| by Andrew Buncombe and Patrick Cockburn |
Most of the corpses in Baghdad's mortuary show signs of torture and execution. And the Interior Ministry is being blamed. |
| Hundreds of Iraqis are being tortured to death or summarily executed every month in Baghdad alone by death squads working from the Ministry of the Interior, the United Nations' outgoing human rights chief in Iraq has revealed. John Pace, who left Baghdad two weeks ago, told The Independent on Sunday that up to three-quarters of the corpses stacked in the city's mortuary show evidence of gunshot wounds to the head or injuries caused by drill-bits or burning cigarettes. Much of the killing, he said, was carried out by Shia Muslim groups under the control of the Ministry of the Interior. Much of the statistical information provided to Mr Pace and his team comes from the Baghdad Medico-Legal Institute, which is located next to the city's mortuary. He said figures show that last July the morgue alone received 1,100 bodies, about 900 of which bore evidence of torture or summary execution. The pattern prevailed throughout the year until December, when the number dropped to 780 bodies, about 400 of which had gunshot or torture wounds. "It's being done by anyone who wishes to wipe out anybody else for various reasons," said Mr Pace, who worked for the UN for more than 40 years in countries ranging from Liberia to Chile. "But the bulk are attributed to the agents of the Ministry of the Interior." Coupled with the suicide bombings and attacks on Shia holy places carried out by Sunnis, some of whom are followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qa'ida's leader in Iraq, the activities of the death squads are pushing Iraq ever closer to a sectarian civil war. Mr Pace said the Ministry of the Interior was "acting as a rogue element within the government". It is controlled by the main Shia party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri); the Interior Minister, Bayan Jabr, is a former leader of Sciri's Badr Brigade militia, which is one of the main groups accused of carrying out sectarian killings. Another is the Mehdi Army of the young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who is part of the Shia coalition seeking to form a government after winning the mid-December election. Many of the 110,000 policemen and police commandos under the ministry's control are suspected of being former members of the Badr Brigade. Not only counter-insurgency units such as the Wolf Brigade, the Scorpions and the Tigers, but the commandos and even the highway patrol police have been accused of acting as death squads. The paramilitary commandos, dressed in garish camouflage uniforms and driving around in pick-up trucks, are dreaded in Sunni neighbourhoods. People whom they have openly arrested have frequently been found dead several days later, with their bodies bearing obvious marks of torture. Mr Pace, a Maltese-Australian who has now retired from his UN post to his home in Sydney, says the constant violence and utter lack of security in Iraq are creating a vicious circle in which ordinary citizens are turning to extremist sectarian groups for protection. Fear of anybody in official uniform inevitably strengthens the militias and the insurgents. In Sunni areas people will look to their own defences, and not to the regular army and police. But ordinary Sunnis are caught between the death squads and the desire of some of the insurgents on their own side to start a civil war - an aim they are now not far from achieving. The so-called Salafi, Sunni fundamentalists, want not only to eject the Americans but also to build a pure Islamic state. They see Iraqi Shias, even though they are 60 per cent of the population, as heretics allied to the US who should be slaughtered. Last week's attack on the Golden Mosque is only the latest in a long series of outrages against the Shia community. They started in August 2003 when Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, then leader of Sciri, was killed, along with more than 100 of his followers by a suicide bomber in a vehicle outside the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf. There have been repeated massacres of the Shia ever since - some targeting the security forces, such as the attacks on queues of young men trying to join the police or army, but others, such as the slaughter of Shia day labourers waiting for a day's employment, for no other reason than that they are Shia. Despite extending a 24-hour curfew into a second day yesterday in Baghdad and other major cities, the authorities were unable to prevent further revenge killings and outrages against holy sites. The current cycle of violence, which began with the bombing of the Azkariya shrine in Samarra on Wednesday, has claimed at least 200 lives so far, including those of 47 factory workers pulled from buses and shot on the outskirts of Baghdad. This was the sort of killing that touched off Lebanon's civil war in 1975. Already an exchange of populations is taking place in Baghdad as members of each community move to districts in which they are in the majority. The ability of the US occupiers to influence the situation is not only limited, but some of their actions are seen as making things worse. The Americans have been trying to dislodge Mr Jabr as Interior Minister, accusing him of turning his ministry into a Shia bastion. But the Shia believe that the US and its allies, the Kurds, simply want to prevent the majority community from gaining full power over security despite winning two parliamentary elections in 2005. One important development over the past few days is that it is clearly becoming very difficult to use American or British troops to keep the peace, undermining the argument that they are the only bulwark against civil war. The occupation forces lack the legitimacy to play the role of UN peacekeepers; it is almost impossible to have US soldiers defend a Sunni mosque against a Shia crowd, because if they open fire they will be seen as having joined one side in a sectarian struggle. In Mr Pace's view, the violence in Iraq is being made worse by the seizing of young Iraqi men by US troops and Iraqi police as they move from city to city carrying out raids. "The vast majority are innocent," he said, "but they very often don't get released for months. You don't eliminate terrorism by what they're doing now. Military intervention causes serious human rights and humanitarian problems to large numbers of innocent civilians ... The result is that such individuals turn into terrorists at the end of their detention." In such circumstances, family members often contacted UN officials asking for help in getting a young man outside of the country and away from the influence of insurgents they had met in jail. They were among many Iraqi citizens fleeing the country as a result of the violence. "Those with money go to Jordan. The poor go to Syria," he said. Mr Pace, who first made his comments to The Times of Malta newspaper, said the situation in Iraq had "definitely, definitely" got worse over the two years in which he headed the UN human rights team. The interim government and the international community were trying to restart the country's crippled economy, but, he said, they would not succeed "until people are secure". THE KILLERS BADR BRIGADE: Armed wing of the most powerful Shia party. Many police and paramilitaries 'still wear Badr T-shirts under their uniform,' a US general said. MEHDI ARMY: Loyal to the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Apart from open clashes with Sunnis, its members in the police are accused of death squad killings. DEFENDERS OF KHADAMIYA: Followers of Hussein al-Sadr, Moqtada relative. Among forces set up to guard Shia shrines, but having more sinister links. SPECIAL POLICE COMMANDOS: Feared by Sunnis, despite having had some Sunni commanders. |
27.2.06
Iraq's Death Squads: On the Brink of Civil War
Addition to "Who Benefits?" Post
Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Al-Arabiya TV reports that on February 22rd, the day of the bombing at
the Golden Mosque in Samarra:
"Al-Arabiya Television has lost its correspondent in Iraq, Atwar Bahjat,
with two other colleagues. Atwar gave the last live dispatch to
Al-Arabiya Television at 1500 gmt yesterday. Atwar disappeared after
that. The Iraqi Police today confirmed that she and two other colleagues
were assassinated in Samarra... The three journalists were covering the
attack on the shrine of the two Shi'i imams, Ali al-Hadi and Al-Hasan
al-Askari, north of Baghdad."
Also, on February 21st:
KARBALA GOVERNOR SUSPENDS MEETING WITH AMERICANS
"(Asharq al-Awsat) Karbala governor Akeel al-Khazali announced on February 20 that he will suspend all official contact with the Americans to protest the improper behavior of the US officials who visited the province last week.
They did not show any respect to the province's local security and prevented high-ranking Iraqi officials from entering the (governor's office,) which frustrated them.
He insisted that the Americans should officially apologize for the uncivilized behavior (including bringing dogs into the building) and that they should never act that way again.
If not, the governor said he would prevent them from entering the office without prior approval from the Iraqi authorities.
(London-based Asharq al-Awsat, a pro-Saudi independent paper, is issued
daily.)"
26.2.06
A Growing Afghan Prison Rivals Bleak Guantánamo - New York Times
While an international debate rages over the future of the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the military has quietly expanded another, less-visible prison in Afghanistan, where it now holds some 500 terror suspects in more primitive conditions, indefinitely and without charges.
European Pressphoto Agency
Afghans prayed after their release
from the Bagram detention
center near Kabul earlier this month.
Pentagon officials have often described the detention site at Bagram, a cavernous former machine shop on an American air base 40 miles north of Kabul, as a screening center. They said most of the detainees were Afghans who might eventually be released under an amnesty program or transferred to an Afghan prison that is to be built with American aid. But some of the detainees have already been held at Bagram for as long as two or three years. And unlike those at Guantánamo, they have no access to lawyers, no right to hear the allegations against them and only rudimentary reviews of their status as "enemy combatants," military officials said.
Privately, some administration officials acknowledge that the situation at Bagram has increasingly come to resemble the legal void that led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June 2004 affirming the right of prisoners at Guantánamo to challenge their detention in United States courts.
While Guantánamo offers carefully scripted tours for members of Congress and journalists, Bagram has operated in rigorous secrecy since it opened in 2002. It bars outside visitors except for the International Red Cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there. The prison may not be photographed, even from a distance.
From the accounts of former detainees, military officials and soldiers who served there, a picture emerges of a place that is in many ways rougher and more bleak than its counterpart in Cuba. Men are held by the dozen in large wire cages, the detainees and military sources said, sleeping on the floor on foam mats and, until about a year ago, often using plastic buckets for latrines. Before recent renovations, they rarely saw daylight except for brief visits to a small exercise yard.
