Shocks the Conscience

[B-Man]

I didn't think anything was lower than a suicide bomber... until I read this.
=========================
Saddam's shop of horrors
By Jeff Jacoby, 10/31/2002

AS A BOY, writes Kenneth Pollack in his masterful new book on Iraq, ''The Threatening Storm,'' Saddam Hussein would heat an iron poker until it was white-hot, then use it to impale cats and dogs. Years later, when he had boys of his own, he would take them into prisons so they could watch - and get used to - torture and executions. The Arab world is replete with dictators, many of them ruthless. But for sheer unbridled cruelty, none of them can touch Saddam. And for hellish and sadistic brutality, no other Arab state - perhaps no other state in the world - can compare with what Saddam has created in Iraq.

Writing in The New Republic recently, foreign correspondent Robert Kaplan recalled the treatment meted out some years back to Robert Spurling, an American technician working in Baghdad. Spurling ''had been taken away from his wife and daughters at Saddam International Airport and tortured for four months with electric shock, brass knuckles, and wooden bludgeons. His toes were crushed and his toenails ripped out. He was kept in solitary confinement on a starvation diet. Finally, American diplomats won his release. Multiply his story by thousands, and you will have an idea what Iraq is like to this day.''

Spurling was one of Saddam's luckier victims; he survived. Many thousands of others have been executed outright or tortured to death - or forced to witness the torture or murder of their loved ones.

In June, the BBC interviewed ''Kamal,'' a former Iraqi torturer now confined in a Kurdish prison. ''If someone didn't break, they'd bring in the family,'' Kamal said. ''They'd bring the son in front of his parents, who were handcuffed or tied, and they'd start with simple tortures such as cigarette burns, and then if his father didn't confess, they'd start using more serious methods,'' such as slicing off one of the child's ears or amputating a limb. ''They'd tell the father that they'd slaughter his son. They'd bring a bayonet out. And if he didn't confess, they'd kill the child.''

Horror in Saddam's Iraq takes endless forms. In 1987-88, Air Force helicopters sprayed scores of Kurdish villages with a combination of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, Sarin, and VX, a deadly nerve agent. Scores of thousands of Kurds died horrible deaths. Of those who survived, many were left blind or sterile or crippled with agonizing lung damage.

But most of the Kurds slaughtered in that season of mass murder were not gassed but rounded up and gunned down into mass graves. Those victims were mostly men and boys, and their bodies have never been recovered.

In one village near Kirkuk, after the males were taken to be killed, the women and small children were crammed into trucks and taken to a prison. One survivor, Salma Aziz Baban, described the ordeal to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, who reported on Saddam's war against the Kurds in The New Yorker in March.

More than 2,000 women and children were crammed into a room and given nothing to eat. When someone starved to death, the Iraqi guards demanded that the body be passed to them through an window in the door. Baban's 6-year-old son grew very sick. ''He knew he was dying. There was no medicine or doctor. He started to cry so much.'' He died in his mother's lap.

''I was screaming and crying,'' she told Goldberg. ''We gave them the body. It was passed outside, and the soldiers took it.''

Soon after, she pushed her way to the window to see if her child had been taken for burial. She saw 20 dogs roaming in a field where the dead bodies had been dumped. ''I looked outside and saw the legs and hands of my son in the mouths of the dogs. The dogs were eating my son.''

Horror without end. Amnesty International once listed some 30 different methods of torture used in Iraq. They ranted from burning to electric shock to rape. Some governments go to great lengths to keep evidence of torture secret. Saddam's government has often flaunted its tortures, leaving the broken bodies of its victims in the street or returning them, mangled and mutilated, to their families.

For the second time in a dozen years, the United States is preparing to go to war against Iraq, this time with ''regime change'' as an explicit goal. The case for military action is being made primarily in the name of international law and stability: Iraq under Saddam egregiously violates UN resolutions, attacks other countries without cause, aids terrorists, uses and stockpiles biological and chemical weapons, actively pursues nuclear weapons, and purposely creates environmental catastrophes.

