semitone Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0306/hentoff.php
CarmenC Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
semitone Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 http://www.rense.com/general27/3big.htm http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm
CarmenC Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/02101611.htm An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
NOT Bolt Rifles Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 (2002/12/02): "Iraq dossier: Key claims at-a-glance" Here are some of the key extracts from the UK government's dossier of alleged human rights abuses in Iraq. The dossier's introduction: Iraq is a terrifying place to live. People are in constant fear of being denounced as opponents of the regime. They are encouraged to report on the activities of family and neighbours. The security services can strike at any time. Arbitrary arrests and killings are commonplace. Between three and four million Iraqis, about 15% of the population, have fled their homeland rather than live under Saddam Hussein's regime. These grave violations of human rights are not the work of a number of overzealous individuals but the deliberate policy of the regime. Fear is Saddam's chosen method for staying in power. This report, based on the testimony of Iraqi exiles, evidence gathered by UN rapporteurs and human rights organisations, and intelligence material, describes the human cost of Saddam Hussein's control of Iraq. It examines in turn Iraq's record on torture, the treatment of women, prison conditions, arbitrary and summary killings, the persecution of the Kurds and the Shia, the harassment of opposition figures outside Iraq and the occupation of Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly, over many years, condemned Iraq's human rights record. But Iraq continues to flout UN resolutions and to ignore its international human rights commitments. On 19 April 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to "the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." On torture: Torture is systematic in Iraq. The most senior figures in the regime are personally involved. Saddam Hussein runs Iraq with close members of his own family and a few associates, most of whom come from his hometown of Tikrit. These are the only people he feels he can trust. He directly controls the security services and, through them and a huge party network, his influence reaches deep into Iraqi society. All real authority rests with Saddam and his immediate circle. Saddam is head of state, head of government, leader of Iraq's only political party and head of the armed forces. Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions. Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to suppress dissent with impunity. An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime. Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences. In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family. These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others. According to an Amnesty International report published in August 2001, "torture is used systematically against political detainees. The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the acceptance of its use at the highest level." Over the years, Amnesty and other human rights organisations have received thousands of reports of torture and interviewed numerous torture victims. Although Iraqi law forbids the practice of torture, the British Government is not aware of a single case of an Iraqi official suspected of carrying out torture being brought to justice. Treatment of women and children: Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment. Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International. The dossier says that BBC correspondent John Sweeney said he had met six witnesses with direct experience of child torture, including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet. Prison conditions: Conditions for political prisoners in Iraq are inhumane and degrading. At the "Mahjar" prison "prisoners are beaten twice a day and the women regularly raped by their guards. Arbitrary and summary killings: Executions are carried out without due process of law. relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice and have even been charged for the bullets used. Persecution of the Kurds: Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced terrible suffering. Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over to the non-governmental oprganisation Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards. Persecution of the Shia community: The Shia community, who make up 60% of Iraq's population is Iraq's biggest religious group. Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too prominent. Harassment of the Opposition outside Iraq: The UN Special Rapporteur has received numerous reports of harassment, intimidation and threats against the families of opposition members living abroad. Occupation of Kuwait: Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. Iraqi forces committed robbery, raped Kuwaities and expatriates and carried out summary executions. Amnesty International documented many other abuses during the occupation of Kuwait. Methods of torture: Eye gouging Piercing of hands with electric drill Suspended from ceiling by their wrists Electric shock Sexual abuse Mock executions Acid baths Conclusion: This dossier does not include every Iraqi's personal story of suffering, caused by Saddam's regime, known to the British Government. There are sadly far too many to mention them all. But the evidence in the dossier is a faithful representation of what ordinary Iraqis face in their daily lives. It is no wonder that, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 2001, Iraqis have become the second largest group of refugees in the world. Iraqis also top the table of foreign nationals seeking asylum in the UK. Saddam Hussein has been ruthless in his treatment of any opposition to him since his rise to power in 1979. A cruel and callous disregard for human life and suffering remains the hallmark of his regime. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams "I am a senior member, and thereby entilted to all the privileges and rights accorded said status" -- NBR
semitone Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 The CIA Wanted Me Killed Journalist Yvonne Ridley Says Intelligence Agencys Wanted Her Killed to Build Support for War on Afghanistan By Jo Dillon The Independent Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist captured by the Taliban, this week makes the extraordinary claim that Western intelligence agencies tried to get her killed to bolster public support for the air strikes on Afghanistan. In her new book, In The Hands of the Taliban, published tomorrow, Express journalist Ms Ridley, 43, says despite her release from captivity she still has "unfinished business" surrounding her time in Afghanistan. She claims that on her return to Pakistan she found her hotel room had been searched. In London, the locks on her Soho flat had apparently been tampered with. A journalist on the Arab TV station Al Jazeera then showed her a collection of as yet unverified documents. They purported to be copies of a dossier of personal and financial papers and pictures. When told they had been handed to the Taliban, Ms Ridley asked: "Who the hell was trying to get me shot?" With the help of prominent QC Michael Mansfield, the Al Jazeera journalist, Nacer Bedri, and contacts in the security and intelligence services, Ms