"Bagram was never meant to be a long-term facility, and now it's a long-term facility without the money or resources," said one Defense Department official who has toured the detention center. Comparing the prison with Guantánamo, the official added, "Anyone who has been to Bagram would tell you it's worse."
Former detainees said the renovations had improved conditions somewhat, and human rights groups said reports of abuse had steadily declined there since 2003. Nonetheless, the Pentagon's chief adviser on detainee issues, Charles D. Stimson, declined to be interviewed on Bagram, as did senior detention officials at the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations in Afghanistan.
The military's chief spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. James R. Yonts, also refused to discuss detainee conditions, other than to say repeatedly that his command was "committed to treating detainees humanely, and providing the best possible living conditions and medical care in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Convention."
Other military and administration officials said the growing detainee population at Bagram, which rose from about 100 prisoners at the start of 2004 to as many as 600 at times last year, according to military figures, was in part a result of a Bush administration decision to shut off the flow of detainees into Guantánamo after the Supreme Court ruled that those prisoners had some basic due-process rights. The question of whether those same rights apply to detainees in Bagram has not been tested in court.
Until the court ruling, Bagram functioned as a central clearing house for the global fight against terror. Military and intelligence personnel there sifted through captured Afghan rebels and suspected terrorists seized in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, sending the most valuable and dangerous to Guantánamo for extensive interrogation, and generally releasing the rest.
But according to interviews with current and former administration officials, the National Security Council effectively halted the movement of new detainees into Guantánamo at a cabinet-level meeting at the White House on Sept. 14, 2004.
25.2.06
Who Benefits?
Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches: http://dahrjamailiraq.com
The most important question to ask regarding the bombings of the Golden
Mosque in Samarra on the 22nd is: who benefits?
Prior to asking this question, let us note the timing of the bombing.
The last weeks in Iraq have been a PR disaster for the occupiers.
First, the negative publicity of the video of British soldiers beating
and abusing young Iraqis has generated a backlash for British occupation
forces they've yet to face in Iraq.
Indicative of this, Abdul Jabbar Waheed, the head of the Misan
provincial council in southern Iraq, announced his councils' decision to
lift the immunity British forces have enjoyed, so that the soldiers who
beat the young Iraqis can be tried in Iraqi courts. Former U.S.
proconsul Paul Bremer had issued an order granting all occupation
soldiers and western contractors immunity to Iraqi law when he was head
of the CPA.but this province has now decided to lift that so the British
soldiers can be investigated and tried under Iraqi law.
This deeply meaningful event, if replicated around Iraq, will generate a
huge rift between the occupiers and local governments. A rift which, of
course, the puppet government in Baghdad will be unable to mend.
The other huge event which drew Iraqis into greater solidarity with one
another was more photos and video aired depicting atrocities within Abu
Ghraib at the hands of U.S. occupation forces.
The inherent desecration of Islam and shaming of the Iraqi people shown
in these images enrages all Iraqis.
In a recent press conference, the aforementioned Waheed urged the Brits
to allow members of the provincial committee to visit a local jail to
check on detainees; perhaps Waheed is alarmed as to what their condition
may be after seeing more photos and videos from Abu Ghraib.
Waheed also warned British forces that if they didn't not comply with
the demands of the council, all British political, security and
reconstruction initiatives will be boycotted.
Basra province has already taken similar steps, and similar machinations
are occurring in Kerbala.
Basra and Misan provinces, for example, refused to raise the cost of
petrol when the puppet government in Baghdad, following orders from the
IMF, decided to recently raise the cost of Iraqi petrol at the pumps
several times last December.
The horrific attack which destroyed much of the Golden Mosque generated
sectarian outrage which led to attacks on over 50 Sunni mosques. Many
Sunni mosques in Baghdad were shot, burnt, or taken over. Three Imans
were killed, along with scores of others in widespread violence.
This is what was shown by western corporate media.
As quickly as these horrible events began, they were called to an end
and replaced by acts of solidarity between Sunni and Shia across Iraq.
This, however, was not shown by western corporate media.
The Sunnis where the first to go to demonstrations of solidarity with
Shia in Samarra, as well as to condemn the mosque bombings.
Demonstrations of solidarity between Sunni and Shia went off over all of
Iraq: in Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, Kut, and Salah al-Din.
Thousands of Shia marched shouting anti-American slogans through Sadr
City, the huge Shia slum area of Baghdad, which is home to nearly half
the population of the capital city. Meanwhile, in the primarily Shia
city of Kut, south of Baghdad, thousands marched while shouting slogans
against America and Israel and burning U.S. and Israeli flags.
Baghdad had huge demonstrations of solidarity, following announcements
by several Shia religious leaders not to attack Sunni mosques.
Attacks stopped after these announcements, coupled with those from Sadr,
which I'll discuss shortly.
Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, shortly after the Golden
Mosque was attacked, called for "easing things down and not attacking
any Sunni mosques and shrines," as Sunni religious authorities called
for a truce and invited everyone to block the way of those trying to
generate a sectarian war.
Sistani's office issued this statement: "We call upon believers to
express their protest ... through peaceful means. The extent of their
sorrow and shock should not drag them into taking actions that serve the
enemies who have been working to lead Iraq into sectarian strife."
Shiite religious authority Ayatollah Hussein Ismail al-Sadr warned of
the emergence of a sectarian strife "that terrorists want to ignite
between the Iraqis" by the bombings and said, "The Iraqi Shiite
authority strenuously denied that Sunnis could have done this work."
He also said, "Of course it is not Sunnis who did this work; it is the
terrorists who are the enemies of the Shiites and Sunni, Muslims and non
Muslims. They are the enemies of all religions; terrorism does not have
a religion."
He warned against touching any Sunni Mosque, saying, "our Sunni
brothers' mosques must be protected and we must all stand against
terrorism and sabotage." He added: 'The two shrines are located in the
Samarra region, which [is] predominantly Sunni. They have been
protecting, using and guarding the mosques for years, it is not them but
terrorism that targeted the mosques."
He ruled out the possibility of a civil war while telling a reporter, "I
don't believe there will a civil or religious war in Iraq; thank God
that our Sunni and Shiite references are urging everyone to not respond
to these terrorist and sabotage acts. We are aware of their attempts as
are our people; Sistani had issued many statements [regarding this
issue] just as we did."
The other, and more prominent Sadr, Muqtada Al-Sadr, who has already
lead two uprisings against occupation forces, held Takfiris [those who
regard other Muslims as infidels], Ba'thists, and especially the foreign
occupation responsible for the bombing attack on the Golden Mosque in
Samarra.
Sadr, who suspended his visit to Lebanon and cancelled his meeting with
the president there, promptly returned to Iraq in order to call on the
Iraqi parliament to vote on the request for the departure of the
occupation forces from Iraq.
"It was not the Sunnis who attacked the shrine of Imam Al-Hadi, God's
peace be upon him, but rather the occupation [forces] and Ba'athists.God
damn them. We should not attack Sunni mosques. I ordered Al-Mahdi Army
to protect the Shi'i and Sunni shrines."
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, urged Iraqi Shia not
to seek revenge against Sunni Muslims, saying there were definite plots
"to force the Shia to attack the mosques and other properties respected
by the Sunni. Any measure to contribute to that direction is helping the
enemies of Islam and is forbidden by sharia."
Instead, he blamed the intelligence services of the U.S. and Israel for
being behind the bombs at the Golden Mosque.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that those who committed the
attack on the Golden Mosque "have only one motive: to create a violent
sedition between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to derail the Iraqi
rising democracy from its path."
Well said Mr. Blair, particularly when we keep in mind the fact that
less than a year ago in Basra, two undercover British SAS soldiers were
detained by Iraqi security forces whilst traveling in a car full of
bombs and remote detonators.
Jailed and accused by Muqtada al-Sadr and others of attempting to
generate sectarian conflict by planting bombs in mosques, they were
broken out of the Iraqi jail by the British military before they could
be tried.
Mosque Outrage Also Brings Solidarity
*Inter Press Service*
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed
BAGHDAD, Feb 25 (IPS) - Widespread sectarian violence generated by the
recent bombing of the Shia Golden Mosque in Samarra has also brought
widespread demonstrations of solidarity between Sunnis and Shias across
Iraq.
The revered Al-Askariyya Mosque in Samarra, 135 km northwest of Baghdad,
is one of four sacred places for Shias in Iraq.
The mosque was bombed at 6:55am Feb. 22 by men who tied up the guards
and planted the explosives. This being the third attack on the Shias in
as many days, outrage was immediate, violent and widespread.
Bloody retaliatory attacks took the lives of three Sunni Imams and
scores of civilians, while over 50 Sunni mosques were attacked.
Yet the violence led also to demonstrations of solidarity after Shia and
Sunni leaders called for calm and restraint.
Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani called for "easing things
down and not attacking any Sunni mosques and shrines."
