I'm starting this thread to discuss and collate a "sue list" for Iraq for all the countries and entities that harmed Iraq and the people of Iraq over the last few decades.

Iraq is a country that is being beaten and forced to pay reparations for the crimes of a Dictator who was not appointed by Iraqis but actually supported by the countries who are forcing Iraq today to pay for their ally's actions (Kuwait, Saudi and USA).

The Internet is chock a block full of self righteous Americans, kuwaitis and Iranians bad mouthing Iraq, with no reply.

It is time for the voice of Iraq to be heard. And this thread is to quantify the damages and discuss the methods by which Iraqis can get justice and compensation in future.

The enemies of Iraq are not welcome here since they already have the entire Internet full of their anti Iraq diatribe.

great thread Sheytan .. will keep posting stuff here for sure..

The title made me laugh.

This is a great initiative, just like the manifesto, but we can write and research and throw around ideas all we like, how will it amount to anything? We have no channel through which to push these things. We can only hope that someone out there of influence gets wind of these views

Iwill start off with

USA

1991 - killing 3500 Iraqi civilians during the 1991 gulf war and injuring 10s of thousands more innocent civilians.

1991 - bombing iraqs water treatment plants which destroyed civilian infrastructure of 20 million people and was certainly out of bounds for a war to liberate Kuwait.

1991-2003 - deaths and illnesses from waterborne diseases caused by the USs destruction of iraqs water treatment plants in 1991.

1991 - destruction of private property during the gulf war.

1991 - destruction of public roads and bridges during the 1991 gulf war, which affected only the civilian population since the military has its own network of pontoon bridges which the US knew very clearly, but still destroyed iraqs civilian bridge network.

1991 - destruction of civilian factories, loss of the plant and future income derived from their operation.

1991 - destruction of iraqs power generating plants, even though the Iraqi military had it's own separate power generators. Economic and health and well being damages caused by this, in addition to the value of the plant damages.

1991 - destruction of Iraqi railways and facilities, plant and future income derived from it.

1991 - destruction of Iraqi shipping and ports. Damage, cost of recovery and loss of future income.

1991 - destruction of Iraqi civilian airports and airliners.

1991-2003 embargoing civilian items for iraqs schools and educational establishments and creating a huge social and educational crisis in Iraq.

1991-2003 embargoing medicines from entry to Iraq causing deaths and permanent health damages.

1991-2003 embargoing parts to repair the water and electricity network from being repaired (the one that the US destroyed in the first place)

1991-2003 deaths and destruction caused by the US enforcement of the so-called no-fly-zones, which do not give the US the authority to bomb the country at will!

2003 - invading Iraq on false premises and the deaths of Iraqi civilian and military personnel.

2003 - material damage of the invasion on iraqs civilian and military infrastructure

2003 - failure to protect Iraqi infrastructure and properties from looters and criminals after occupying Iraq and becoming legally liable and responsible for securing the country.

2003-2010 killing and wounding of Iraqi citizens in their own country

2003-2004 looting of the Iraqi oil money from the development fund for Iraq.

2003-2010 imprisonment and torture of innocent Iraqi citizens.

2003-2010 destruction of the Iraqi road network and other infrastructure by the us militarys vandalism.

2003-2008 mismanagement of the Iraqi government ministries when the us advisors were in charge causing massive economic, social, health and other damage.

2003-2008 mismanagement of iraqi state industries causing massive damage and loss of income.

2003-2008 mismanagement of Iraqs farming sector for the benefit us farming exporters, including the lifting of tariffs etc...


Phew... I am tired, i will continue later.

Come on now... what about Iraqs crimes? If I was to list them, I could go on for days...

Blaming everything on saddam is just ignorant, becuase Iraqis filled his army and Iraqis carried his dirty work out and without the big population that was loyal to him, he would have not survived, I know some people may have been scared, but that does not justify their actions, trust me... I can post videos of what the Iraqi soldiers were doing, and I'm sure no one forced them to do that.

Come on now... what about Iraqs crimes? If I was to list them, I could go on for days...

Blaming everything on saddam is just ignorant, becuase Iraqis filled his army and Iraqis carried his dirty work out and without the big population that was loyal to him, he would have not survived, I know some people may have been scared, but that does not justify their actions, trust me... I can post videos of what the Iraqi soldiers were doing, and I'm sure no one forced them to do that.


Big population, ehrm, no sorry. Some people may have been scared??!! Are you serious??? Some people? well i gues over 80% of the population (may) have been scared

''His'' army was filled with Iraqis because they had to!! He forced them, otherwise...... Some could luckily escape to Syria and other countries but the others.....

And if you could go on for days, list them, list what saddam's forces did...

Big population, ehrm, no sorry. Some people may have been scared??!! Are you serious??? Some people? well i gues over 80% of the population (may) have been scared

''His'' army was filled with Iraqis because they had to!! He forced them, otherwise...... Some could luckily escape to Syria and other countries but the others.....

And if you could go on for days, list them, list what saddam's forces did...

Saddams and his regimes crimes are well recorded, and if you want to find out just run a Google search.

There is just so much fear will make you do, and the population of Iraq would not be scared of one man... or even a thousand men... there had to be a significant amount of people that were loyal to him and his ideologies and that in effect helped him survive, I mean in 1991 the US destroyed and removed his regime, yet he managed to regain power as soon as they left, why? becuase people genuinely supported him and fear could not be used as an excuse.

It is very ignorant to blame saddam for everything, where clearly the people carried out the work of a mad man.

It is time for the voice of Iraq to be heard. And this thread is to quantify the damages and discuss the methods by which Iraqis can get justice and compensation in future.

The enemies of Iraq are not welcome here since they already have the entire Internet full of their anti Iraq diatribe.

Kurd123

The above clearly show the topic of this thread. You are welcome to start another thread called iraqs crimes and make a list there, or even talk about saddam and the like.

But the topic of this thread is iraqs sue list. Not Iran or Kuwait or Mozambique. As you yourself wrote, saddams crimes are well recorded and known, but the crimes of other Countries against the people of Iraq are not so well collated and quantified, and that is the reason this thread exists.

