Bush vows to pursue democracy worldwide

[gilliam]

Bush expounds on theme of freedom

President says, 'I have firmly planted the flag of liberty’

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 1:22 PM EST (1822 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Saying he has “firmly planted the flag of liberty,” President Bush on Wednesday expounded upon themes put forth in last week’s inaugural address, promising to pursue democracy in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush/index.html

 

[jlw]

I am very encouraged by the idea of representative democracies taking hold, especially in the middle east.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t voice my hope that Iraq be that last military operation for a while. If it becomes necessary to defend ourselves against a terrorist attack, it’s a no-brainer, and pre-emptive action might be necessary.

But I hope that our energies can be sustained in Iraq to ensure that Iraq be a model to the Middle East, that a free society cannot be ignored or written off and that the prosperity can INSPIRE other revolutions without direct US military involvement.

My energy and resolve for this present situation in Iraq isn’t waning. I am confident and envision a victorious outcome. I just want some stability before we do anything else.

 

[Matt25]

jlw:

I am very encouraged by the idea of representative democracies taking hold, especially in the middle east.

But I hope that our energies can be sustained in Iraq to ensure that Iraq be a model to the Middle East,

news.ft.com/cms/s/0e12418a-6f01-11d9-94a8-00000e2511c8.html

Report ‘fails to grasp Saddam’s torture legacy’

By Steve Negus in Baghdad
Published: January 25 2005 18:58 | Last updated: January 25 2005 18:58
http://news.ft.com/c.gif> Iraqi human rights minister Bakhtiar Amin said on Tuesday that his government was trying to eliminate the “terrible legacy” of police brutality and torture, but is hampered both by a violent society and the urgent need to get a police force on the ground to fight a growing insurgency.

Mr Amin spoke after the New York-based Human Rights Watch issued a report claiming that torture had become routine in prisons and police stations of the interim government.

It said Iraqi security forces commonly resorted to methods such as electrocution through sensitive parts of the body, suspension from the wrists by manacles, and beatings, both to extract confessions and to punish suspected criminals and insurgents.

“The Iraqi interim government is not keeping its promises to honour and respect basic human rights,” the report said.

Although not denying that abuse was widespread, Mr Amin said that the government did not deliberately have a policy of torturing detainees, and that the report’s authors had ignored his ministry’s efforts to eliminate the practice.

Torture of detainees, he said, was an “institutional crisis” resulting from “decades of torture, wars, and repression”.

It has been made worse by the insurgency, which forces the government to push police through training and out on to a street where they quickly become targets of car bombs and insurgent attacks.

Compared to police forces in developed countries, where officers receive two years’ training, Iraqi police are out on the streets after only eight weeks of training, which has recently been cut to six.

“The human rights portion of the training was taken out and replaced by tactical warfare; that is the nature of the threat: they are prime targets of terrorist crime groups,” Mr Amin said.

Since the transfer of sovereignty in June, he says, his ministry has started to build up inspections of detention facilities - starting with US- and British-run centres at Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca, then moving on to Iraqi-run prisons. His ministry has also requested that law enforcement and prison personnel be trained abroad in human rights’ consciousness as well as investigation methodology.

At present, judicial officials say, poorly trained officers rely heavily on forced confessions to solve crimes. Mr Amin rejected comparisons made in the Arabic-language media since the report came out between the current government’s rights record and that of its predecessor.

“I was sad to hear that they see no difference between this government and Saddam’s government,” he said. “It is an insult to those who worked to address the negativities that we inherited.”

Torture is “easy to condemn”, he said, but “it is more difficult to confront the roots”.

 

[jlw]

horsepuck.

No difference between a government systematically bringing in political dissedents and raping them?? Killing their children? Poking out eyes, cutting off limbs?? AND…

torturing terrorists in a war zone in order to save lives??

If you think they are the same, then you re hopeless. I won’t respond to you.

But if you see the difference, yet still decry poor treatment of terrorists, you are on a little better ground.