Sistani's office was quick to issue a statement: "We call upon believers
to express their protest...through peaceful means. The extent of their
sorrow and shock should not drag them into taking actions that serve the
enemies who have been working to lead Iraq into sectarian strife."
Muqtada Al-Sadr, arguably the second most influential Shia cleric in
Iraq told reporters: "It was not the Sunnis who attacked the shrine of
Imam Al-Hadi, God's peace be upon him, but rather the occupation
(forces) and Ba'athists...God damn them. We should not attack Sunni
mosques. I have ordered the Al-Mahdi Army to protect both Shia and Sunni
shrines."
Sadr returned promptly from Lebanon and called on the Iraqi parliament
to vote the departure of occupation forces from Iraq.
Sunni religious authorities called for peace and asked people to
confront those trying to generate a sectarian war.
Many Arab media outlets blamed the floundering Iraqi government for
failing to provide the security needed to prevent the attacks. But
thousands of people who joined demonstrations blamed American troops for
failing to protect the Iraqi people.
Sunnis were quick to demonstrate solidarity with the Shias in Samarra
and to condemn the mosque bombings. Demonstrations of solidarity between
Sunnis and Shias followed all over Iraq. Some of the bigger
demonstrations were held in Basra, Diwaniyah, Nasiriyah, Kut, and Salah
Al-Din.
Much of the Shia anger was directed at U.S. forces. In the primarily
Shia city of Kut south of Baghdad, thousands marched through the streets
burning U.S. and Israeli flags.
Thousands of Shias marched through Sadr City, the huge Shia slum area of
Baghdad, shouting anti-American slogans. Sadr City has almost half the
population of Baghdad.
Many large demonstrations were held in Baghdad outside Sadr City.
"Those shrines are very important to all Muslims, not only in Iraq but
all over the Islamic world," 40 year-old merchant Ahmed Hassan told IPS
at a demonstration in Khadamiyah area of Baghdad Feb. 23. "Every Muslim
in Iraq not only criticised and condemned this action, but everyone is
against it."
Thousands of Sunnis joined Shia demonstrations in Baghdad despite moves
by the Iraqi security forces to seal off Sunni areas.
"This is no more than an Israeli kind of act done by the American troops
using some men who were paid," a 54 year-old Shia man told IPS. "It is
not the Sunnis who are responsible, because we know the Americans and
Israelis want to divide us. The Sunnis would never bomb a Muslim mosque."
A 25-year-old woman among the demonstrators was telling everyone she
could that the attack had nothing to do with the Sunni people of Samarra.
"My husband is a Sunni from Samarra who goes to that shrine," said
Hashmia Atimim. "Of course we know it was a foreigner who did this horrible act."
Some of the sentiments at the demonstrations found unexpected if partial
echoes. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a statement that those
who attacked the Golden Mosque in Samarra "have only one motive: to
create a violent sedition between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to
derail the Iraqi rising democracy from its path."
Blair Condones Amin-Style Tactics Against Terrorism, Says Archbishop
Tony Blair was accused last night by the Archbishop of York of helping the US to run “Idi Amin-style” tactics in the war on terror.
Mr Blair was challenged by Dr John Sentamu after refusing to condemn Guantanamo Bay beyond calling the prison camp run by the US in Cuba an “anomaly”.
 The Ugandan born Right Reverend Dr John Tucker Mugabi Sentamu is the 97th Archbishop of York. The Archbishop of York holds the church's second-highest position after Williams, leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion. |
At his monthly news conference, he said that too much time was spent examining the rights of suspects compared to the “human rights of the rest of us to live in safety”.
Mr Blair had been stung by criticism from the MPs’ Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) that the monitoring of suspects returned to countries with questionable human rights records must not be a “fig leaf to disguise the real risk of torture”.
Mr Blair said: “When people say to me unless I can get absolute cast-iron guarantees and have all sorts of monitoring arrangements, we have got to keep people here who may be engaging actively in inciting terrorism in this country, I have to say I think we have got the world the wrong way round.”
His outburst may even cause a backlash at home. Cherie Booth, QC, his wife and a leading human rights barrister, is due to give a speech at an event partly organised by Human Rights Watch next week entitled Torture: Do the rules still matter?
Mr Blair spoke out after the FAC called on him to push more vociferously for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Amnesty International also issued a report criticising many of Britain’s measures in the war in terror for undermining human rights.
They were joined last night in an attack by Dr Sentamu who compared President Bush’s human rights record with that of the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.
Dr Sentamu, a former High Court judge who fled Uganda for Britain after it became clear that standing up to the dictator had placed his own life in jeopardy, also criticised Mr Blair for describing Guantanamo Bay as an “anomaly”.
Dr Sentamu said: “This is not an ‘anomaly’. By declaring ‘war on terror’ President Bush is perversely applying the rules of engagement that apply in a war situation. But the prisoners are not being regularly visited by the Red Cross or Red Crescent, which is required by the Geneva Convention. They were not even allowed to be interviewed by the UN human rights group.
“In Uganda President Amin did something similar: he did not imprison suspects because he knew that in prison, the law would apply to them so he created special places to keep them. If the Guantanamo Bay detainees were on American soil the law would apply. This is a breach of international law and a blight on the conscience of America.”
Mr Blair hinted that he had spoken more strongly about Guantanamo Bay in private with Mr Bush but would use no stronger word to describe it yesterday than “anomaly”.
But returning to the issue of suspects that Britain wants to deport, he said: “If I am right in saying that the reports both of the FAC and Amnesty International were talking about the deportation cases we have got here, I’ve just got to say I think we have just got the whole thing upside down.
“I do not see why we should not be able to deport people who are not nationals of this country but have come here to cause trouble.”
Mr Blair also denied that there was any evidence for claims that terror suspects were carried on up to 200 American flights through Britain under “extraordinary rendition”.
Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty, said: “There is nothing ‘upside down’ about taking a principled stand against torture.”
RIGHTS REPORT
Amnesty International report on Britain’s human rights record:
On anti-terrorism powers since September 11, 2001:
“People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have . . . been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know and therefore cannot refute.”
On the Terrorism Bill before Parliament:
“Some of its most sweeping and vague provisions, if enacted, would undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, liberty and fair trial.”
On the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture:
“Amnesty International is increasingly concerned that UK’s policies and actions at home and abroad are effectively sending a ‘green light’ to other governments to abuse human rights.”
On rendition flights:
“Amnesty International remains concerned about the allegations that the UK authorities played a role in the unlawful transfers of a number of individuals to US custody.”
On Guantanamo Bay:
“Amnesty International is concerned at the failure, to date, of the UK Government to oppose with any real vigour the human rights scandal that Guantanamo Bay represents.”
Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on human rights:
On allegations of rendition by the US of terror suspects:
“The Government has a duty . . . to make clear to the USA that any extraordinary rendition to states where suspects may be tortured is completely unacceptable.”
On using information obtained by torture in third countries:
“We recommend that the Government clearly set out its policy on the use of information derived by other states through torture.”
On Guantanamo Bay:
“The continued use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre outside all legal regimes . . . is a hindrance to the effective pursuit of the war against terrorism.”
Blogger Bares Rumsfeld's Post 9/11 Orders
Hours after a commercial plane struck the Pentagon on September 11 2001 the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by one of them.
"Hard to get good case. Need to move swiftly," the notes say. "Near term target needs - go massive - sweep it all up, things related and not."
 Thad Anderson |
The Pentagon confirmed the notes had been taken by Stephen Cambone, now undersecretary of defence for intelligence and then a senior policy official. "His notes were fulfilling his role as a plans guy," said a spokesman, Greg Hicks.
"He was responsible for crisis planning, and he was with the secretary in that role that afternoon."
The report said: "On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers [the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff] to obtain quickly as much information as possible. The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the US response should consider a wide range of options.
"The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time, not only Bin Laden. Secretary Rumsfeld later explained that at the time he had been considering either one of them, or perhaps someone else, as the responsible party."
The actual notes suggest a focus on Saddam. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH at same time - not only UBL [Pentagon shorthand for Usama/Osama bin Laden]," the notes say. "Tasks. Jim Haynes [Pentagon lawyer] to talk with PW [probably Paul Wolfowitz, then Mr Rumsfeld's deputy] for additional support ... connection with UBL."
Mr Wolfowitz, now the head of the World Bank, advocated regime change in Iraq before 2001. But, according to an account of the days after September 11 in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, a decision was taken to put off consideration of an attack on Iraq until after the Taliban had been toppled in Afghanistan.
But these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.
FBI Memos Reveal Allegations of Abusive Interrogation Techniques
WASHINGTON - Military interrogators posing as FBI agents at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, wrapped terrorism suspects in an Israeli flag and forced them to watch homosexual pornography under strobe lights during interrogation sessions that lasted as long as 18 hours, according to one of a batch of FBI memos released Thursday.
FBI agents working at the prison complained about the military interrogators' techniques in e-mails to their superiors from 2002 to 2004, 54 e-mails released by the American Civil Liberties Union showed.
The agents tried to get the military interrogators to follow a less coercive approach and warned that the harsh methods could hinder future criminal prosecutions of terrorists because information gained illegally is inadmissible in court.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of the prison at the time, overrode the FBI agents' protests, according to the documents. 