As you may well know, iraq is already paying massive compensation to kuwaitis, americans, Egyptians, Europeans etc... As well as had several billion dollars worth of aircraft taken as compensation by Iran. So the topic of Iraq compensating others has been well treaded already. This is about compensating the people of Iraq for what other countries did to them.

I am rather disconcerted that on a topic discussing a completely forgotten subject of the countries that trampled on the people of Iraq, the only thing you want to discuss is How bad Iraqis are (in your opinion). You really have a lot of hate for Iraq in you.

Ps. Are you suspecting anyone here of being mriraq in disguise?

Next on the list.

kuwait:

1- damages from financially and logistically propping up saddams regime during the 1980s which lengthened the Iran-Iraq war and enabled saddam to carry out his crimes in the late 80s and early 90s against the people of Iraq.

2- Damage from the slant drilling, both the monetary cost of the theft of Iraqi Oil as well as guilt of de-facto declaration economic war against Iraq in the late 1980s which led to Iraq's reprisal against kuwait in 1990.

3- damages from the blood libel of false allegations againt Iraqis with regards to crimes during the occupation of kuwait (namely the baby incubator lies)

4- the deaths of Iraqi civilians during the 1990-2003 embargo years due to the kuwaiti sponsored onerous embargo.

5- the economic losses Iraq had due to the onerous siege of the people of Iraq during the 1990-2003 period, which was sponsored and supported by kuwait as "revenge" against the people of Iraq for the crimes committed against them by their paid gun for hire saddam.

6- damages for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was Carried out from kuwaiti soil, including damages for the deaths and destruction of all civilian and military persons, and the destruction of all civilian and military equipment, and the accumulated lost incomes over 10 years arising from that destruction, including the subsequent collapse of law and order due to the invasion as well as the subsequent rise of terrorism which was certainly not prevalent before 2003.

7- damages for the kuwaiti terrorists who as members of al Qaeda committe attrocities in Iraq.

^^ who do you suspect ? everyone posted here is checked

^^ who do you suspect ? everyone posted here is checked

I only asked because kurd123 stated he'd only post when he suspects mriraq is coming back to the forum...

^^ oh :lol:

well sorry to disappoint him, be he hasn't posted here

how many threads of this type do you need to demonstrate your ugliest traits?

how many threads of this type do you need to demonstrate your ugliest traits?

Get out.

The title made me laugh.

This is a great initiative, just like the manifesto, but we can write and research and throw around ideas all we like, how will it amount to anything? We have no channel through which to push these things. We can only hope that someone out there of influence gets wind of these views

Actually I think the Iraqi government minions read this forum.

Tis topic is very important for Iraq, for law fare should be the cornerstone with which Iraqis can get justice for the last 3 decades of misery, death and destruction. And in the same way that kuwaitis and others bled Iraq for every last cent, it is time for us to reciprocate, since our suffering is hundreds of orders of magnitude larger than anything that Iraq committed against anyone.

I am rather disconcerted that on a topic discussing a completely forgotten subject of the countries that trampled on the people of Iraq, the only thing you want to discuss is How bad Iraqis are (in your opinion). You really have a lot of hate for Iraq in you.

No I do not hate Iraq, but I do think it's unfair to blame everything in the regime, I also think it's unfair that you should list what Kuwait or Iran did to Iraq, while you fail to mention what Iraq did to them.

I haven't said that Iraqis are bad, and that would be quite an ignorant statement to make since I don't know every Iraqi in the world, and I think your getting a little bit too emotional.

I don't hate Iraq either...

Finally, I'm really concerned with the fact that some of the members on here post videos of the Iraqi army and talk about 'former cities' and indirectly (some cases directly) talk about revenge... I mean have they not learned anything? if that is the case, I'm afraid I can't see a bright future for Iraq.

Ps. Are you suspecting anyone here of being mriraq in disguise?

Is that supposed to be an insult? or a "smart" way of telling me to leave? help me out :lol:

Kurd123 read my above comments. Kuwait and Iran and others got compensated for the Iraqi crimes, and those have been discussed ad nauseaum all over the world. This thread is different as it deals with the crimes of other countries against Iraq. How difficult is that to understand? Nobody here said that the Iraqi regime has not committed crimes in the past against neighbours. In the contrary since Iraqs population is liable for the crimes of the past regime, then other countries populations are also liable for the crimes their governments committed against the people of Iraq. See the logic?

As for pictures of the army etc... Iraq will never use the army to settle disputes in future which is the exact reason we need the sue list in the first place so we deal with the nations that harmed Iraq through the courts.

I of course do not mean to insult, but I was just curious to know if you changed your stance about participating in the forum.

Kurd123 read my above comments. Kuwait and Iran and others got compensated for the Iraqi crimes, and those have been discussed ad nauseaum all over the world. This thread is different as it deals with the crimes of other countries against Iraq. How difficult is that to understand? Nobody here said that the Iraqi regime has not committed crimes in the past against neighbours. In the contrary since Iraqs population is liable for the crimes of the past regime, then other countries populations are also liable for the crimes their governments committed against the people of Iraq. See the logic?

Yes off course they are also liable, which is why I said it's unfair to state their crimes and not your own.

As for pictures of the army etc... Iraq will never use the army to settle disputes in future which is the exact reason we need the sue list in the first place so we deal with the nations that harmed Iraq through the courts.

Well, the mentality some users here show is different to the one your trieng to get across.

I of course do not mean to insult, but I was just curious to know if you changed your stance about participating in the forum.

Because I disagree with this post.

Yes off course they are also liable, which is why I said it's unfair to state their crimes and not your own.

Because I disagree with this post.

I am curious do the Iranians, kuwaitis, americans or others listed their crimes against Iraq when making their cases for compensation?

Since Iraq is already paying out 10s of billions in compensation, i think you can give us Iraqis the benefit of reciprocating our list in the same manner.


Do you still disagree?

I am curious do the Iranians, kuwaitis, americans or others listed their crimes against Iraq when making their cases for compensation?

Since Iraq is already paying out 10s of billions in compensation, i think you can give us Iraqis the benefit of reciprocating our list in the same manner.


Do you still disagree?