Saddam has successfully resisted every form of outside pressure short of war. Neither sanctions nor inspections nor missile strikes have subdued his aggressiveness. His regime is profoundly dangerous and will grow even more so if it is not destroyed.

All true. But let us not forget something equally true: Saddam has been an unspeakable evil for the people of Iraq. In crushing him and his dictatorship, we will be liberating the most cruelly enslaved nation on earth and performing an act of nearly incalculable mercy.

[andyfox]

"In searching for evidence of the potential danger posed by Iraq, the Bush Administration need have looked no further than the well-kept record of U.S. manipulation of the sanctions program since 1991. If any international act in thh last decade is sure to generate enduring bitterness toward the United States, it is the epidemic suffering needlessly visited on Iraqis via U.S. fiat inside the United National Security Council. Within that body, the United Staes has consistently thrarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs, using sanctions as nothing less than a deadly weapon, and, despite recent reforms, continuing to do so. Invoking security concerns--including those not corroborated by U.N. weapons inspectors--U.S. policymakers have effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter.

"Since the U.N. adopted economic sanctions in 1945, in its charter, as a means of maintaining global order, it has used them fourteen times (twelves times since 1990). But only those sanctions imposed on Iraq have been comprehensive, meaning that virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled, which is particularly damaging to a country recovering from war. Since the program began, as estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions."

-from "Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction" by Joy Gordon in Harper's November, 2002.

[brad]

well i know US trains south american (and other) torturers at school of the americas, and by the way the gas that was used on kurds came from US.

i mean, to focus on the verb.

[B-Man]

That the U.S. is responsible for the torture Saddam inflicts on his people?

If you truily believe that, then your thinking is even more twisted than I realized.

[andyfox]

My point is that the U.S. is to blame for a portion of the suffering that is going on in Iraq. One need not deny the inhumanity and insanity of both Saddam and his governance to also recognize that the U.S. has harmed the people of Iraq as well. To view the world through glasses that blinds one from the cruel things one's own government does is to have a distorted view of reality.

[Clarkmeister]

[Jimbo]

Hi Andy,

My understanding of the Iraq sanctions are that they excluded medical supplies, food and sufficient amounts of oil to be sold in order to maintain the country's infrastructure. Just because Hussein may choose to use the allotted allowances for other uses does not make the sanctions either a complete failure or the fault of the United Nations nor of the United States.

Jimbo

[B-Man]

Andy,

Why do you always bring up bad acts by the U.S.? How in the world does anything the U.S. has done justify the tortures Saddam imposes on hiw own people?

My post was not directed at evaluating U.S. sanctions and the morality of them. I was pointing out truly horrendous actions committed by a lunatic dictator. As you often do, you respond not be agreeing that this madman has to go, but by bringing up U.S. actions which you view as wrongful.

The (alleged) bad acts of the U.S. do not justify torure by Saddam. In fact, they are completely irrelevant to torture by Saddam.

As an aside, if you do not agree with the sanctions, well, when this dictator is gone, I'm sure the sanctions will be gone as well, and they will be replaced with aid instead.

[andyfox]

"Why do you always bring up bad acts by the U.S.?"

Because it's the country I live in, the country I've lived in all my life, the country I love. When it does something bad, it hurts me infinitely more than when the bastards do something bad. I don't hold Saddam Hussein or Vladimir Putin up to the standards of decency I expect from my own country's leaders. I do expect better of the United States. If we didn't, then we'd be no better than the rest of them.

Your post pointed out the horrible things Saddam does and what a terrible place Iraq is because of him. I agree with this 100%. But the United States, through it's cynical manipulation of the U.N. sanctions program, has contributed to the terrible situation in Iraq. Why should we hide from this fact?

Of course our policies do not justify torture done by Saddam Hussein. Nor do his policies justify our denial of humanitarian aid. If we wish to discuss the plight of the Iraqi people, we should view their situation in the full light of all the facts, not just the ones you like, nor just the ones I like.

My conscience is shocked more by the actions of the U.S. in this regard than by the actions of the madman. So should yours.