FBI officials raised repeated objections to "aggressive interrogation tactics" at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, documents show. FBI officials said they raised their objections with Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the Guantanamo task force seen here in 2004, arguing that the aggressive tactics were ineffective and unreliable.(AFP/POOL/File)
The memos offer some of the clearest proof yet that the abuses and torture of prisoners in U.S. military custody weren't the isolated actions of low-ranking soldiers but a result of policies approved by senior officials, the ACLU said.
"These documents show that the abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was not caused by rogue elements but rather it was the consequence of policies that were deliberately adopted by senior military and Pentagon officials," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer. "We think this should provide further reason to hold senior officials, not just low-ranking soldiers, accountable for the torture of prisoners."
One of the memos said: "Although MGEN (Maj. Gen.) Miller acknowledged positive aspects of (the FBI's) approach, it was apparent that he favored (military) interrogation methods, despite FBI assertions that such methods could easily result in the elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information," said one memo from May 2003, by an agent with the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit.
Miller later left Guantanamo and was sent to Iraq under orders to find better ways of extracting intelligence from prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other American detention facilities. He advocated that guards help set the conditions for interrogations. Photos taken in Abu Ghraib in 2003 showed guards physically abusing and sexually humiliating prisoners.
Lt. Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, called the ACLU's release of the documents "another example of recycling old information." The Pentagon has conducted 12 major investigations and reviews and has never found a "DoD policy that ever encouraged or condoned abuse of detainees at Guantanamo," he said.
The FBI memos originally were released in 2004 under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a lawsuit by the ACLU, but were largely censored. The latest batch contained extensive information that had been blocked out originally.
According to the memos, the FBI favored a law-enforcement approach geared toward collecting evidence that could be used later in prosecutions, while military officials preferred a more psychologically and physically aggressive approach derived from counterinterrogation methods taught at the Army's survival school.
In one e-mail, an FBI agent, whose name was blocked out, described observing interrogation that used pornography and strobe lights. The agent wrote, "We've heard that DHS (defense human intelligence service, part of the Defense Intelligence Agency) interrogators routinely identify themselves as FBI agents and then interrogate a detainee for 16-18 hours using tactics as described above and others (wrapping in Israeli flag, constant loud music, cranking the A/C down, etc). The next time a real agent tries to talk to that guy, you can imagine the result."
Military interrogators "were being encouraged at times to use aggressive interrogation tactics in GTMO (Guantanamo), which are of questionable effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based on law and regulation," said a separate e-mail, dated May 30, 2003.
"Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by U.S. law enforcement agencies in the United States but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes."
Military interrogators "are adamant that their interrogation strategies are the best ones to use despite a lack of evidence of their success," it said.
The same e-mail complained that the military officer overseeing interrogations, a lieutenant colonel whose name was blocked out, "blatantly misled the Pentagon into believing that the (FBI's behavioral-analysis team) had endorsed the (military's) aggressive and controversial interrogation plan" during a teleconference with Pentagon officials.
That misrepresentation led the FBI agent in charge to take up the interrogation issue with Miller. The agent explained why his team's approach should be used, but Miller remained "biased" in favor of the military's way, the memo said.
Another e-mail, dated May 5, 2004, said detainees were hooded, threatened with violence and humiliated, and that Defense Department employees had portrayed themselves as FBI agents.
Hence, I do not support my troops, and am even more grateful I am no longer in the military.
SICK S.O.B.'s
19.2.06
More Abu Ghraib files
An unknown detainee with women's underwear on his head, strapped to a bed frame. Photo taken at approximately 1:53 a.m. on Oct. 20, 2003.The photographs we are showing in the accompanying gallery represent a small fraction of these visual materials.
Never-published photos, and an internal Army report, show more Iraqi prisoner abuse -- evidence the government is fighting to hide.
The files, from the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID), include hundreds of images that have never been publicly released. Along with the unpublished material, the material obtained by Salon also appears to include all of the famous photographs published after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004, as well as the photographs and videos published Wednesday by the Australian television news show "Dateline."
The source who gave the CID material to Salon is someone who spent time at Abu Ghraib as a uniformed member of the military and is familiar with the CID investigation.
The DVD containing the material includes a June 6, 2004, CID investigation report written by Special Agent James E. Seigmund. That report includes the following summary of the material included:
"A review of all the computer media submitted to this office revealed a total of 1,325 images of suspected detainee abuse, 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse, 660 images of adult pornography, 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees, 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts, 20 images of a soldier with a Swastika drawn between his eyes, 37 images of Military Working dogs being used in abuse of detainees and 125 images of questionable acts."
None of these photo's, as far as we know, have been published elsewhere. They include: a naked, handcuffed prisoner in a contorted position; a dead prisoner who had been severely beaten; a prisoner apparently sodomizing himself with an object; and a naked, hooded prisoner standing next to an American officer who is blandly writing a report against a wall. Other photographs depict a bloody cell.The DVD also includes photographs of guards threatening Iraqi prisoners with dogs, homemade videotapes depicting hooded prisoners being forced to masturbate, and a video showing a mentally disturbed prisoner smashing his head against a door. Oddly, the material also includes numerous photographs of slaughtered animals and mundane images of soldiers traveling around Iraq.
Accompanying texts from the CID investigation provide fairly detailed explanations for many of the photographs, including dates and times and the identities of both Iraqis and Americans. Based on time signatures of the digital cameras used, all the photographs and videos were taken between Oct. 18, 2003, and Dec. 30, 2003.
It is noteworthy that some of the CID documents refer to CIA personnel as interrogators of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But no CIA officers have been prosecuted for any crimes that occurred within the prison, despite the death of at least one Iraqi during a CIA interrogation there.
Human-rights and civil-liberties groups have been locked in a legal battle with the Department of Defense since mid-2004, demanding that it release the remaining visual documents from Abu Ghraib in its possession. It is not clear whether the material obtained by Salon is identical to that sought by these groups, although it seems highly likely that it is.
Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "We brought the lawsuit because we wanted to make sure the public knew what the government was doing, particularly at these detention facilities," and, "It is the public's right to know."
....and your Vice President, who voted for torture and his twisted band of TWISTED inhuman men DON'T WANT US TO SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON. We were recently THREATENED TO BE PERSECUTED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH, but that will not deter the large NUMBERS of people who want TRUTH.
SBS Torture Video, British Abuse Video and Photos of Torture
February 18, 2006
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
SBS Torture Video, British Abuse Video and Photos of Torture and Abuse of Iraqis
In an effort to keep the videos and footage of abuse and torture of Iraqis by American and British forces in Iraq available despite U.S. government and Pentagon censorship efforts, we have decided to post them
all.
Below are brief descriptions of each video and groups of photographs,
followed by a link where they may be viewed.
*UK News Of the World shows British Troops Beating Iraqi Youth
February 2006*
The UK's News of the World showed a 2 minute video of British Troops
dragging a number of Iraqi youth involved in a protest behind a gate and
then violently beating them. The News of the World website states that
"The News of the World has a long history of supporting British troops -
which is why we believe our heroes are shamed by these thugs [the troops
doing the beating]".
Obviously "these thugs" not only include the numerous individuals involved with the actual beating, but the tens of troops who walked by the incident unconcerned, and the man with the gun and video camera who was filming while cheering the "thugs" on. The video gives the distinct impression that this type of behavior is
widespread amongst the British Troops.
To view this disturbing video, click here
*SBS in Australia broadcasts the Abu Ghraib footage the US government
has not allowed you to see.*
February 16, 2006
On Wednesday 16 February 2006, Australian public broadcaster SBS current
affairs program DATELINE telecast a segment featring 60 new photos of
the torture inflicted on prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
These photos were secured by court order - the ACLU figures prominently
in the report - but these photos haven't yet been shown in the media
anywhere in the United States. Because of the broadcast on SBS, you now
have access to both Web-downloadable versions and Bit Torrent
file-sharing network versions of the broadcast on this site.
THESE PHOTOS ARE VERY DISTURBING.
Please do not view this video if you are easily disturbed by graphic imagery of torture and death.
To view this disturbing video, click here:
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/
The comments in the back ground are deplorable. Anyone who enjoy's watching this is a sick SOB
To view the photos from Salon.com and the SBS broadcast click here:
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/
17.2.06
Report: U.S. Is Abusing Captives
A U.N. inquiry says the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay at times amounts to torture and violates international law.
by Maggie Farley
NEW YORK - A draft United Nations report on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay concludes that the U.S. treatment of them violates their rights to physical and mental health and, in some cases, constitutes torture.
It also urges the United States to close the military prison in Cuba and bring the captives to trial on U.S. territory, charging that Washington's justification for the continued detention is a distortion of international law.
The report, compiled by five U.N. envoys who interviewed former prisoners, detainees' lawyers and families, and U.S. officials, is the product of an 18-month investigation ordered by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
The team did not have access to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.Nonetheless, its findings — notably a conclusion that the violent force-feeding of hunger strikers, incidents of excessive violence used in transporting prisoners and combinations of interrogation techniques "must be assessed as amounting to torture" — are likely to stoke U.S. and international criticism of the prison.