Ridley is now trying to piece together what happened. She says the documents were photocopies of genuine-looking Inland Revenue tax returns and the title deeds to a previous London home owned by her. There was also a copy of an Israeli passport belonging to her third husband, Hermosh, along with a Mossad code number and ID card also said to belong to him. The figures in the financial documents were exaggerated, Ms Ridley said. Also in the bundle was a photograph of Ms Ridley, Hermosh and her daughter Daisy, now aged nine, "taken on a river in Iran when you entered the country illegally". Ms Ridley's book says: "I looked at the picture again and initially laughed, when I realised it had been taken in October 1998 in Stratford-upon-Avon. Then an awful feeling came to my stomach and I wanted to vomit. I remembered where I had last seen that picture--in my top drawer at my new flat in Soho. I had kicked out Husband No 3 a couple of weeks after those pictures were taken; they weren't developed until later--after he had gone. So who had been in my flat?" Ms Ridley is convinced the intelligence services must have somehow been involved--and has vowed to prove it. "Without giving too much away, I can say the matter isn't going to rest," she said yesterday. The publication of her book and the claims it makes are certain to throw Ms Ridley back into the spotlight--a place that has not been particularly comfortable for her since she was captured by the Taliban on 28 September and after her release on 8 October. Ms Ridley was lambasted for making a "foolhardy" decision to go into Afghanistan with a number of commentators accusing her of being "selfish" for taking such a risk as a single mother. Others raised questions about Ms Ridley's time in Afghanistan, one report claiming that rather than being captured in the country where she was carrying out a newspaper investigation; she was picked up over the border in Pakistan and had never entered Afghanistan. On her return, Ms Ridley was criticised for failing to pay enough attention in her account of her ordeal to the two guides--then still in prison--captured helping her or the aid workers held alongside her. Early reviews of her book were far from flattering. But Ms Ridley is determined to get to the bottom of her own story.
semitone Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 Who Gave Away Your Civil Liberties? By Harry Browne Many conservatives, liberals, and libertarians are protesting the numerous invasions of your liberty that Congress and the Bush administration have imposed during the past two months. But without realizing it, many of the protestors brought these invasions on themselves. THIS IS AMERICA? I do share their concerns, however. First, Congress rammed through an "anti-terrorism" bill that violates the civil liberties of all Americans, not just terrorists. The new law allows federal officials to search your home when you're not present and not even tell you your home has been searched. You could come home one day and find your computer, file cabinets, and legal papers have disappeared. You'd naturally think it was a burglary, but the burglars would be government employees (shades of Watergate). Warrants can be issued in secret, and you may not be allowed to see a warrant - or contest it - covering a search of your property. This is America? Government officials can go into any company anywhere and search records of your purchases and credit history, discover the websites you've visited, or monitor your email--without evidence of a crime and without telling you, and they can order the companies not to tell you about the search. Then the Bush administration, apparently invoking the divine right of kings, decided that people can be tried and executed by secret courts (using secret evidence not available for you to refute), that government agents can eavesdrop on attorney-client conversations, and that federal agents can conduct searches without judicial oversight. This is America? And understand that the so-called "War on Terrorism" is only two months old. This is just the beginning. What's still to come? In previous wars, citizens were imprisoned for speaking out against the government, newspapers were closed for protesting the war, private publications were censored, and people of foreign ancestry were put in concentration camps. We have a lot to look forward to. DON'T BE DECEIVED The press implies that the new civil-liberties invasions will apply only to terrorists. Not true. They apply to you, because anyone can be suspected of being a terrorist--including you. In fact, the new definition of "suspected terrorist" includes people speaking out against government policies. And if law-enforcement officials are to decide whose civil liberties will be denied, one of them may become convinced you're connected to the terrorists in some way, try you in a secret court, sentence you, imprison you, and even execute you--with no opportunity for you to appeal the verdict or your sentence. This is America? An administration official told The Washington Post, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect . . . anyone hiding and planning acts of violence." But what he meant was, "The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect anyone we suspect of hiding and planning acts of violence." They don't know who's actually guilty until after a civil, public trial--conducted with all the traditional rules of evidence. What they have arrogated to themselves is the power to decide whether or not you will be protected by the Constitution. This is America? If you're not frightened by this, you're simply not paying attention. WON'T BE LIMITED TO A FEW PEOPLE Have you been told that some of these invasions apply only to aliens--or some other small group of people? Don't be reassured. When has any invasion of liberty not been expanded to cover all people eventually? The clearly unconstitutional RICO laws were supposed to apply only to organized crime--but hardly a single Mafia kingpin has been prosecuted using RICO, while abortion protestors and stockbrokers have been jailed by these laws. The clearly unconstitutional asset-forfeiture laws were only to nab big-time drug dealers, but all across America the property of innocent people has been seized. It's only a matter of time until every new oppression applies to all Americans. WHY THIS HAPPENED I said that many of those protesting these invasions brought this on themselves. How? It's very simple. Attorney General John Ashcroft justified the unconstitutional police-state tactics by saying, "I think it's important to understand that we are at war now." And there you have it. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state." Once you grant the government war-making powers, you grant the politicians the power to do anything they want. After all, you can't put your own personal liberty ahead of the good of the Fatherland, can you? Congress didn't declare war. There were none of the usual pre-war negotiations to try to avoid going to war. We're not even at war with any specific nation. But just utter the magic word "war" and all your rights can be stolen from you. So if you hollered for war, you hollered to have your rights taken away from you. Who gave your rights away? You did--if you supported the idea that the politicians should be free to do anything they want to satisfy a national lust for revenge. Isn't it time to start taking back your liberty? Harry Browne ran for president as the Libertarian Party's candidate in 2000. He is the director of the American Liberty Foundation.