And if you see the difference, decry torture, and also see that that article is a propaganda peice more than anything else…well, you are smarter than most liberals.

 

[gilliam]

news.ft.com/cms/s/0e12418a-6f01-11d9-94a8-00000e2511c8.html.

more doom and gloom from the Financial Times

 

[StJeanneDArc]

news.ft.com/cms/s/0e12418a-6f01-11d9-94a8-00000e2511c8.html

Report ‘fails to grasp Saddam’s torture legacy’

By Steve Negus in Baghdad
Published: January 25 2005 18:58 | Last updated: January 25 2005 18:58
http://news.ft.com/c.gif> Iraqi human rights minister Bakhtiar Amin said on Tuesday that his government was trying to eliminate the “terrible legacy” of police brutality and torture, but is hampered both by a violent society and the urgent need to get a police force on the ground to fight a growing insurgency.

Mr Amin spoke after the New York-based Human Rights Watch issued a report claiming that torture had become routine in prisons and police stations of the interim government.

It said Iraqi security forces commonly resorted to methods such as electrocution through sensitive parts of the body, suspension from the wrists by manacles, and beatings, both to extract confessions and to punish suspected criminals and insurgents.

“The Iraqi interim government is not keeping its promises to honour and respect basic human rights,” the report said.

Although not denying that abuse was widespread, Mr Amin said that the government did not deliberately have a policy of torturing detainees, and that the report’s authors had ignored his ministry’s efforts to eliminate the practice.

Torture of detainees, he said, was an “institutional crisis” resulting from “decades of torture, wars, and repression”.

It has been made worse by the insurgency, which forces the government to push police through training and out on to a street where they quickly become targets of car bombs and insurgent attacks.

Compared to police forces in developed countries, where officers receive two years’ training, Iraqi police are out on the streets after only eight weeks of training, which has recently been cut to six.

“The human rights portion of the training was taken out and replaced by tactical warfare; that is the nature of the threat: they are prime targets of terrorist crime groups,” Mr Amin said.

Since the transfer of sovereignty in June, he says, his ministry has started to build up inspections of detention facilities - starting with US- and British-run centres at Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca, then moving on to Iraqi-run prisons. His ministry has also requested that law enforcement and prison personnel be trained abroad in human rights’ consciousness as well as investigation methodology.

At present, judicial officials say, poorly trained officers rely heavily on forced confessions to solve crimes. Mr Amin rejected comparisons made in the Arabic-language media since the report came out between the current government’s rights record and that of its predecessor.

“I was sad to hear that they see no difference between this government and Saddam’s government,” he said. “It is an insult to those who worked to address the negativities that we inherited.”

Torture is “easy to condemn”, he said, but “it is more difficult to confront the roots”.

Thanks for posting this Matt. It demonstrates that it’s a good thing that the U.S. intervened in Iraq so that this cycle of violence could be broken. If not for the Iraqi invasion the human shredders, rape rooms, tongue amputators, etc. would all still be up and running at full capacity. Now, with U.S. help, the Iraqis can be trained and indoctrinated with the human rights standards of a free society.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

jlw:

horsepuck.

No difference between a government systematically bringing in political dissedents and raping them?? Killing their children? Poking out eyes, cutting off limbs?? AND…

torturing terrorists in a war zone in order to save lives??

If you think they are the same, then you re hopeless. I won’t respond to you.

But if you see the difference, yet still decry poor treatment of terrorists, you are on a little better ground.

And if you see the difference, decry torture, and also see that that article is a propaganda peice more than anything else…well, you are smarter than most liberals.

Don’t you know that terrorists are victims?The UK knows that they are only terrorists because America made them do it Horsepuck I like that,the term is quite funny God Bless

 

[Matt25]

StJeanneDArc:

Thanks for posting this Matt. It demonstrates that it’s a good thing that the U.S. intervened in Iraq so that this cycle of violence could be broken. If not for the Iraqi invasion the human shredders, rape rooms, tongue amputators, etc. would all still be up and running at full capacity. Now, with U.S. help, the Iraqis can be trained and indoctrinated with the human rights standards of a free society.