Nearly 500 people captured abroad since 2002 in Afghanistan and elsewhere and described by the U.S. as "enemy combatants" are being held at Guantanamo Bay."We very, very carefully considered all of the arguments posed by the U.S. government," said Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture and one of the envoys. BU*SH*IT
"There are no conclusions that are easily drawn. But we concluded that the situation in several areas violates international law and conventions on human rights and torture.
"The draft report, reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, has not been officially released. U.N. officials are in the process of incorporating comments and clarifications from the U.S. government.
In November, the Bush administration offered the U.N. team the same tour of the prison given to journalists and members of Congress, but refused the envoys access to prisoners. Because of that, the U.N. group declined the visit.
Nowak said he did not expect major changes to the report's conclusions and recommendations as a result of the U.S. government's response, though there would be amendments on minor issues.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a spokesman for the Pentagon, said the Defense Department did not comment about U.N. matters.
The report is not legally binding. But human rights and legal advocates hope the U.N.'s conclusions will add weight to similar findings by rights groups and the European Parliament.
"I think the effect of this will be to revive concern about the government's mistreatment of detainees, and to get people to take another look at the legal basis," said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch.
"There are lots of lingering questions about how do you justify holding these people."The report focuses on the U.S. government's legal basis for the detentions as described in its formal response to the U.N. inquiry:
The law of war allows the United States — and any other country engaged in combat — to hold enemy combatants without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities.
Detention is not an act of punishment, but of security and military necessity. It serves the purpose of preventing combatants from continuing to take up arms against the United States."
But the U.N. team concluded that there had been insufficient due process to determine whether the more than 750 people who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002 were "enemy combatants," and determined that the primary purpose of their confinement was for interrogation, not to prevent them from taking up arms.
The U.S. has released or transferred more than 260 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.It also rejected the premise that "the war on terrorism" exempted the U.S. from international conventions on torture and civil and political rights.
The report said some of the treatment of detainees met the definition of torture under the U.N. Convention Against Torture: The acts were committed by government officials, with a clear purpose, inflicting severe pain or suffering against victims in a position of powerlessness.
The findings also concluded that the simultaneous use of several interrogation techniques — prolonged solitary confinement, exposure to extreme temperatures, noise and light; forced shaving and other techniques that exploit religious beliefs or cause intimidation and humiliation — constituted inhumane treatment and, in some cases, reached the threshold of torture.
Nowak said that the U.N. team was "particularly concerned" about the force-feeding of hunger strikers through nasal tubes that detainees said were brutally inserted and removed, causing intense pain, bleeding and vomiting."It remains a current phenomenon," Nowak said.
International Red Cross guidelines state: "Doctors should never be party to actual coercive feeding.
Such actions can be considered a form of torture and under no circumstances should doctors participate in them on the pretext of saving the hunger striker's life."One detainee, a Kuwaiti named Fawzi Al Odah, told his lawyer this month that he stopped his five-month hunger strike under threats of physical abuse.
Thomas B. Wilner, a lawyer at Shearman & Sterling in Washington who has represented 12 Kuwaitis held at Guantanamo Bay, said that Odah told him that in December guards began taking away clothes, shoes and blankets from about 85 hunger strikers.Wilner said Odah described guards mixing laxatives into the liquid formula they gave to about 40 prisoners through the nose tubes, causing them to defecate on themselves.
Wilner said Odah told him that on Jan. 9, an officer read what he said was an order from Guantanamo Bay's commander, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, stating that hunger strikers would be strapped into a restraint chair and force-fed with thick nasal tubes that would be inserted and removed twice a day.
After hearing a neighboring prisoner scream in pain and tell him not to go through it, Odah reluctantly ceased his hunger strike, Wilner said."I stopped it because they forced me to stop," Wilner quoted Odah as telling him. "They stopped it through torture."Pentagon officials said the number of hunger strikers had dropped to four.
Officials have been forcefeeding detainees since August, but they started leaving the long nasal tubes in place in September after detainees complained that having them jammed down their noses to their stomachs and removed twice a day caused intense pain, bleeding, vomiting and fainting, Wilner said.
In January, he said, after harsh treatment resumed and hunger strikers were left strapped in the restraint chair in their own excretions, most gave up their protest."It is clear that the government used force to end the hunger strike," Wilner said.
"It was brutality purposely applied to them to make them stop."White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed Odah's allegations Thursday."Well, yes, we know that Al Qaeda is trained in trying to make wild accusations and so forth," McClellan said in response to a question about Odah.
"But the president has made it very clear what the policy is, and we expect the policy to be followed. And he's made it very clear that we do not condone torture, and we do not engage in torture."Wilner said Odah had not been accused of being part of Al Qaeda.
The International Red Cross is the only party allowed by the U.S. government to have access to prisoners and monitor their physical and mental health, but the organization is forbidden from making its findings public.
The five U.N. envoys are independent experts appointed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to examine arbitrary detention, torture, the independence of judges and lawyers, freedom of religion, and the right to physical and mental health.
The five had each been following the situation at Guantanamo Bay since it opened in January 2002. They decided in June 2004 to do a joint report and asked the U.S. government for access to all detention centers
."This report is not aimed at criticizing," Nowak said. "It is looking at what international human rights law says about Guantanamo. We are hoping that this report will actually strengthen the dialogue."
The real Abu Ghraib footage the US government will not allow you to see
*February 16, 2006*
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
On Wednesday 16 February 2006, Australian public broadcaster SBS currentaffairs program DATELINE telecast a segment featring 60 new photos ofthe torture inflicted on prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
These photos were secured by court order - the ACLU figures prominentlyin the report - but these photos haven't yet been shown in the mediaanywhere in the United States. Because of the broadcast on SBS, you nowhave access to both Web-downloadable versions and BitTorrentfile-sharing network versions of the broadcast on this site.
*THESEPHOTOS ARE VERY DISTURBING. Please do not view this video if you areeasily disturbed by graphic imagery of torture and death
*.Download the SBS Abu Ghraib video (mp4)
<http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/SBS-Dateline-Abu-Ghraib-tiny.mp4>
<http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15004/dahrjamail512K.wmv>
*Server busy? Then download the .torrent file (google bittorrenttutorial for information on how to do this
<http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=bittorrent+tutorial&btnG=Google+Search>
*.torrent mp4 tiny (13 megs)
<http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/SBS-Dateline-Abu-Ghraib-tiny.mp4.torrent>
.torrent mp4 small (45 megs)
<http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/SBS-Dateline-Abu-Ghraib-low.mp4.torrent>
.torrent high res mp4 (90 megs)
<http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/multi_media/SBS-Dateline-Abu-Ghraib-high-h264.mp4.torrent>
Learn about BitTorrent and see all of our torrents
<http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/torrents>
13.2.06
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Iraq_Dispatches Digest, Vol 18, Issue 5
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
If one watches corporate media or listens to Cheney Administration propaganda, one is either not getting information about Iraq at all, or hearing that things are looking up as the U.S. approaches another"phase" in the occupation.
Just taking a brief look at the "security incidents" reported by Reuters for today, 12 February, gives a little clue as to how the occupation of Iraq, aside from being immoral and unjust, is a dismal failure.
*RAMADI - Six insurgents were killed and another wounded on Saturday when U.S forces conducted an air strike in the city of Ramadi, 110 km(68 miles) west of Baghdad, the U.S military said on Sunday.
*MUQDADIYA - Clashes between insurgents and Iraqi army soldiersconducting a raid killed one rebel in Muqdadiya, 90 km (50 miles) northeast of Baghdad. The army arrested 40 suspected insurgents in the same operation.
*BAGHDAD - A 53-year-old male detainee at Abu Ghraib prison died on Saturday as a result of complications from an assault by an unknown number of detainees, the U.S military said in a statement.
*MAHAWEEL - The bodies of three people, bound and shot in the head and chest, were found in Mahaweel, 75 km (50 miles) south of Baghdad, policesaid. The bodies showed signs of torture.
*ISKANDARIYA - The bodies of two people, bound and shot in the head and chest, were found in Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. The bodies showed signs of torture.
*BAGHDAD - Three police commandos and a civilian were killed and four commandos wounded when a suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt blew himself up near a check point in southern Baghdad, police said.
*KIRKUK - Gunmen killed four policemen while they were driving in a civilian car in the main road between Kirkuk and Tikrit, 175 km (110miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
*KIFL - Gunmen wearing police uniforms killed a civilian on Saturday in Kifl, a town about 150 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.
*NEAR LATIFIYA - Police retrieved the body of a dead person from the river on Saturday near Latifiya, south of Baghdad.
*BAQUBA - A director of sport education of Diyala province was killed by gunmen in the city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
*YATHRIB - Gunmen kidnapped three truck drivers who were carrying equipment to a U.S military base on Saturday in Yathrib, a region near Balad, 90 km (55 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
*BAIJI - Gunmen blew up a gas station on Saturday near the oil refinery city of Baiji, 180 km (112 miles) north of Baghdad.