I don't disagree with you stating things that have been done to Iraq, all I'm saying is don't use excuses like 'we can't be blamed for saddams actions' and also if you for example list something that Iran did to you, it would only be fair to list what was done in return.

I don't disagree with you stating things that have been done to Iraq, all I'm saying is don't use excuses like 'we can't be blamed for saddams actions' and also if you for example list something that Iran did to you, it would only be fair to list what was done in return.

I am continuing to repeat myself, please read my messages in total.

Iran does not list it's crimes against Iraq when making claims against Iraq. Why should Iraq do so?

Iraq hs already been made liable for the crimes of th saddam regime and is paying out billions.

Are the other countries being "fair" when listing iraqs crimes? It's a rather curious logic you're trying to impose here. When someone goes to court with a case they write their own case against the defendant only! Why is Iraq any different? It's incredolous! If you ever discussed iraqs crimes with anyone else, have you also attempted to impose the same logic on them?

I am continuing to repeat myself, please read my messages in total.

Iran does not list it's crimes against Iraq when making claims against Iraq. Why should Iraq do so?

Iraq hs already been made liable for the crimes of th saddam regime and is paying out billions.

Are the other countries being "fair" when listing iraqs crimes? It's a rather curious logic you're trying to impose here. When someone goes to court with a case they write their own case against the defendant only! Why is Iraq any different? It's incredolous! If you ever discussed iraqs crimes with anyone else, have you also attempted to impose the same logic on them?

All I'm saying is:-

1. Don't blame the regime only.
2. In my opinion it's fair to show only one side of the story. Doesn't mean you have to do it, it's just my opinion.

All I'm saying is:-

1. Don't blame the regime only.
2. In my opinion it's fair to show only one side of the story. Doesn't mean you have to do it, it's just my opinion.

Thank you. I would be happy to hear of any contributions to the list you may think of. I guess crimes by turkey and Iran against southern Kurdistan?


Ps. I don't blame you for being shocked about the way tis thread was laid out. One of the aims has been to demonstrate how anti-Iraqi biased the worldwide discussion of the crimes relating to Iraq has been, and you grew up on a logic where Iraq was automatically guilty, and it's enemies were automatically the victims. This thread turns that logic on it's head, thereby demonstrating thoroughly how biased the pane through which any topic relating to Iraqs international relations were discussed has been.

Thank you. I would be happy to hear of any contributions to the list you may think of. I guess crimes by turkey and Iran against southern Kurdistan?


Ps. I don't blame you for being shocked about the way tis thread was laid out. One of the aims has been to demonstrate how anti-Iraqi biased the worldwide discussion of the crimes relating to Iraq has been, and you grew up on a logic where Iraq was automatically guilty, and it's enemies were automatically the victims. Tis thread turns that logic on it's head.


There are many crimes yes... they often shell the borders causing material damage and making farmers flee their homes, and sometimes people die.

16/07/2010 - Zahida Muhammad, 16, was killed by the Kurdish jets in her village on the Turkey-Kurdistan border.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7973/turkishfire325309704.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/turkishfire325309704.jpg/)

June 1, 2010 - A 14-Year Old Girl Killed and 65 Families Fled in Iranian Shelling of Kurdistan

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6319/7webkurdistanmctembedde.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/7webkurdistanmctembedde.jpg/)

They shell the area becuase of the PKK, but some of the places they shell has seen no PKK activity.

Ps: Your missing MKO, although their not a country... the amount of damage they caused must be presented.

I'm sorry but is Iran receiving actual monetary compensations from Iraq? Cause I'm not aware of any!

And no, a bunch of flying scrap metal, the vast majority of which did not even make it into Iran's own obsolescent air force, do not even begin to pay for the reconstruction of the port of Khorramshahr (Iran's busiest port before the war), let alone 8 years of death and destruction rained upon Iran's infrastructure, cities and nation, not to mention hundreds of thousands killed and equal numbers of permanently disabled individuals in our society, some of whom will be bed ridden for the rest of their painful existence while coughing up chunks of their lungs due to Iraq's widespread use of chemical weapons.

It almost makes the idea of compensating Kuwait seem obscene in comparison...

But with that said, I'm not a fan of demanding reparations from Iraq! We are not vengeful Israelis and we're not greedy Arab sheikhs. I don't think we should extract every last bit of revenge from somebody, just because we can. Defending our sacred country was a privilege and a duty and we will do it again anytime necessary. Sometimes you just pay a price for breathing. But at some point we must let bygones be bygones and learn to live together as neighbours and maybe as friends.

However, IMO, any Iraqi who chooses to carry that name upon his chest, must account for and atone for their country's past mistakes and misdeeds. You can't ignore it. You can't sweep it under the rug. You can't scapegoat it on one individual. You can't just take the good parts and leave out the bad. You must take ownership of it all. Only then there can be hope of not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Your terrorist organisation of a government has been exacting plenty of revenge over the last eight years. Frankly, the only thing we owe you is a slap in the face.

.... ANTI IRAQ DIATRIBE....
However, IMO, any Iraqi who chooses to carry that name upon his chest, must account for and atone for their country's past mistakes and misdeeds. You can't ignore it. You can't sweep it under the rug. You can't scapegoat it on one individual. You can't just take the good parts and leave out the bad. You must take ownership of it all. Only then there can be hope of not repeating the mistakes of the past.

right. which is why you did not list any of the crimes of Iran against Iraq in your diatribe here. there's already 1000 places where Iranians bitch about Iraq. This thread is about doing the exact opposite so stay within the TOPIC of the thread.

Two points:

1) Didn't the international community forgive Iraq of something like $80 billion in debt obligations?

2) Every dictator must receive some support from at least part of the population.

Two points:

1) Didn't the international community forgive Iraq of something like $80 billion in debt obligations?

2) Every dictator must receive some support from at least part of the population.

1- Debt was not forgiven, just the interest accrued during the embargo period! (and this is off topic, as the discussion was not Iraqi debt obligations, but Iraqi compensation claims).

2- This is off topic. The topic of this thread is very clearly stated already. You are welcome to start a thread with the above topic and discuss it there.


Do you have any on-topic contribution to make?