[andyfox]

I would urge you to read the article which shows in detail how the U.S. has used the U.N. sancctions to try to bring Iraq to its knees by punishing the people of Iraq.

Why do people find it so hard to believe that our government sometimes acts badly? All governments do.

[Jimbo]

Andy,

At one time I read the exact wording of the applicable UN sanctions agreed upon by the member nations, including Iraq and they included the exceptions I mentioned. No artilcle you read changes that, I would urge you to consider the author to which you referred may have another agenda other than disseminating accurate information.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

Every author has an agenda, but this does not mean they necessarily disseminate inaccurate information. The U.S. has put holds, for example, on medical supplies (vaccines) claiming that these vaccines could be used for biological weapons. When the U.S.'s reasons for putting holds on supplies were shot down, invariably the U.S. then changed their objection, giving another reason, further delaying needed aid.

Instead of assuming the information in the article is inaccurate because of the author's agenda, why not read it and judge for yourself?

[MMMMMM]

I disagree here. My sympathies lie with the people who are being, and have been, murdered, wronged and tormented. If one party is deliberately responsible for much greater evils than another party then the one most responsible should be the subject of the most focus and remedy. Guilt trips don't help those who are suffering; cessation of the infliction of torment helps them. Therefore the focus should be primarily on freeing these people from their suffering and liberating them. Feeling bad about something "we" did is only worth so much and it is worth far less than taking care of the root of these peoples' problems by eliminating the greater evil that rules them. I know you are a conscientions individual, Andy, and are always thoughtful and sincere so I do not mean this as an insult in any way: I feel this is perhaps where the term "bleeding heart" may have originated: from an impractical and lopsided focus on one's (or our) own shortcomings while things of much greater import are not adressed as need be simply because the focus is on us rather than them. I say certainly, self-examination and correction are important and much to be desired, BUT if evils generated from the outside are significantly greater, then THAT is where our primary focus needs to be. I see such unbalanced weighting, typically by liberals, as a major failing of the liberal approach to many issues. That which is most important remains most important regardless of whether it originates from within ourselves or from without. In this case, the evils visited upon the Iraqi people for decades have primarily (and possibly nearly totally) originated from Saddam and his clique of ruling blood relatives.

Also, I believe that with the MASSIVE amounts of money Saddam controls (and spends on his OFFENSIVE military colossus), that he could EASILY have fed these people had he so desired, sanctions or no sanctions. Further I strongly suspect that he DELIBERATELY and happily let them starve in order to further his own political agendas. But that is another debate.

[andyfox]

M,

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think it far, far more important to have my government act in accordance with our great ideals and principles. I don't expect Saddam to act in accordance with those ideals and principles because he is a profoundly unprincipled man. I am much more upset when our country betrays its principles.

The problem lies with our insistence that everything we do is by definition good and right and everything our enemies do is by defintion evil and wrong. This Manichean world view has led us into our most devastating disasters.

I see non-recognition of our faults as the primary problem with conservatives' solutions to problems. The Iraqi people are suffering; most of it is caused by Saddam Hussein; let's get rid of him.

But some of the suffering is being caused by the United States. Let's also change the policy that is causing that suffering. Let's at least acknowledge that it exists. If there's "unbalanced weighting" it's by conservatives who refuse to accept the fact that our country is not perfect, that it sometimes does things that are wrong.

It may be true that Saddam deliberatly lets his people starve. But I am far more concerned if it is true that the United States deliberately lets these people starve. Saddam has shown that he cruel and callous. I don't want my government to act that way.

[MMMMMM]

AF: We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

M: that's fine;-)


AF: I think it far, far more important to have my government act in accordance with our great ideals and principles. I don't expect Saddam to act in accordance with those ideals and principles because he is a profoundly unprincipled man. I am much more upset when our country betrays its principles.