*BAGHDAD - Twelve civilians were wounded when two roadside bombs exploded in quick succession near an Iraqi police patrol in central Baghdad, police said.
*SAMARRA - The Iraqi army found three Iranian Shi'ite pilgrims who were among a group of 12, including an Iraqi driver, kidnapped by gunmen in Samarra on Friday, Iraqi army officials said.
HAWIJA - Gunmen shot dead a doctor and wounded an employee working in the main hospital in Hawija, 70 km south west of the northern city of Kirkuk, on Saturday, police said.
KIRKUK - Four policemen were wounded when a roadside bomb went off near their patrol in the northern city of Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
KIRKUK - The corpse of a Kurdish contractor working with the U.S army was found on Saturday in Kirkuk, police said.
KIRKUK - Two civilians were wounded by a roadside bomb near their patrolin Kirkuk, police said.
BAGHDAD - Two civilians were killed, including a child, and three were wounded, when a roadside bomb targeting police commandos exploded in a northern district of the capital, police said. A brief glance at recent events in Iraq shows that violence only continues to escalate and the infrastructure which U.S. taxpayers supposedly paid billions of dollars to repair is in shambles.
While the Cheney Administration blame Iraqi resistance attacks and sabotage for the lack of reconstruction, I would like to remind people that at least $8.8 Billion of the money meant for reconstruction efforts remains unaccounted for.
Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said this is because "oversight" on the part of the Coalition Provisional Authority "was relatively nonexistent.
"Meanwhile, the U.S. military is over a quarter of the way towards having the 3,000th soldier killed in Iraq, as 2,267 have now been killed. 25 of those deaths have occurred this month. But as usual, it is the Iraqis who are paying the highest price.
Looking at Arab media outlets, evidence of this abounds. According to Al-Sharqiyah television: "The head of the Al-Fallujah Municipal Council was killed by gunshots onFebruary 7, Iraqi Al Sharqiyah TV reported that day. In its 1100 gmt newscast, the TV said: "Unidentified armed men this morning assassinated Shaykh Kamal Shakir Nizal, head of the Municipal Council of Al-Fallujah, western Iraq.
"The U.S. backed puppet Iraqi government continues its state-sponsored civil war. Aside from the numerous bodies found in the aforementionedReuters report, this past week Sharqiyah also reported:" Iraqi and US security forces raided the Iraqi Islamic Party's headquarters in the Al-Amiriyah area in western Baghdad.
The Islamic Party, which is one of the Iraqi entities operating under the banner of the Iraqi Al-Tawafuq Front, issued a press statement today saying that last night, Iraqi forces, backed by US troops, assaulted the headquarters' guards and the party members who were there at the time, destroyed the headquarters' furniture and contents, seized the licensed weapons carried by the guards, and confiscated sums of money belonging to the party.
"Of course atrocities continue at the hands of occupation forces. Video has been released which shows a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenseless Iraqi teenagers inside a military compound, and Iraqis recently released from prisons like Abu Ghraib are reporting ongoing torture at the hands of U.S. forces.
This, however, should come as no surprise since Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld issued a memo over two years ago specifying which types of "harsh interrogation techniques" he wanted used in Iraq.
This is just a brief overview of recent events in Iraq.
When Israeli/U.S. warplanes begin dropping bombs on Iran, will Iraq fade to the back pages of the news as has Afghanistan?
With the corporate media coverage of Iraq at this sorry state already, it's difficult to imagine that not occurring.
The Return of PSYOPS
Military's media manipulation demands more investigation
12/3/04
The Los Angeles Times revealed this week (12/1/04) that the U.S. military lied to CNN in the course of executing psychological warfare operations , or PSYOPS, in advance of the recent attack on Fallujah.
This incident raises serious questions about government disinformation and journalistic credibility, but recent discussions of the government's propaganda plans have excluded some valuable context.
In an October 14 on-air interview, Marine Lt. Lyle Gilbert told CNN Pentagon reporter Jamie McIntyre that a U.S. military assault on Fallujah had begun.
In fact, the offensive would not actually begin for another three weeks. The goal of the psychological operation, according to the Times , was to deceive Iraqi insurgents into revealing what they would do in the event of an actual offensive. This operation raises obvious questions about the government's use of media to broadcast disinformation at home and abroad-- not to mention questions about journalistic gullibility and reluctance to question official claims .
But the CNN story has received little pick-up so far from other news outlets-- and when it is covered, it's treated like an isolated episode, even though recent history shows that U.S. government plans to deceive journalists and the public are widespread and systematic, not aberrational.
Shortly before the launch of the "war on terror," an unnamed Pentagon war planner seemed to warn journalists everywhere when he told Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz: "This is the most information-intensive war you can imagine...
We're going to lie about things." (9/24/01) In February 2002, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) was "developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations" in an effort "to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries."
The story got widespread attention, and the Pentagon announced that the office would be eliminated. But considerably less media attention was paid when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later said that, while the OSI had been closed, its mission would be taken up by other agencies.
As Rumsfeld put it, "I went down that next day and said 'Fine, if you want to savage this thing, fine-- I'll give you the corpse. There's the name. You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that needs to be done and I have.'" (FAIR Media Advisory, 11/27/02 ) So the revelation that a misinformation campaign bearing a striking resemblance to the description of the OSI was actually being carried out ought not to come as a total surprise.
Earlier this year, another Los Angeles Times scoop (6/3/04) revealed that one of the most enduring images of the war-- the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in a Baghdad square on April 9, 2003-- was a U.S. Army psychological warfare operation staged to look like a spontaneous Iraqi action:
"As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel-- not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images -- who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said.
And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking."CNN 's history of voluntary cooperation with PSYOPS troops is also worth considering. In March 2000, FAIR and international news organizations revealed that CNN had allowed military propaganda specialists from an Army PSYOPS unit to work as interns in the news division of its Atlanta headquarters.
As FAIR reported at the time (3/27/00), some PSYOPS officers were eager to find ways to use media power to their advantage. One officer explained at a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place.
And a 1996 unofficial strategy paper written by an Army officer and published by the U.S. Naval War College ("Military Operations in the CNN World: Using the Media as a Force Multiplier") urged military commanders to find ways to "leverage the vast resources of the fourth estate" for the purposes of "communicating the [mission's] objective and endstate, boosting friendly morale, executing more effective psychological operations, playing a major role in deception of the enemy, and enhancing intelligence collection."
Of course, the full extent of these programs is not yet known. But the fact that the U.S. government is intentionally lying to journalists, and by extension to the public, should be big news.
Unfortunately, the L.A. Times report is generating little mainstream media attention. CNN 's Aaron Brown reported the story (12/1/04), admitting that "none of us are particularly comfortable when we're talking about things, about ourselves if you will." Brown also made another, even more revealing comment:
"There is an important and explicit bargain between the press and the Pentagon in a time of war. We don't do anything to endanger the troops or operations. They don't lie to us. Each is essential in a free society and each is made more complicated by the information age, but it seems that sometimes in an effort to mislead the enemy the military has come close, very close, to crossing the line and misleading you."
Of course, in this case the military did not come "very close" to misleading the public; they did mislead the public. And while Brown may have confidence that such a "bargain" exists between the press and the military, it would appear that the Pentagon does not agree.
If journalists were more willing to accept the old adage that "all governments lie," we might all be better served.
Activism Homepage How to write a letter
Rebranded: 'War on Terror' Now 'The Long War'
Why don't they call it what it is; Blood for Oil war?
New Name, Same Conflict
Remember the `War on Terror'? The Bush administration has subtly redubbed it `The Long War'
Some analysts see the name change as part of a battle to widen presidential powers
by Tim Harper
WASHINGTON — Deep in the bowels of the Pentagon, some of the country's finest military minds met recently, synthesizing ideas, debating proposals and trading strategies.
Their goal — a rebranding for the history books.
The War on Terror brand had gone sour ... (So) you find a new bumper sticker.
Christopher SimpsonAmerican University political communication expertWhen they emerged, they had completed their semantic sleight-of-hand.
They had simply changed wars, consigning the "War on Terror" to the recycling bin and launching "The Long War."
In a George W. Bush White House well-schooled in the art of propaganda, an administration re-elected for its steely determination to stay on message, renaming a war is a new triumph of marketing.
"The War on Terror brand had gone sour," says Christopher Simpson, an expert on political communications at Washington's American University.
"It connoted abuse of power, an indiscriminate use of violence as much by the U.S. as its opponents; it barely had the support of 50 per cent of Americans and was opposed by a large percentage of the international population.
"So you rebrand. You rename to try to get rid of the past perceptions. You find a new bumper sticker."
U.S. analysts and government officials this week point to the rebranding as another attempt to gird a skeptical public for an ongoing, generational commitment of troops at war, a bid to try to revive and augment international co-operation with Washington and a way of justifying ever-expanding presidential powers under Bush.
They believe it is an attempt by a self-described wartime president to entrench his cherished wartime powers, helping him fend off attacks on an electronic surveillance program some say is illegal.
Or, some say, it could be a return to a tried-and-true tactic from this White House, the use of fear.