If the US intervened in Iraq because of its concern about breaking the cycle of violence why did it not first go to the Congo where 4 million (4 000 000) people have died in the past 6 years and where deaths continue at the rate of 30 000 a month?

 

[Fitz]

Matt25:

If the US intervened in Iraq because of its concern about breaking the cycle of violence why did it not first go to the Congo where 4 million (4 000 000) people have died in the past 6 years and where deaths continue at the rate of 30 000 a month?

Wasn’t the UN in charge there?

 

[Matt25]

Fitz:

Wasn’t the UN in charge there?

no

 

[jlw]

Matt25:

If the US intervened in Iraq because of its concern about breaking the cycle of violence why did it not first go to the Congo where 4 million (4 000 000) people have died in the past 6 years and where deaths continue at the rate of 30 000 a month?

Did Congo sign a peace treaty with the UN and was under pressure to disarm and ACCOUNT for any and all WMD it had?? Did it’s leader(s) try to assasinate a former POTUS?? Did they give any aid adn confort to terrorists connected to Al Queda at all?? Did the leaders of Congo declare a jihad against America?? How did the Congolese governemnt respond on 9/11/01???

 

[Matt25]

jlw:

Did Congo sign a peace treaty with the UN and was under pressure to disarm and ACCOUNT for any and all WMD it had?? Did it’s leader(s) try to assasinate a former POTUS?? Did they give any aid adn confort to terrorists connected to Al Queda at all?? Did the leaders of Congo declare a jihad against America?? How did the Congolese governemnt respond on 9/11/01???

Iraq did account for it WMD, it sent 30 000 pages of documentation to the Un

Iraq had no connection to the September 2001 attacks on the USA

The Iraqi Government did not declare a jihad against the USA.

jlw:

it’s a good thing that the U.S. intervened in Iraq so that this cycle of violence could be broken. If not for the Iraqi invasion the human shredders, rape rooms, tongue amputators, etc. would all still be up and running at full capacity.

If America intervened because of UN resolutions then it did not invade because of humanitarian considerations. If it invaded for humanitarian reasons then why Iraq and not the Congo where 4 million people have died in 6 years?

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Matt25:

If the US intervened in Iraq because of its concern about breaking the cycle of violence why did it not first go to the Congo where 4 million (4 000 000) people have died in the past 6 years and where deaths continue at the rate of 30 000 a month?

I didn’t claim that ending tyrrany was the only reason to invade Iraq. Are you suggesting that the US should invade Congo? Oh, wait…no, Sudan is next in line. It seems to me I remember some criticisms that the US wasn’t doing enough in Sudan.

I guess any stick will do to beat up America.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Matt25:

Iraq did account for it WMD, it sent 30 000 pages of documentation to the Un

Iraq had no connection to the September 2001 attacks on the USA

The Iraqi Government did not declare a jihad against the USA.

If America intervened because of UN resolutions then it did not invade because of humanitarian considerations. If it invaded for humanitarian reasons then why Iraq and not the Congo where 4 million people have died in 6 years?

According to your logic, if America can’t do everything, than she should do nothing.

 

[geezerbob]

StJeanneDArc:

I didn’t claim that ending tyrrany was the only reason to invade Iraq. Are you suggesting that the US should invade Congo? Oh, wait…no, Sudan is next in line. It seems to me I remember some criticisms that the US wasn’t doing enough in Sudan.

I guess any stick will do to beat up America.

Some posters seldom, if ever, have anything positive to say. If you do good, why didn’t you do more? And on and on and on ad nauseum. Hijack threads with faulty logic and criticize everything the US does. The posts are just oozing Christian charity.

 

[jlw]

Iraq did account for it WMD, it sent 30 000 pages of documentation to the Un

And there were still things missing. The UN said as such. Why did they give weapons inspectors the run-around?? No reason?