Get out.

lol

hold on a sec
can you guys explain to me how Iran got compensated? I remember Iraq paying Kuwait but I don't remember us getting any money.

Your terrorist organisation of a government has been exacting plenty of revenge over the last eight years. Frankly, the only thing we owe you is a slap in the face.

yet another bitter Iraqi that can't handle the reality of his/her country. Your own men are killing each other and blowing themselves up in the streets. Maliki and a bunch of other politicians might be getting cash from Iran, but the Iraqi men who kill each other day and night are Iraqis are they not? The filthy Iranian regime is at least investing in Iraq by building power plants, roads etc... You guys do nothing but fight each other and blame others. The Kurds hate everyone, the sunnis hate Iran and the shias hate KSA. The problem is in your own country. If Iraqi men are willing to enslave themselves to Iran, KSA or the US and not Iraq than it's frankly your own problem.

I swear, you Iraqis are unbelivable. You know the soccer game between Iran and Iraq last week in Erbil that Iran won? On your forums people were saying that the Iraqi team was ordered to lose by the Iranian federation. Next thing you know sunni Iraqis will be blaming Iran for sand storms.

The Iranian influence on Iraqi football... (http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102895)

There are many crimes yes... they often shell the borders causing material damage and making farmers flee their homes, and sometimes people die.

16/07/2010 - Zahida Muhammad, 16, was killed by the Kurdish jets in her village on the Turkey-Kurdistan border.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7973/turkishfire325309704.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/turkishfire325309704.jpg/)

June 1, 2010 - A 14-Year Old Girl Killed and 65 Families Fled in Iranian Shelling of Kurdistan

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/6319/7webkurdistanmctembedde.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/7webkurdistanmctembedde.jpg/)

They shell the area becuase of the PKK, but some of the places they shell has seen no PKK activity.
how come you didn't post the pics of Iranian and Turkish girls that PKK murdures every year? You think Iran and Turkey waste valuable amunition for the lols?? You guys can't control your terrorist organizations, somebody has to do it.

this thread is a candidate for locking.

Although I understand and sympathize with the good intentions of this thread (as a way to voice the many deep grievances that Iraqis have), I do feel that this thread would end up being a troll fest.

We also do have threads that are similar to this one.

how come you didn't post the pics of Iranian and Turkish girls that PKK murdures every year? You think Iran and Turkey waste valuable amunition for the lols?? You guys can't control your terrorist organizations, somebody has to do it.

It's spelled like this

-Murders
-Ammunition

You are free to post anything you want on another thread, and trust me if you continue this path of who murders who, you will lose... believe me....

And it's a known fact that Iranian government = terrorist supporters.

yet another bitter Iraqi that can't handle the reality of his/her country. Your own men are killing each other and blowing themselves up in the streets. Maliki and a bunch of other politicians might be getting cash from Iran, but the Iraqi men who kill each other day and night are Iraqis are they not? The filthy Iranian regime is at least investing in Iraq by building power plants, roads etc... You guys do nothing but fight each other and blame others. The Kurds hate everyone, the sunnis hate Iran and the shias hate KSA. The problem is in your own country. If Iraqi men are willing to enslave themselves to Iran, KSA or the US and not Iraq than it's frankly your own problem.

Wow. I didn't know you were my representative! we don't hate everyone, we may have problems politically but I surely don't hate someone for being Arab...

It's spelled like this

-Murders
-Ammunition

You are free to post anything you want on another thread, and trust me if you continue this path of who murders who, you will lose... believe me....

And it's a known fact that Iranian government = terrorist supporters.

Oh the Iranian govt is a sponsor of terror but these western countries are not? where is your honour? The chemical weapons alone killed tens of thousands of you kurds and guess who gave them to saddam? The americans were in bed with saddam for decades while he was killing your people.

The Americans sponsor the MEK. I'm sure you've heard of them. They killed Iranians and Kurds alike. Their leader famously said "take The Kurds Under Your Tanks, And Save Your Bullets For The Iranians."
Now these guys have offices all over the US. Their top guys are walking in the US as free men and writing autobios.

I used the MEK b/c you're familiar with them. Then there is Jundollah. At least Hezbollah in Lebanon is voted into power by the people of the country. They have seats in the parliament. I don't remember voting for the MEK or Jundollah.

Wow. I didn't know you were my representative! we don't hate everyone, we may have problems politically but I surely don't hate someone for being Arab...

You guys can't stand anybody. Even these Americans that you love so much today will become your enemies. If the regime in Iran goes away and a pro US regime comes to power, do you for even a second think that the Americans will chose you guys over Iran? They will treat you like they did under Saddam.




Anyway, You Iraqis need to start realizing smtg. NOBODY owes you anything. You guys have attacked Iran and Kuwait and used chemical weapons on a WW1 scale. Today it's your own country men and women who are at each other's throats. Look at the Kurdish region of Iraq. Are they killing each other like the rest of Iraq? No! Abdul the sunni suicide bomber who is an al quida member and Ali the curropt shia militia man are Iraqi citizens.
fix your shit and don't blame us. If you wanna start with this blame shit than hundreds of thousands of Iranians who lost family members have smtg to say.

guys you made ​​a mistake by starting thread like this.

Actually as far as I'm aware Iran forgave "part" of its compensation that Iraq had to pay and so far Iraq has not paid even a penny to Iran in compensation for the war that the leader of Iraq started. even your Arab BROTHERS in Kuwait have been using your oil fields in return for compensation of the Iraq-Kuwait war and everyone knows the difference between the Iraq-Iran war and the Iraq-Kuwait war. the Iraq-Iran war was the bloodiest war of the century after the World War II thanks to the Crazy dictator in your country that was fully supported by the West but the Kuwait war was not in no means comparable to the Iraq-Iran war.

Talking about the people who blow themselves up in your country, I must say that let's face the bitter truth. Your country is now a war-torn country with sectarian problems that is fueled by different reasons. You should not expect to see anything better than insecurity in a country that is war-torn and You should blame the USA for that. The USA was among the very first countries who congratulated Khomeini for the 1979 revolution but when the revolution became anti-American they supported your dictator, who was very popular among pan-Arabs backing those days, to attack your neighbor and then ironically they attacked your country and removed him from power and invaded your country. I believe Iran and Iraq must be close to each other because they have lots of things in common and It's very sad that these two countries, who should be the closest allies in the region due to those common interests, fought a very bloody war for 8 years because of the West's interests but please don't blame us for things that are your own faults.