M: Well I think this attitude is fine when it comes to your own sense of guilt and propriety, if that's what concerns you most; however, I think from the Iraqi peoples' viewpoint they don't care that much from whence the evil comes: they just know it's bad and they are suffering and would be happy if it stopped. I think your approach is absolutely, perfectly fine when evaluating lesser issues. On the smallest scale, if your next-door-neighbor happens to be a jerk, I would say that rather than correcting him, an attitude of being sure that you yourself act admirably is generally best. On a larger scale, if, say, certain European countries don't see eye-to-eye with us on taxation or the best relative degree of free enterprise or socialism, again I would say let them be, and try to lead by example (and they might say or do similarly;-)). However, if a tyrant slaughters his own people, murders his opposition, attacks his neighboring countries, etc. etc. etc., then I would say that introspection and leading by example is not what is MOST important anymore (although it is still important). What is most important is in this case removing Saddam. So while it may *disturb* you most when our government acts badly, it should (I think) disturb you even more that people are suffering needlessly and more so under a horrific tyrant--in other words, while the actions of each government may disturb us to various degrees, the terrible plight of the people disturbs me even more, and I would hope that it would disturb you more, too.

AF: The problem lies with our insistence that everything we do is by definition good and right and everything our enemies do is by defintion evil and wrong. This Manichean world view has led us into our most devastating disasters.

M: I don't subscribe to this view and I don't think most conservatives do either. You seem to be laying out as opposition an awfully narrow view which I doubt many people subscribe to--I don't even see that it is very relevant here because I doubt there are many people (conservative or otherwise) who see everything as absolutely so black and white.


AF:I see non-recognition of our faults as the primary problem with conservatives' solutions to problems. The Iraqi people are suffering; most of it is caused by Saddam Hussein; let's get rid of him. But some of the suffering is being caused by the United States. Let's also change the policy that is causing that suffering. Let's at least acknowledge that it exists. If there's "unbalanced weighting" it's by conservatives who refuse to accept the fact that our country is not perfect, that it sometimes does things that are wrong.

M: Well I don't think most conservatives are truly this stupid or one-dimensional. Most conservatives probably realize we are imperfect. But our existing or past flaws in no way justify taking our eyes or attention away from those who are truly doing great evils on a massive scale. Because we are imperfect means we should allow tyranny and horrors to be perpetrated elsewhere? --I'm afraid I can't see the link.

AF: It may be true that Saddam deliberatly lets his people starve. But I am far more concerned if it is true that the United States deliberately lets these people starve. Saddam has shown that he cruel and callous. I don't want my government to act that way.

M: I agree that we don't want our government to act that way. However I find it find it at least as disturbing that someone like Saddam has been in power so long already, and I really think the regime that should be the primary focus of attention. Even if we lifted sanctions and sent the Iraqis food for free, the Iraqi people would STILL suffer horribly under his regime. Tortures and political murders would still be commonplace. The only cure is regime change (if we profess to care at all about the Iraqi people)...what good is a band-aid anyway?

[B-Man]

[The_Baron]

Exactly how is the United States responsible for what's been going on inside Iraq? Specifics please if you don't mind.

[MMMMMM]

Basically what I am saying is that while self-critique is noble and valuable, our indulgence in it generally doesn't do a whole lot for the peoples who are suffering under a Saddam, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot. I'm not saying that we ought to ignore self-examination and self-improvement, but let's not get stuck on it to the point of inactivity while tyrants are wielding their awful powers. Sometimes resisting evil must take precedence.

Yes, I do think we should examine our own policies and make changes as necessary--I just think we need a pragmatic sense of priorities. I think the victims (and the relatives of victims) of tyrannical regimes throughout history would agree. If I were suffering under a cruel regime, would I want a superpower who could potentially free me to be instead too busy examining its own navel to help?

[The_Baron]

The gas used on the Kurds came from the US? Pardon? Why in hell would Iraq bother importing these chemicals when they can be manufactured locally for something on the order of 1% the cost of importing them? War gasses are not complex chemistry. Nerve gasses are essentially nothing more than souped up insecticides. Nitrogen mustard, Lewisite, Adamsite, hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen chloride, etc... are all high-school chemistry level materials.
As for the alleged use of mycotoxins against the Kurds. The chances of it being from the US are minimal. The various mycotoxins are absolute pikers when compared to other biological toxins. They were studied, found desperately wanting and with the exception of Ft. Meade's labs and possibly Dugway Proving Ground's research stores facilities; they haven't even been stored in the US since the late 60s. They're just not that effective.
As for the School of the Americas. When was the last time you attended?