Iraq had no connection to the September 2001 attacks on the USA

We know this, but Iraq if not to be trusted prior to 9/11, was not to be trusted in a post 9/11 world. Did you trust Saddam Hussien in a post 9/11 world?? The world’s terrorists can flourish if they, and those that aid or abet them, go unchallenged.

The Iraqi Government did not declare a jihad against the USA

Ummm. Actually, I think Saddam said quite a few similarly wacky statements.

I didn’t write this, StJeanneDArc did, but I agree.
Originally Posted by jlw
it’s a good thing that the U.S. intervened in Iraq so that this cycle of violence could be broken. If not for the Iraqi invasion the human shredders, rape rooms, tongue amputators, etc. would all still be up and running at full capacity.

If America intervened because of UN resolutions then it did not invade because of humanitarian considerations. If it invaded for humanitarian reasons then why Iraq and not the Congo where 4 million people have died in 6 years?

While I am disgusted by the senseless violence in the Congo–the UN did what about this??–we invaded Iraq for national security reasons.

TWO national security directives: Rid the world of Saddam Hussein, 1) because he posed a threat to the US and the world, but also 2) to rid the world of his government, TYRANNY, which is the CHEIF reason citizens under totalitarian regimes are poor and pissed off, and that it leads to terrorism against the scapegoated west!!

 

[Matt25]

StJeanneDArc:

According to your logic, if America can’t do everything, than she should do nothing.

What I am suggesting is that Iraq was invaded for geopolitical reasons. The Congo is not invaded because there are no strategic gains in doing so. When politicians say things about their motives it is not always wise to take their words at face value.

People who think that criticism of the invasion of Iraq is anti-American obviously forget that other countries were involved. Dozens of British soldiers have been killed in the conflict to ignore their deaths indicates just how highly America values it allies. What will fuel anti-Americanism is the relentless self-obsession of some Americans who see only their own suffering and ignore that of everyone else.

 

[jlw]

Matt25:

What I am suggesting is that Iraq was invaded for geopolitical reasons. The Congo is not invaded because there are no strategic gains in doing so. When politicians say things about their motives it is not always wise to take their words at face value.

People who think that criticism of the invasion of Iraq is anti-American obviously forget that other countries were involved. Dozens of British soldiers have been killed in the conflict to ignore their deaths indicates just how highly America values it allies. What will fuel anti-Americanism is the relentless self-obsession of some Americans who see only their own suffering and ignore that of everyone else.

Whoa. You went off on a tanget, there, chap. We value the sacrifice of you Brits!! And all the nearly 40 countries who either put boots on the ground or aided in some way!!!

How did you get the idea that we didn’t???

So you agree that there WERE geopolitical reasons, not imperialist bloodforoil nuttiness??? Hey, oil is a part of it. The worlds oil supply in the hands of a madman is not good for national security. And, yes, it will down the road be profitable for Iraqis (WHO NEVER SAW THE PROFITS before) and for the US oil companies. BUT, don’t be one of those liberals who stop there and turn your back on my last post!!

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Matt25:

What I am suggesting is that Iraq was invaded for geopolitical reasons. The Congo is not invaded because there are no strategic gains in doing so. When politicians say things about their motives it is not always wise to take their words at face value.

People who think that criticism of the invasion of Iraq is anti-American obviously forget that other countries were involved. Dozens of British soldiers have been killed in the conflict to ignore their deaths indicates just how highly America values it allies. What will fuel anti-Americanism is the relentless self-obsession of some Americans who see only their own suffering and ignore that of everyone else.

OK, so an action is right only if the motives are correct? Or do you mean to say the US should only invade those tyrannies where there is no strategic interest?

Someone else already posted this, but why would you think that I’m ignoring the deaths of British soldiers? I think you (not Great Britain) are anti-American because you’re not offering cogent arguments against American policy, just more of the same tired old complaints because things aren’t going perfectly. I know there are some cogent arguments, because I have them.