By speaking of a war for a generation, they say, the Bush administration is trying to keep the population fearful for a generation, mainly fearful of electing "soft-on-security Democrats." It has worked before, when the administration spoke of "mushroom clouds" in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, or faced accusations of raising terror levels at home during turbulent political times.
Just as the new name was being slapped on an old war, Bush was filling in details of a thwarted 2002 terrorist plot in which Al Qaeda sought to blow up the largest building in Los Angeles.
New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton said the Republican game plan is all about getting America scared again.
"Contrary to Franklin Roosevelt, (who said) we have nothing to fear but fear itself, this crowd is: `All we've got is fear, and we're going to keep playing the fear card,'" she said.
John Pike, a military analyst at GlobalSecurity.Org, suggests, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, that the Pentagon should call it The Forever War.
"We're in the 17th year of The Long War," he says, arguing the U.S. has been in perpetual combat since it intervened in Panama to remove Manuel Noriega from power in 1989.
"Since then, we have been blowing somebody up, or getting ready to blow somebody up or coming back from blowing somebody up," he says. "It is so normal, people don't even notice any more."
But he doesn't believe the rebranding is about fear as much as it is about the Bush administration trying to consolidate its so-called "war powers."
"It's not about bin Laden any more," he says. "People aren't scared of him any more.
"My fear is that it is really the inauguration of the second Republic here because if you look closely at where this president is claiming his legal powers, it completely redefines the powers of the American government." Simpson agrees.
"This provides a rationale for the expansion of presidential power in wartime," he says.
"Many people question the rationale, but the argument is that these powers are needed because we are at war.
"If it is a Long War, it means that they will be needed not just this year, but next year and for decades. This is a fundamental change in U.S. policy."
Although the first use of the term "Long War" is credited in 2004 to Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. Central Command chief, it really had its public coming-out Jan. 31 in the U.S. president's State of the Union address.
"Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy," Bush said.
Then, in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Policy Review, the equivalent of a Canadian defence paper, the term was put into official use as a new name for a war that demanded a new strategy.
"This war, like the Cold War before it, will be a struggle against a hateful ideology that has attempted to hijack Islam for its nefarious purposes," U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.
"Just as the West prevailed in the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, free nations will prevail in the long war against violent extremism."
The Pentagon says it chose the name to indicate the generational nature of the battle against Islamist extremists and the need for the American population to show patience and maintain resolve.
"It will be a long war," said U.S. Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker. "We are now in the business of ... learning and adapting to the world we are entering.
"It's going to require a whole different set of dance steps to be able to operate in a way that we will need to."
James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, can also lay claim to helping coin the phrase, using it in the title of a book he co-wrote last year, Winning The Long War: Lessons from the Cold War for Defeating Terrorism and Preserving Freedom.
"I don't think the War on Terror meant anything to anybody any more," he says. (correct)
"This is easier for people to wrap their heads around. It's not dumbing it down necessarily, but it gets to the essence of what we're talking about."
In fact, Carafano says, Pentagon officials toyed with the idea of renaming their struggle The Protracted War.
"`Protracted' is a five-dollar word," he says. "`Long' is a 25-cent word. So they went with that."
One thing all questioned agreed upon is that wars need names, even if they are not named until after they are over.
"The names define what they are all about," Pike says.
No one, to be sure, dubbed it The Hundred Years War at the outset and the Thirty Years War was a series of wars, not three decades of unbroken hostilities.
To this day, there is debate over who coined the phrase Cold War, with credit sometimes given to author George Orwell, journalist Walter Lippmann and British prime minister Winston Churchill.
There was even debate in Washington over what to call World War II.
The moniker was officially accepted Sept. 11, 1945, by U.S. president Harry Truman. But in Russia, World War II is known as the Great Patriotic War. In Japan, it's the Great Pacific War.
Closer to home, Pike says, the U.S. Civil War is known as such in the northern states, but in his home of Alabama, it is often called The War of Northern Aggression.
The Long War has also been applied to the 16th century struggle between the Habsburg monarchy and the Ottoman Empire.
"I believe they don't want this to be defined as a conventional war where the entire burden will fall on the military and they will be expected to win quickly, which is impossible," says Max Boot, a senior analyst in national security studies at the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations.
Indeed, gone is any of the talk of quick victory that preceded the Iraqi invasion. Almost three years later, the war has taken nearly 2,500 American lives and 136,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq. Although there is every expectation of a drawdown to about 100,000 troops this year, an American presence is anticipated in the country for perhaps a decade.
Now, the talk is about long struggles against the "isms." Just as previous wars fought communism and fascism, this war is all about combating radical Islamism, Rumsfeld says.
This year's $550 billion (U.S.) military budget proposed by Bush does try to re-emphasize quick strike forces, unmanned intelligence drones and more "psychological operations" troops, the "hearts and minds" personnel. That is messed up!
But the quadrennial defence plan has been widely criticized for too much spending on high-tech military toys and not enough on personnel.
In fact, as Boot says, the U.S. active army would shrink over five years under the plan, bringing the total to 482,400 by 2011 — down from 710,000 in 1991.
"Why is the Pentagon still throwing money into high-tech gadgets of dubious utility while ignoring the glaring imperative for more boots on the ground?" he asks. "Part of the answer may be politics — big-ticket weapons have more champions on Capitol Hill than do ordinary grunts."
It all adds up to a strategic miscalculation if the Pentagon is intent on fighting, not merely naming, a long war, he says.
10.2.06
The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops
A Study by the Institute for Policy Studies andForeign Policy In Focus
By Phyllis Bennis and Erik Leaver and the IPS Iraq Task Force
August 31, 2005
Full report with citations (.pdf document)
Fact sheet of key numbers from the report (.pdf document)
Key Findings
Highlights
Costs to the United States
Costs to Iraq
Costs to the World
KEY FINDINGS
“The Iraq Quagmire” is the most comprehensive accounting of the mounting costs and consequences of the Iraq War on the United States, Iraq, and the world. Among its major findings are stark figures that quantify the continuing of costs since the Iraqi elections, a period that the Bush administration claimed would be characterized by a reduction in the human and economic costs.
Vietnam Echoes
According to current estimates, the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion. In current dollars, the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers $600 billion.
Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. By comparison, the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam over the eight-year war was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation.
Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next decade.
Since 2001, the U.S. has deployed more than 1 million troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.
The number of journalists killed reporting the Iraq War (66) has exceeded the number of journalists killed reporting on the Vietnam War (63).
A New Kind of Quagmire
More than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Guard mobilizations average 460 days.
Nearly a third of active-duty troops, 341,000 men and women, have served two or more overseas tours.
Cost to Iraq
The U.S. controls 106 military bases across Iraq. Congress has budgeted $236 million for permanent base construction in FY2005.
At least 23,589 to 26,705 Iraqi civilians have been killed.
On average 155 members of the Iraqi security forces have died every month since the January 2005 elections, up from an average of 65 before they were held.
Suicide attack rates rose to 50 per month in the first five months of 2005, up from 20 per month in 2003 and 48 in 2004.
Iraq’s resistance forces remain at 16,000-40,000 even with the U.S. coalition killing or capturing 1,600 resistance members per month.
And the World’s Less Safe
The State Department reported that the number of “significant” terrorist attacks reached a record 655 in 2004, up from 175 in 2003.
The Iraq War has weakened the UN’s authority and credibility.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE IRAQ QUAGMIRE
I. Costs to the United States
A. Human Costs to the U.S. and Allies
U.S. Military Deaths: Between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and August 22, 2005 2,060 coalition forces have been killed, including 1,866 U.S. military personnel.
Over 14,065 U.S. troops have been wounded, 13,523 (96 percent) since May 1, 2003.
Contractor Deaths: There have been 255 civilian contractor deaths since the “end of major combat” on May 1, 2003, including 91 identified as Americans.
Journalist Deaths: Sixty-six international media workers have been killed in Iraq as of August 28, 2005. U.S. forces are responsible for at least eleven deaths, including employees from ABC, CNN, Reuters, BBC, ITN, Arab TV stations al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera and Spanish station Telecinco.
B. Security Costs
Terrorist Recruitment and Action: The State Department found that the number of “significant” international terrorist attacks in 2004 reached 655, three times the previous record of 175 in 2003. Terrorist incidents in Iraq also increased by a factor of nine—from 22 attacks in 2003 to 198 in 2004.
Overstretch of Military: Since 2001, the U.S. military has deployed more than 1 million troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with 341,000 or nearly a third, serving two or more overseas tours. In August 2005 Army recruitment remained at 11 percent behind its yearly goal. The Reserve stands at 20 percent behind its goals and the Army National Guard is 23 percent short of its goals.
Security Costs Due to Loss of First Responders: Roughly 48,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve are currently serving in Iraq—making up nearly 35 percent of the total U.S. forces there.
Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities because many are “first responders,” including police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. For example, 44 percent of the country’s police forces have lost officers to Iraq. In some states, the absence of so many Guard troops has raised concerns about the ability to handle fires and other natural disasters.