Wow Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 semitone, You are from greece and hate Americans, we understand . Take the trollin elsewhere .
jacob.hellnerchello.se Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b]semitone, You are from greece and hate Americans, we understand . Take the trollin elsewhere .[/b][/quote]Hey C.M. Now I´ve seen you on numerous posts jumping at people for "hating" Americans just because they dont agree with everything that goes on.... According to you, the french, the german, the russian, the greek and probably soon the swedish people are all full of hate. You go along the lines of Dubya when he says "if you are not with us you are against us". I find this stance extremely dangerous and is usually mentioned in relation to totalitarian regimes. I sure hope America isn´t going that way.... The reason public opinion here in Europe is so strong against the war has nothing to do with whatever interests the various governements has in Iraq. For us its a moral issue. Europe has an ugly history with loads of wars and atrocities on its soil. This horror is still fresh in peoples memory and this makes us take the position we have. It has nothing to do with cowardness, hate or lack of memory as the media is portraying it. We are shitscared of war since we have seen it up close... The people you dismiss with your hate argument all come in peace with great concern for humanity and the way the world is going. If there is anything that might stir up stronger emotions, it is the arrogance you are displaying. OD
semitone Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 Hey C.M. I really like many people, americans. On the same way, i REALLY hate people taking advantage of their power to gain as much money as possible and don't seem to care if this causes suffering to others. Thousands of people have been killed just for being (born) at the wrong place the wrong time and i don't find this fair. I totally agree thad Saddam needs to go away, as i happen to know how a dictatorships affect the whole existence of society. After all, Greece got rid of the -american made- junda just in 1973. People of Iraq have the power to do it. Anyway, you shouldn't always believe what the press tells you, i think it's pretty clear that this is not a war for democrasy or freedom. Many regimes depress the lifes of millions around the globe, but nobody seems to care. How can you agree with the killing of innosent people so far away from where you live ? Do you really believe that Iraq can/could/would ever attack the U.S. ? When Saddam attacked Kuwait (a border country) his army was driven back within 100 hours. Today , Iraq's military strength is about a tenth of what it used to be in 1991. Why don't U.N. check Israel (or any other country, for that matter) for the possesion of weapons of mass destruction, chemical/biologocal warfare, nukes etc ? Peace
Wow Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 The fact is that this war is about to begin, and States are squaring off on one side or the other. If you dont like the statement "with us or against us" I can understand. Wars have been started over money before, and france WILL NOT let us remove a dictator that the U.N. has condemned because they have OIL contracts with him. Well, guess what, that makes france a part of the problem, and as a result, they(france) will be kicked out of NATO and the U.N. will be no more. I hate to see the U.S./france relationship go down the toobs. PS: Just for the record, FUCK germany, after what they did 60 years ago.
P_J Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 [quote] PS: Just for the record, FUCK germany, after what they did 60 years ago. [/quote]er.. fuck the US, after what they did Native Americans many many years ago.. :cry:
P_J Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 And of course I don't really mean that. But WWII happend three generations ago.
semitone Posted February 15, 2003 Author Posted February 15, 2003 No no, P_J, why do you say that man? They have liberated so many people, remember Hirosima & Nagasaki? Those where military targets (as the pentagon announced back then...). ;)
jacob.hellnerchello.se Posted February 15, 2003 Posted February 15, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by C.M.: [b] PS: Just for the record, FUCK germany, after what they did 60 years ago.[/b][/quote]Hey C.M. You are so cute when you get upset... Now that you have shown us how intellignt you really are I am sure we will all pay a lot of attention to your little mind the next time you speak up... O.D.
Franknputer Posted February 16, 2003 Posted February 16, 2003 The opinions expressed by CM are not necessarily the opinions of the rest of Americans. :bor: :bor:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.