I wonder if any Iraqis blame the USA for what has happened to their country. Do any of you Iraqis on this forum blame the USA for using Depleted Uranium ammunition and unconventional weapons like White Phosphorous in your country? Do any of you Iraqis blame them for these pictures?

***** DO NOT SEE THESE PICTURES IF YOU CAN'T SEE WAR CRIME PICTURES *******************
*************************************************************************************




































































********************
and many other pictures from birth defects to lethal burnings. Do you talk about what the USA has done to your country as you talk about what Iran has done to you? Iran has done nothing to you If you ask me, and the things you say about suicidal bombers are just claims, they haven't been proved, but what do you say about these pictures?

We should make a thread how the U.S. and Western attempts to create problems in the Middle East. because all these problems that our countries has, there are some hostile fingers behind this (MOSHKILL). So what should our countries do about it?

brother and sister, let's forget the past, no matter there are many in Iran and Iraq which belong to the same backbone today is not so easy to find pure Arab blood or Persian blood. we must stick together and go on the clean path without let these negative effects from the outside influence us. we must leave the past and look toward the future, it is typical that the USA will take our stuff and see that we turned on the stupid reasons. people in our countries has always lived with friendly ties with no problems, Turky, Iran, Kurdistan, Iraq, etc. .. I try not to philosophize over any here, but it is certainly time that we see things in more concentrated moment have an indication. because some countries have always tried to colonize our countries, but they can not be shown to colonize our countries, and we were certainly not such as Japan. but today is the colonization of people's thoughts, the view that the West has about the Arabs and the Middle East's population is worse than the negative it is completely racist breath I will call it. Therefore we must not open scenes where others feel they are sitting in the theater and laugh at us so much that their breasts explode.

hi big dreamer.

I wanted to post this to the Iraqi "sue list". can you do it?

A public inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful killings of Iraqi civilians by British troops is a step closer after a landmark European judgment granted them permission to seek redress in the British High Court.

Public interest lawyers, who are representing hundreds of Iraqis, described yesterday's ruling by Europe's highest court, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, as a "historic days for human rights". The Ministry of Defence will now face questions about the deaths of children such as Hanaan Salih Matrood, an 8-year-old girl who died after being shot by a British patrol while she played in an alley near her home in August 2003.

Jim Duffy, a lawyer, said: "The Court's judgment sends a clear message: wherever soldiers or other state agents act, they must do so whilst upholding, not violating, human rights. The violence, religious degradation, sexual abuse and, in many cases, gratuitous killing suffered by our clients must now be confronted."

In a double blow for the Government, the court also ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al Jedda €25,000 (£22,500) in compensation and €40,000 in legal costs, after ruling that his three-year imprisonment violated his human rights. British armed forces detained hundreds of civilians in Iraq without charge.

An MoD spokesperson said: "We are disappointed by these Strasbourg judgments and we will consider them in detail before deciding on our next steps."



also see here the hilarity of the indignant British... (expect the Iraqi sue list thread to generate similar reactions).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012456/Euro-judges-force-UK-pay-thousands-Iraqi-insurgents-killed-caught-battlefield.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


if its not possible to continue with the "sue list" thread on SSC (because Iraqis are untermensch and not deserving of the same rights as others) can I at least put a link to another forum where I restarted the thread so other readers interested can follow developments there?

some more... :D

also read the increasingly desperate comments by Americans who know that they have a "warehouse park" of skeletons compared to Britain's closet... http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/07/uk.iraq.deaths/

London (CNN) -- In a landmark judgment, Europe's highest court ruled Thursday that Britain was an occupying force in southern Iraq but failed to adequately investigate the deaths of Iraqi civilians.
The decision could open doors for other Iraqis seeking redress for alleged abuse.
The European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, found that Britain's human rights obligations -- under the European Convention for Human Rights -- extended to the acts of its soldiers in Iraq since Britain was responsible for the security and well-being of Iraqi civilians at that time.
The British government had argued that the human rights conventions did not apply in these cases because the victims died in Iraq, outside European jurisdiction. But the court rejected that notion and said Britain was obligated to probe the deaths of five of six Iraqis whose families had brought their cases to the European court.
In the sixth case, involving the death of hotel worker Baha Mousa while in custody of British troops, the United Kingdom conducted an inquiry, though a report has not yet been made public. Mousa died at a British military base with 93 injuries identified on his body.
His father, Col. Daoud Mousa, who was asked to identify the body, said his son was covered in blood and bruises. His nose was broken and part of the skin of his face had been torn away.
The court said three of the other victims were shot dead or shot and fatally wounded by British soldiers; one was shot and fatally wounded during an exchange of fire between a British patrol and unknown gunmen and one was beaten by British soldiers and then forced into a river, where he drowned.
Mazim Al-Skeini Hazim said in a witness statement that his brother, Hazim Al-Skeini, was shot dead in Basra in August 2003 by a soldier in command of a British patrol. He said he saw soldiers shoot and kill his brother and another man -- both unarmed -- for no apparent reason. He said gunfire that night was customary in an Iraqi funeral.
The British military said, however, that the men were armed and that the incident fell within the rules of engagement and decided no further investigation was needed.
The British Army Goodwill Payment Committee gave $2,500 to the tribe to which the two victims belonged.
In its decision, the court said that "following the removal from power of the Baath regime and until the accession of the Iraqi Interim Government, the United Kingdom (together with the United States) assumed in Iraq the exercise of some of the public powers normally to be exercised by a sovereign government.
"In particular, the United Kingdom assumed authority and responsibility for the maintenance of security in (southeastern) Iraq," the court said. "In those exceptional circumstances, a jurisdictional link existed between the United Kingdom and individuals killed in the course of security operations carried out by British soldiers during the period May 2003 to June 2004. Since the applicants' relatives were killed in the course of United Kingdom security operations during that period, the United Kingdom was required to carry out an investigation into their deaths."
The lawyers who represented the families of the Iraqis who died said the ramifications for the British military were significant.
"The court's ruling means that a whole host of Iraqi victims, previously prevented from accessing justice, are now finally to seek redress for their abuse," said a statement on the website of Public Interest Lawyers in Birmingham.
"For the first time, they will be able to go to the High Court in London and force Liam Fox, the secretary of state for Defence, to order a public inquiry into the actions of British soldiers in their cases."
It then listed a dozen other events in which Iraqi civilians were killed.
"The court's judgment sends a clear message: wherever soldiers or other state agents act, they must do so whilst upholding, not violating, human rights," said Jim Duffy, one of the victims' lawyers. "The violence, religious degradation, sexual abuse and, in many cases, gratuitous killing suffered by our clients must now be confronted."