Use of Private Military Contractors: The Department of Defense estimates that there are at least 60 private security providers with perhaps as many as 25,000 employees.
Of the 44 incidents of abuse that have been documented at Abu Ghraib prison,16 have been tied to private contractors. While numerous soldiers have been courtmartialed for their roles in the scandal, no contractor has been brought up on charges.
C. Economic Costs
The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.
Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: In August 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years. According to current estimates, during that time the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.
Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have been called up, with an average mobilization of 460 days. Government studies show that about half of all reservists and Guard members report a loss of income when they go on active duty—typically more than $4,000 a year. About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service and are especially likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.
D. Social Costs
U.S. Budget and Social Programs: The Administration’s FY 2006 budget, which does not include any funding for the Iraq War, takes a hard line with domestic spending— slashing or eliminating more than 150 federal programs. The $204.4 billion appropriated thus far for the war in Iraq could have purchased any of the following desperately needed services in our country: 46,458,805 uninsured people receiving health care or 3,545,016 elementary school teachers or 27,093,473 Head Start places for children or 1,841,833 affordable housing units or 24,072 new elementary schools or 39,665,748 scholarships for university students or 3,204,265 port container inspectors.
Social Costs to the Military/Troop Morale: As of May 2005, stop-loss orders are affecting 14,082 soldiers—almost 10 percent of the entire forces serving in Iraq with no end date set for the use of these orders. Long deployments and high levels of soldier’s stress extend to family life. In 2004, 3,325 Army officer’s marriages ended in divorce—up 78 percent from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion and more than 3.5 times the number in 2000.
Costs to Veteran Health Care: The Veterans Affairs department projected that 23,553 veterans would return from Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005 and seek medical care. But in June 2005, the VA Secretary, Jim Nicholson, revised this number to 103,000. The miscalculation has led to a shortfall of $273 million in the VA budget for 2005 and may result in a loss of $2.6 billion in 2006.
Mental Health Costs: In July 2005 the Army’s surgeon general reported that 30 percent of U.S. troops have developed stress-related mental health problems three to four months after coming home from the Iraq War. Because about 1 million American troops have served so far in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan some experts predict that the number eventually requiring mental health treatment could exceed 100,000.
II. Costs to Iraq
A. Human Costs to Iraqis
Iraqi Civilian Deaths: As of August 22, 2005, between 23,589 and 26,705 civilians have been killed as a direct result of the U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq. But the actual death toll may be much higher. The British medical journal, The Lancet, reported in October 2004 that Iraq suffered 98,000 “excess deaths” from March 2003 to September 2004.
Iraqi Civilians Wounded: The Project on Defense Alternatives estimates the number of wounded between 100,000 and 120,000.
Iraqi Police and Security Forces Killed: Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reports that 2,945 Iraqi military and police forces have been killed since the war started while other reports estimate up to 6,000 have been killed. Up until December 2004, the monthly death figure was 65 but in 2005 the average has been 155 and the death toll reached a high of 304 in July 2005.
B. Security Costs
Failure to Train Security Forces: In June 2004 the State Department reported that 145,317 Iraqi troops were trained but one year later, State Department reports only note an additional 35,000 security forces were added to the ranks. The readiness of these troops cannot be ascertained. A March 2005 GAO report noted that “the departments of State and Defense no longer report on the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with their required weapons, vehicles, communications equipment, and body armor.”
Rise in the Resistance: Despite 40,000-50,000 deaths and arrests, the resistance continues to thrive. The number of resistance fighters in Iraq increased from 5,000 in November 2003 to “no more than 20,000” in July 2005 and Iraq’s national intelligence service director estimates there are more than 200,000 sympathizers. Resistance attacks have risen 23 percent in the last four months. The rise in suicide attacks has skyrocketed. In 2003 there were 20, in 2004 there were 48 and in the first five months of 2005 there have been more than 50.
Rise in Crime: Baghdad’s central morgue counted 8,035 deaths by unnatural causes in 2004, up from 6,012 in 2003 and 1,800 before the war in 2002. 2005 is turning out to be even deadlier with the Baghdad morgue reporting 1,100 in July 2005.
C. Economic Costs
Unemployment: Unemployment figures today range from 20 percent to 60 percent. By comparison, during the Great Depression, U.S. unemployment peaked at 25 percent. Up to 60 percent of Iraqis depend on food handouts and the average income has dropped from $3,000 in the 1980s to $800 in 2004.
Corporate War Profiteering: Most of Iraq’s reconstruction has been contracted out to U.S. companies, rather than experienced Iraqi firms. U.S. auditors and the media have documented numerous cases of fraud, waste, and incompetence. The most egregious problems are attributed to Halliburton which has been awarded more than $10 billion in contracts. Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton failed to account adequately for $1.8 billion in charges for feeding and housing troops.
Iraq’s Oil Economy: Iraq’s oil production remains stalled at levels lower than before the U.S. invasion. In 2003, Iraq’s oil production dropped to 1.33 million barrels per day, down from 2.04 million one year earlier. In July 2005, oil production remained below pre-war levels. Iraq continues to import half its gasoline and thousands of tons of heating fuel, cooking gas and other refined products.
D. Social Costs
Electricity: By late July 2004, Iraq exceeded its pre-war electricity levels, providing nearly 5,000 megawatts of electricity across the country but since that date, levels have failed to improve; the average production in July 2005 was 4,446 megawatts
Health: A joint Iraqi-United Nations report released in May 2005 found that “the estimated number of persons living with a chronic health problem directly caused by war is 223,000 ... in the ongoing war, more children, elderly, and women have been disabled than in previous wars.”
Environment: During the war, water and sewage systems were destroyed, thousands of bombs were dropped leaving unexploded ordnance (UXO) strewn across the country, and the fragile desert ecosystem was damaged by tanks and U.S. temporary military outposts. Post-war looting further contributed to the damage. Three thousand nuclear compound storage barrels were looted and 5,000 barrels of chemicals were spilt, burned, or stolen. It is estimated that more than 12 million mines and UXO units are still present.
E. Human Rights Costs
Despite problems at U.S. detention centers, the use of arbitrary arrests continues.
The average prisoner level in June 2005 was 10,783, up from 7,837 at the time of the January 2005 elections, and double that of the June 2004 level of 5,335. The U.S. is expanding three existing facilities and opening a fourth, at a cost of $50 million with the goal of being able to detain 16,000 long-term prisoners. Illustrating the problems caused by widespread sweeps of arrests without cause, review processes indicate that six out of every 10 Iraqis arrested are released without charges.
F. Sovereignty Costs
Economic and Political Sovereignty: Despite the January elections, the country has severely limited political and economic independence. The transitional government has limited ability to reverse the 100 orders by former CPA head Paul Bremer that, among other things, allow for the privatization of Iraq’s state-owned enterprises and prohibit preferences for domestic firms in bidding on reconstruction work.
Military Sovereignty: Currently, the U.S. operates out of approximately 106 locations across the country. In May 2005, plans for concentrating U.S. troops into four massive bases positioned geographically in the North, South, East and West were reported and the most recent spending bill in Congress for the Iraq War contained $236 million for building permanent facilities.
III. Costs to the World
A. Human Costs
While Americans make up the vast majority of military and contractor personnel in Iraq, other U.S.-allied “coalition” troops from the U.K., Italy, Poland and other countries have suffered 194 war casualties in Iraq. The focus on Iraq has diverted international resources and attention away from humanitarian crises such as in Sudan.
B. Disabling International Law
The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be “preempted.”
The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.
C. Undermining the United Nations
The efforts of the Bush administration to gain UN acceptance of an Iraqi government that was not elected but rather installed by occupying forces undermines the entire notion of national sovereignty as the basis for the UN Charter.
D. Enforcing Coalitions
Faced with opposition in the UN Security Council, the U.S. government attempted to create the illusion of multilateral support for the war by pressuring other governments to join a so-called “Coalition of the Willing.” This not only circumvented UN authority, but also undermined democracy in many coalition countries, where public opposition to the war was as high as 90 percent. As of the middle of July 2005, only 26 countries of the original 45 members of the “Coalition of the Willing” had even token forces in Iraq, in addition to the United States.
E. Costs to the Global Economy
The $204.4 billion spent by the U.S. government on the war could have cut world hunger in half and covered HIV/AIDS medicine, childhood immunization and clean water and sanitation needs of the developing world for almost three years.
F. Undermining Global Security and Disarmament
The U.S.-led war and occupation have galvanized international terrorist organizations, placing people not only in Iraq but around the world at greater risk of attack.
Global Increase in Military Spending: In 2002 world military spending was $795 billion. With the skyrocketing costs of the war in Iraq, worldwide military spending soared to an estimated $956 billion in 2003 and in 2004, the figure spiked again to $1.035 trillion.
G. Global Environmental Costs
U.S.-fired depleted uranium weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq’s land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.
H. Human Rights
The Justice Department memo assuring the White House that torture was legal stands in stark violation of the International Convention Against Torture (of which the United States is a signatory). This, combined with the widely publicized mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. military and intelligence officials, gave new license for torture and mistreatment by governments around the world.
Full report with citations (.pdf document)