[andyfox]

The United Nations Security Council's 661 Committee is generally responsible for both enforcing the sanctions and granting humanitarian exemptions. The United States has aggressively fought throughout the last ten years to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter into Iraq. For example, last winter the U.S. blocked contracts for dialysis equipment, dental equipment, water tankers, milk and yogurt prodcution equipment, printing equipment for schools, and agricultural-bagging equipment. The contract for agricultural-bagging equipment, for example, was held up because we insisted that the U.N. first obtain documentation to "confirm that the 'manual' placement of bags around filling spouts is indeed a person placing the bag on the spout."

After a half-million-dollar contract for medical equipment was blocked in February 2000, and the company that had the contract spent two years responding to U.S. requiests for information, we chhanged our reason for the hold, and the contract remained blocked. As of September, 2001, nearly a billion dollars' worth of medical equipment contracts--for which all the information sought by the U.S. had been provided--was still on hold.

One of our favorite ploys is to allow many items to be approved, and then withhold approval of one item, without which the approved items are useless. Example: Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage treament plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it. Iraq pours 300,000 tons of raw sewage into its rivers every day.

It is evident to me that the United States does this to try to bring Saddam Hussein to his knees: make life miserable for the people, and they will demand and welcome a change of government.

Let no reasonable person deny the ugliness of Saddam Hussein's regime or the brutality of his rule. But let no reasonable person close his eyes to our government's actions either.

[andyfox]

"As for the School of the Americas. When was the last time you attended?"

One need not necessarily be a chicken to recognize an egg.

[bernie]

oh cmon....you know his toenails wouldve fallen out after his feet were crushed.....

seriously though....is this your first experience with described torture? read some in depth stuff of LA gang members in the 80s about how they treated rival members they found on their turf. yep, here in the good ol' USA....

this really isnt that suprising. even the bible has it's stories of torture...story of Jezebel comes to mind. someone taking someones kids, killing them, slicing them up, and serving it to the unknowing parents.....great book isnt it?

anyways...there are worse than this describes, it really shouldnt be that shocking. there's stuff that the US does that you never hear about that may suprise you also. the iraqies certainly dont corner the market when it comes to torture.

other countries also kill their own people....remember tienemen square? not as big a number, but still along the same lines...to a degree...

anyways...

it doesnt suprise me...

b

[brad]

its on the record US shipped sarin, vx, and biological weapons to iraq. look it up.

as for school of the americas, it moved to panama but used to be in fort benning i believe. look that up too.

dont be ignorant, you have the internet.

[andyfox]

"while self-critique is noble and valuable, our indulgence in it generally doesn't do a whole lot for the peoples who are suffering under a Saddam, a Stalin, or a Pol Pot."

I disagree. Had more people indulged in critique of our invasion of southeast Asia, Pol Pot might never have come to power. Would more people be aware of the things our government is doing to deny humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, perhaps they would be suffering less.

I don't think talking about a particular policy of our government with which one happens to disagree would paralyze the country to a point of inactivity. One could, for example, still pursue the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and still be critial of, and try to change, the policy of denying humanitarian aid.

I don't think a policy that may be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths is the equivalent of examining one's own navel.

[HDPM]

I always will defer to The Baron on WMD's. Baron knows his WMD's. But I did recently read an interesting book called "Germs" by some NYT reporters which details a lot about bio weapon procurement. Iraq was certainly helped by some American companies. This is probably due more to the lax handling of certain substances than "greedy capitalists", but a lot was available in the market. The CIA had a team procure the equipment and germs to make effective bioweapons as a test. I saw some whiners recently call this a violation of the germ warfare treaty, but it showed how easy it is to make bio-weapons (and didn't violate the treaty so there.)

All I can say is we better violate the treaty some and figure out how to quickly create vaccines for genetically modified bio-weapons the Soviets made and have probably sold to Iran and Iraq. (Counting individual scientists as the sellers.)