here's an interesting opinion piece from the Guardian. Very good and clarifies the points succinctly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jul/07/iraq-european-court-of-human-rights

some nice quotes.
First, the court has made clear that Britain's human rights obligations do not end at its own borders. The UK has been playing a very aggressive role for years in trying to limit the effect of international human rights law, and specifically has argued in case after case that human rights law does not apply to the acts of its forces overseas, even in situations - as in Iraq - where it was the occupier and in control of security. It suggested that to require British forces to apply human rights principles to Iraqis would be to apply "culturally alien standards".

Even the law lords had been confused. They found the government responsible for the death of one of the victims because he was killed by British soldiers in custody. But they then went on to rule, in effect, that human rights protections in Iraq stopped once you stepped out of the prison gate and that the UK had no obligations to those shot in the street or in their home. The ruling at Strasbourg today, in clearing up confusion and saying British forces were responsible in all the cases, goes a long way toward ending such double standards.

the UN excuse shattered!
the court has rejected the government's attempt to say it was not the UK that was responsible but the UN, and even that the UK was required by a security council resolution to intern people.

thread is reopned as per user request


Please everyone, stick to the topic, and avoid trolling

Next on the list.

Kuwait:

1- damages from financially and logisticslly propping up saddams regime during the 1980s which lengthened the Iran-Iraq war and enabled saddam to carry out his crimes in the late 80s and early 90s against the people of Iraq.

2- damages from the blood libel of false allegations againt Iraqis with regards to crimes during the occupation of Kuwait (namely the baby incubator lies)

3- the deaths of Iraqi civilians during the 1990-2003 embargo years due to the Kuwaiti sponsored onerous embargo.

4- the economic losses Iraq had due to the onerous siege of the people of Iraq during the 1990-2003 period, which was sponsored and supported by kuwait as "revenge" against the people of Iraq for the crimes committed against them by their paid gun for hire saddam.

5- damages for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was Carried out from Kuwaiti soil, including damages for the deaths and destruction of all civilian and military persons, and the destruction of all civilian and military equipment, and the accumulated lost incomes over 10 years arising from that destruction, including the subsequent collapse of law and order due to the invasion as well as the subsequent rise of terrorism which was certainly not prevalent before 2003.

6- damages for the kuwaiti terrorists who as members of al Qaeda committe attrocities in Iraq.
Please forgive my comparisons, examples and refute, if you will. I usually don't involve myself in sensitive topics but I'd like to raise a few points. Before I do that, however, I want to say that I wish the Iraqi people a bright and prosperous future. Everyone knows how much the Iraqi nation has suffered in the past 3-4 decades, and it would only be fair for things to improve in the foreseeable future. :)

I think there are a number of things we should be reasonable about. For example, I think there are countries that shouldn't be compensating Iraq anything, and it's not Kuwait that I'm talking about. I don't know the full details of this subject but at this present moment I cant see any reason why a country like Iran should be compensating Iraq. Iran, despite its bloody history with Saddam's regime, never acted in vengeance or menace toward the Iraqi people. So whatever rift existed between these two nations should stay in the past, as it's evident that strained relationships were only a result of Saddam and his self-destructive nationalist ideologies.

As for the United States, United Kingdom and their Coalition-led allies, the issue of asking reprimands from them is quite controversial, considering the current constitution, system and democratic entity of Iraq is a result of their presence. Having said that, there are many ways to ask for compensation. For example, stories are reaching the surface about some of these nations stealing Iraqi oil. One of the countries being accused is the United States itself. But more study needs to get into that, in order to make sure that it wasn't something the US government actually administered. In which case, it's the people/individuals that should be sought after, not the actual governments, which may have been ignorant of these happenings.

Therefore, in my opinion, it's not as black or white as you might think. Also, with regards to Kuwait, you cant really ask us to pay you anything for supporting Saddam's regime. Everyone knows the circumstances that led (actually, forced) Kuwait into siding with Saddam. Furthermore, asking Kuwait for compensating Iraq's own faults is a paradox. Secondly, you cant ask us for compensating terrorist attacks that were committed by hypothetical Kuwaiti terrorists. These people did not officially represent me or the government of Kuwait in any shape or form, hence we're not responsible for the actions of individuals. It's like me asking a country's government for compensation after one of its citizens stole my wallet. It's unreasonable and your case wont be won or even given a blink of an eye to begin with. Thirdly, the embargoes on Iraq were a result of Iraq invading Kuwait. It could have been a lot worse, mind you. We could have asked for the partitioning of several Iraqi territories, since that is a right of every nation to ask for when it gets attacked and the aggressor's party ends up losing the war.

Having said that, I'll grant you some issues. I'll grant you that Kuwait needs to apologize and maybe even pay something to Iraq for lying about the war crimes Iraqis have allegedly committed during the invasion of Kuwait. Although, we should also take into account that Iraqis shouldn't have been in Kuwait in the first place, and that was much worse than a girl making up some lies about an incubator. Then there's also the issue of slant drilling, which I don't mind the international community looking into, in order to establish whether or not Kuwait has actually stolen some of Iraq's oil. In the meantime, however, I'd say we're innocent until proven guilty.

As for Turkey's incursion into Iraqi Kurdistan back in 2007, which caused some civilian loss of life and injuries, I am in the agreement that the Iraqis need to look further into this. If there were any signs of deliberate misconduct for whatever geopolitical purposes, then it should be taken to international courts.

