provided our support to the "wrong type" of people whether it is Israel or Arab leaders. This is topped off with the old canard that the Arab people still nurse the wounds of old injustices, whether it is European colonialism, or the Middle Ages crusades. The America which misunderstands the Arab and Muslim mind is also the same nation which came to the aid of those in Bosnia, Kuwait and Lebanon.

This is the same America that has taken, not years, but decades in attempting to settle the differences between Arabs and Israelis in a peaceful arena. It is the same America that provided support for Turkey during the Cold War and Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. And it is one that has accepted tens of thousands of students from Arab nations into its universities and schools of higher learning, and provided several million more the opportunity to call this nation home. The fact is America, more than any other country, has learned to adapt to the diversity found in the mosaic of ethnic groups that make up this nation. Americans understand the Arab world. We understand the rhetoric that comes from its leadership; we understand the voices of the "street;" and we understand the actions of its influential figures, both nation-state, and independent actors. What we have seen is a region awash in problems, but unable to muster the will to acknowledge them, let alone provide local pro-active peaceful solutions to them whether it is ethnic, political, or religious conflict.

These issues far transcend the Arab-Israeli conflict and recent invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is found in the schism between Sunni and Shiite, Kurd and Arab and Muslim and non-Muslim. America does not "misunderstand" the Middle East; it reacts to it in pursuit of our interests and ideals. We react to the harsh rhetoric put forth by the Iranians and their calls to destroy the great Satan when their rhetoric is coupled with the support of Hizbullah, fatwahs against individuals and a dictatorial regime against its own people. We react to the harsh rhetoric of Yasser Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, when it is coupled with suicide bombers. We react to Saudi imams when their sermons against the infidel are coupled with support for Al-Qaeda. And we react to the Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference and Arab states when their policies cannot overcome their own ethnic philosophies to create real space for compromise and coexistence. Do our actions serve our interests? Yes. Does it support our allies? Yes again.

This is not a lack of empathy, but looking at reality. The same people who complain of the US support for Arab dictators cheer Saddam Hussein's rhetoric and ignored his decades of domestic atrocities. After more than 50 years of independence, the Arab states and its people bear a large measure of responsibility for their own actions and strategies. Culture, politics and history are all important issues that create a filter of experience. But to use them as a crutch and means of ignoring one's own shortcomings is a useless exercise and does not serve either the Arab people or their interests.
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

Since when Do I make sense to you. It's been 2 months and I still do not make sense to you. The reason is that you do not like people who make sense. You like to live in your propoganda world. Listen what CNN and Fox news are saying. No other article, news clip from me or anyone who do not agree with you make sense.

You see if you are driving on a highway and you see that all cars are driving in the opposite direction, don't you stop and think that perhaps I am going against the traffic.

I can quote from Arab intellectuals and Arab press, if you like.

Not that it will make a difference, of course.

Besides, that the Arab world is driving against the traffic of the West and other Arab intellectuals only means that the Arab world a) can't drive or b) cant read the road signs.
Quote: Originally Posted by researchok

Yes, the US and Israel are of a higher status than other countries in the region. They are functioning democracies. No, they are not perfect-- but if you want to play the comparison game, we can.

You have the decency to say that the Isrealis and Americans are of higher status? Who made you so. You and them are the scum of the world. Do not and I mean do not put yourself on top of everybody else. You are insulting a lot of people here.

What democracy are you talking about? When many black americans were not allowed to vote in florida. Why? iIs this democracy.

Now we argue about democracies but DO NOT insult anybody and put yourself on top. This is what is crearting hatred and more suicide bombers. People like you who are bigots against a whole culture and religion. You really make me sick.
Well, I dont usually insult people-- but since YOU insulted me, I thought it appropriate. Theres an old saying, you wanna play, you gotta pay.

OK, onwards.

What I said was that the west-- including the US and Israel are of higher moral standards, yes.

By any measure of standard. Democracies arent perfect, but in comaprison to other regimes in the region, yes, we in the west have a far superior system-- and hence a higher level of morality.

No one is forcing the janjaweed to rape african women as no one forced the GIA in Algeria to rape children.

I suspect you didnt read the article from the Arab writer who raises the point that Arabs dont care if victims arent 'victims' of American or Israeli 'aggression. How civilized.

As for suicide bombers, lets not forget who gave us that-- the same people who defiled the Olympics, hijaclked and blew up planes, threw wheelchair bound Americans off a ship.

And thats just for starters.

Arabs are 'humiliated'? At what? They don't seem to care that their education level is among the lowest in the world. They dont seem to care that they have no economies. They dont seem to care that slavery by Arabs in Mauritania is ongoing nor that over a million Christians have been massacred in Sudan. FGM is a problem that doesnt seem to make an impact either.

Then of course there wasnt much to be concerned about in Libya, Iraq, Iran etc.

I mean, why worry about the death of a few million Arabs? Who cares, right?

Certainly Arabs dont. I guess theyre too busy worrying about Americans.

By the way, I make you sick?

Guess what makes me sick?
You say you have higher morality? LOL
Do not make me laugh. and yes you make me sick and I will make you even sicker.

Yes we are worrying about the Americans. they are the seed of all hatred and you talk about morality. If you go to the bottom of any conflict it has the american fingerprint on it. And maybe Bush's middle finger is in you and you are enjoying it.
Quote: Originally Posted by moghrabi

You say you have higher morality? LOL
Do not make me laugh. and yes you make me sick and I will make you even sicker.

Yes we are worrying about the Americans. they are the seed of all hatred and you talk about morality. If you go to the bottom of any conflict it has the american fingerprint on it. And maybe Bush's middle finger is in you and you are enjoying it.

In other words, once again, you cant argue and have to resort to tired rhetoric.

Actually, you dont make me sick at all. I feel sorry for you. You-- and millions of others like you-- are authoring your own irrelevance.

Go back and actually READ that piece from the Lebanon Daily Star.

You may learn something.

Then again, maybe not.

As for your referance to homosexuality, is that cultural or religious?
take it as you wish. It was not a reference to homosexuality at all. I also feel sorry for a sick person like you. You are what they call the White trash of the world. Amen.
I see.

You best go back and read what you said- they are your words, not mine. I really cant see how they can be taken any other way-- but Im sure youll come up with something.

As for calling me names, well, I cant say I expected more from you.

What do you call other minorities who dont agree with you?
You are a sick fart. a pig, a piece of shit and as I said "take it as you wish." You make people sick in this forum as much as you make me. No one and I repeat no one agrees with you becuase you are a truth twister, a bigot, a hater and the list goes on.

I am proud of my heritage and I do not need a piece of shit to tell me what to think. You have been insulting my culture for long. I had enough of you and your stupid mentality.

I have to agree that you do make me sick. very sick indeed. But this is why your mother let you leave the house, is it not?
I dont care about your heritage, as it relates to you.

I dont care what you think of me.

This is a board. People post, people reply.

You insult, you get insulted. This isnt rocket science.

You make ridiculous assertions, you get ridiculed.

As I said earlier, youre doing a marvelous job authoring your own irrelevance.

You just added a new chapter with your post.

At least your consistant.

Similar Threads

Bush will veto torture ban
by dancing-loon | Mar 11th, 2008
The Zionists and Torture in Iraq
by moghrabi | Sep 20th, 2004