[HDPM]

Maybe it is my post-several Maker's Marks kill a commie for mommie mood, but I keep thinking of American operatives listening in to Khmer Rouge torture-killing sessions on open radios while Frank Church, aka "the Bloat" whined about funding intelligence and bombing. The Khmer Rouge could have been beaten had America not sold out its allies. Frank Church and the squeamish prevented victory. America is not perfect, but we should have kicked the crap out of the Khmer Rouge nonetheless. Did I mention I was drinking Maker's when I last spoke to the guy who kicked the crap out of the Bloat in the 1980 election? I can't defend all of America's policies. Many were wrong. But Pol Pot and his boyz needed killing.

[andyfox]

Pol Pot came to power because largely because of the violence we inflicted on Cambodia. By 1973, it was not the stated policy of the United States to annihilate Cambodia, but it was certainly our policy. This should not have surprised anyone since the country was being run at the time by pathological liars, as it had been since 1961. William Shawcross's conclusion that Cambodia "was not a mistake; it was a crime" was certainly apt.

Real opportunities for peace in Cambodia, which could have prevented the tragedy of Pol Pot, were always avoided by the United States. Any chance of a more moderate leftist coalition government in Cambodia disappeared with the bombing and Henry Kissinger's refusal to even meet with Prince Sihanouk.

The idea that we lost in southeast Asia because we were squeamish is preposterous. We were brutal. Our brutality begat the brutality of Pol Pot. Our "allies" never had the support of their people, they were frauds. We killed many more innocents than commies. We did it deliberately and we lied about it consistently, both the democrats and the republicans.

Those, like Frank Church, who whined enough to stop the war, were the heroes of the time. Those, like Nixon and Kissinger and McNamara and Johnson who destroyed that part of the world out of ignorance and vindictiveness, were the villains, and those still alive should be tried as war criminals.

[HDPM]

So you disagree then? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

You probably win this one, but if America is going to be crap, can't we at least kill some commies? /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[andyfox]

Got kind of carried away there, sorry about that.

Ain't too many commies left anyway. Old men in Vietnam, N. Korea, China, Cuba and here in Santa Monica mostly. The Vietnamese, Chinese and Santa Monican varieties are slowly being capitalism-ized, hopefully the same will happen in Cuba post-Castro.

Regards,
Andy

[HDPM]

"Ain't too many commies left anyway"

Not true. There was an article in the paper yesterday that a high school teacher in my BFE 'neck ville persuaded students to trick or treat for UNICEF. When I was a kid UNICEF funded the Khmer Rouge. Now they fund Palestinian terrorist schools. (See article in JWR yesterday). I waited with bated breath for some commies to show up last night begging for UNICEF cash, but it was only well-supervised polite kids seeking candy. I was disappointed. But still, commies exist! Dog didn't even bark at the last couple of groups. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Jimbo]

Andy,

I find the below quote of yours reprehensible. I was there and witnessed what you call "brutality". As far as our Allies not having the support of the local Vietnamese you should have seen the faces of villagers liberated from North Vietnamese control and perhaps you might reconsider your arguement.

"The idea that we lost in southeast Asia because we were squeamish is preposterous. We were brutal. Our brutality begat the brutality of Pol Pot. Our "allies" never had the support of their people, they were frauds. We killed many more innocents than commies."

Jimbo

[MMMMMM]

I basically agree with what you say here, Andy, although I think it is the degree of relative emphasis that is important. Yes, these examinations are important and may preclude future errors and tragedies. Yes, (in your case) it is not the equivalent of examining one's own navel, nor would it necessarily prompt you to unwise inactivity. However in the case of many other liberals it would. Also, I feel that the plight of the Iraqi people is more immediately important than trying to perfect our policies (especially since policies must constantly be adapted to changing conditions, and because it is so debatable as to whether our policies in fact had much effect on these people or whether Saddam basically starved them himself).

Also, my feelings of empathy for the people are stronger than the degree of guilt or responsibility I feel for the arguably bad policies of our government.