I am 100% against war, let alone war crimes, so if any of the accusations have strong evidences pointing to these terrible acts then I believe they should be presented to international courts. Sorry for the long post.

If somebody could create an ordered list of countries which killed the largest number of Iraqis and carried out indescribable and inhumane acts of various nature on Iraqis during the last decade, then perhaps one could assess who the most prominent violators of Iraqi rights have been and who should be brought to justice first and foremost.

BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraq’s Parliament Speaker, Usama al-Nujeify, has vowed not to commit himself towards the United States, if the American side won’t guarantee the right of the Iraqi people in compensations for the losses caused by the country’s occupation, a former Iraqi legislature said on Thursday.

The former Independent Legislature, Hussein al-Fallujy, leading a national campaign, demanding Iraq’s compensations for the losses caused by the American side, told Aswat al-Iraq news agency that “Nujeify had vowed in a meeting with him and a number of other Parliament members, that “any commitment won’t be given to the American side, unless it guarantees the right of the Iraqi people, especially the compensations of the Iraqis harmed by the American side.”

He said that the “Chairman of al-Iraqiya Coalition’s list in the Parliament, Salman al-Jumeily and its Legislature, Jaber al-Jabiry, have supported Nujeify’s decision.”

The former Iraqi Legislature, Hussein al-Fallujy, had led a campaign, demanding the American side to pay compensations for the people of Iraq, estimated at billions (b) of dollars, after eight years of U.S. occupation or presence in Iraq.

The former Iraqi Legislature, Hussein al-Fallujy, had led a campaign, demanding the American side to pay compensations for the people of Iraq, estimated at billions (b) of dollars, after eight years of U.S. occupation or presence in Iraq.

Iraq is worth billions of dollars ??? I never knew our country is that cheap !!!
they destroyed the full country with the economy and everything, millions died and almost EVERY Iraqi is effected by the wars and has issues caused by it .. first when they got Saddam into power and until last invasion they are destroying Iraq..

god be with us and save Mesopotamia !

Iran is setting up a modern hospital in central Iraq at the cost of about 30 million dollars to provide medical services to Iraqi people, an Iranian official says.


Hassan Pelark, the Iranian head of the Headquarters for Renovation of Iraq's Holy Shrines, said that the construction of the hospital has been finished in the holy city of Karbala and efforts are underway to install equipments of the medical center by March 20.

Pelark noted that Iranian doctors and specialists will offer medical services to Iraqi patients and pilgrims in the 120-bed hospital.

In January, the Red Crescent Societies of the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to improve services to Iranian and Iraqi pilgrims.

Pelark also went on to say that construction of a tourism complex will be finished in Karbala by September to offer services to pilgrims visiting the holy city.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his visit to Baghdad in March 2008 offered a $1 billion loan to Iraq for projects that would be handled by Iranian firms.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/188986.html

We'll sue you later for this hospital if the Iranian regime gets toppled lol (I'm kidding).

I want to be the voice of reason here, perhaps it's obvious only to me that in all of this we were all losers.

While the lessons learned from the Treaty of Versailles should make this debate over reparations over war crimes obsolete really.

We'll sue you later for this hospital if the Iranian regime gets toppled lol (I'm kidding).

I hope your government does get toppled. It would be in the best interest of both our peoples.

I hope your government does get toppled. It would be in the best interest of both our peoples.

here's something to think about.
There are Iraqi men and women willing to do IRan's bidding for $$$. Without them, Iran wouldn't be able to do anything. The regime in Iran is like the branches of a tree while those Iraqi men and women are the root of the tree (the tree being the problem).

In Iran, people could be lining their pockets with saudi and american money and doing the bidding of those two nations but they don't. Without the regime, somebody else will taking advantage of Iraq if the root cause of the problem isn't targeted.

here's something to think about.
There are Iraqi men and women willing to do IRan's bidding for $$$. Without them, Iran wouldn't be able to do anything. The regime in Iran is like the branches of a tree while those Iraqi men and women are the root of the tree (the tree being the problem).

In Iran, people could be lining their pockets with saudi and american money and doing the bidding of those two nations but they don't. Without the regime, somebody else will taking advantage of Iraq if the root cause of the problem isn't targeted.

yeh, I completely agree.

Even if the current Iranian regime falls, there's no telling what the next one will be like. Persians are resourceful people, and may see fit to exploit the networks that the IRI has spent time establishing to further their own interests. Maybe what you guys will inherit from the mullahs is not all bad - they've done some good stuff for you.

However, I would still rather Iran be a secular democracy. At least then there will be less pressure to use Iraq as a battle ground of foreign powers.

To be honest with you, I think Iraq is screwed come what may, it's just a matter of the extent to which it gets screwed.

EDIT: Sorry, I won't go off-topic again.

EVERYONE PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!

Read through all the posts before making comments.

Kuwait, Iraq Clash Intensifies Over Nuclear Project


In addition to the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait regarding the new Mubarak port in Kuwait, the two countries are also reported to be in conflict about the planned siting of nuclear reactors.
Press TV reports that the head of the Kuwaiti national committee for nuclear power, Ahmad Bisharah, has said that Kuwait is planning to build 4 nuclear reactors near the Iraqi border by 2022.
Kuwait says that it needs to go ahead with this project to generate enough electricity to meet the ever-increasing increasing demand.
The plan has outraged Iraqi politicians. They have urged Kuwait to stop its plan accusing the country officials of being a tool in the hands of the US to weaken Iraq economically and politically.
Meanwhile, members of Basra’s provisional council have also urged Kuwait to stop its project planned to be launched in Warbh [Warbah] Island less than 4 km away from the Iraqi coast south of Basra .
They say that Iraqi government must take a serious stance towards the project.
The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali Al Dabagh, has said that Iraq ‘s foreign ministry will do its best through diplomatic channels to stop Kuwait from going on with the nuclear reactor project.

Kuwait, Iraq Clash Intensifies Over Nuclear Project


In addition to the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait regarding the new Mubarak port in Kuwait, the two countries are also reported to be in conflict about the planned siting of nuclear reactors.
Press TV reports that the head of the Kuwaiti national committee for nuclear power, Ahmad Bisharah, has said that Kuwait is planning to build 4 nuclear reactors near the Iraqi border by 2022.
Kuwait says that it needs to go ahead with this project to generate enough electricity to meet the ever-increasing increasing demand.
The plan has outraged Iraqi politicians. They have urged Kuwait to stop its plan accusing the country officials of being a tool in the hands of the US to weaken Iraq economically and politically.
Meanwhile, members of Basra’s provisional council have also urged Kuwait to stop its project planned to be launched in Warbh [Warbah] Island less than 4 km away from the Iraqi coast south of Basra .
They say that Iraqi government must take a serious stance towards the project.
The Iraqi government spokesman, Ali Al Dabagh, has said that Iraq ‘s foreign ministry will do its best through diplomatic channels to stop Kuwait from going on with the nuclear reactor project.

I don't really see what they can do to stop the Kuwaitis building these nuclear reactors.

Maybe they could try to adversely affect the Kuwaiti town of Abdali which is near the Iraqi border. Build an Iraqi nuclear reactor perhaps (as if the US would allow that...).

I don't really see what they can do to stop the Kuwaitis building these nuclear reactors.

Maybe they could try to adversely affect the Kuwaiti town of Abdali which is near the Iraqi border. Build an Iraqi nuclear reactor perhaps (as if the US would allow that...).

please these items are off-topic here!

oD in £100k payout over Iraq death
22 July 2011

The Ministry of Defence has agreed to pay £100,000 in compensation to the family of an 18-year-old Iraqi man who drowned after being apprehended by British soldiers in May 2003.

Saeed Shabram died after allegedly being forced into the Shatt Al-Arab river near Basra in Southern Iraq.

Saeed's cousin, Menem Akaili, was also said to have been forced into the river but was rescued by bystanders. He will also receive an undisclosed amount of compensation.

The MoD has not admitted liability for the incident and none of the four soldiers said to have been involved were charged in relation to the death.

Solicitors for the family of Saeed say he may have died during a punishment known as "wetting", inflicted on suspected looters.

Sapna Malik, of solicitors Leigh Day & Co, said: "Although the MoD denies that there was a policy of 'wetting' to deal with suspected looters around the time of this incident, evidence we have seen suggests otherwise.

"The tactics employed by the MoD appeared to include throwing or placing suspected looters into either of Basra's two main waterways."

Leigh Day & Co are bringing around 300 claims against the Ministry of Defence alleging inhuman treatment, torture and even executions of Iraqi citizens by British soldiers.

An MoD spokesperson said: "When compensation claims are received by the Ministry of Defence they are considered on the basis of whether or not there is a legal liability to pay compensation. In this case we came to an amicable settlement and our sympathies remain with Mr Shabram's family."

Earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that British troops must observe the European Convention on Human Rights in overseas areas where they had security control.

this is the law firm representing over 300 victims of the UK troop presence in southern Iraq.

http://www.leighday.co.uk/

--

yousifovic. that is off topic here! please stay on topic we need to keep this thread serious and empty of flaming and trolling.

yousifovic. that is off topic here! please stay on topic we need to keep this thread serious and empty of flaming and trolling.

okk ill remove it now

Judge allows American to sue Rumsfeld over torture
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press – 55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge is allowing an Army veteran who says he was imprisoned unjustly and tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq to sue former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld personally for damages.
The veteran's identity is withheld in court filings, but he worked for an American contracting company as a translator for the Marines in the volatile Anbar province before being detained for nine months at Camp Cropper, a U.S. military facility near the Baghdad airport dedicated to holding "high-value" detainees.
The government says he was suspected of helping get classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces enter Iraq. But he was never charged with a crime and says he never broke the law.
Lawyers for the man, who is in his 50s, say he was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the U.S. military and held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive.
Court papers filed on his behalf say he was repeatedly abused, then suddenly released without explanation in August 2006. Two years later, he filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington arguing that Rumsfeld personally approved torturous interrogation techniques on a case-by-case basis and controlled his detention without access to courts in violation of his constitutional rights.
Chicago attorney Mike Kanovitz, who is representing the plaintiff, says it appears the military wanted to keep his client behind bars so he couldn't tell anyone about an important contact he made with a leading sheik while helping collect intelligence in Iraq.
"The U.S. government wasn't ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice," Kanovitz said in a telephone interview. "If you've got unchecked power over the citizens, why not use it?"
The Obama administration has represented Rumsfeld through the Justice Department and argued that the former defense secretary cannot be sued personally for official conduct. The Justice Department also argued that a judge cannot review wartime decisions that are the constitutional responsibility of Congress and the president. And the department said the case could disclose sensitive information and distract from the war effort, and said the threat of liability would impede future military decisions.
But U.S. District Judge James Gwin rejected those arguments and said U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution at home or abroad during wartime.
"The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad," Gwin wrote in a ruling issued Tuesday.
"The stakes in holding detainees at Camp Cropper may have been high, but one purpose of the constitutional limitations on interrogation techniques and conditions of confinement even domestically is to strike a balance between government objectives and individual rights even when the stakes are high," the judge ruled.
In many other cases brought by foreign detainees, judges have dismissed torture claims made against U.S. officials for their personal involvement in decisions over prisoner treatment. But this is the second time a federal judge has allowed U.S. citizens to sue Rumsfeld personally.
U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen in Illinois last year said two other Americans who worked in Iraq as contractors and were held at Camp Cropper, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, can pursue claims that they were tortured using Rumsfeld-approved methods after they alleged illegal activities by their company. Rumsfeld is appealing that ruling, which Gwin cited.
The Supreme Court sets a high bar for suing high-ranking officials, requiring that they be tied directly to a violation of constitutional rights and must have clearly understood their actions crossed that line.
The case before Gwin involves a man who went to Iraq in December 2004 to work with an American-owned defense contracting firm. He was assigned as an Arabic translator for Marines gathering intelligence in Anbar. He says he was the first American to open direct talks with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who became an important U.S. ally and later led a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida before being killed by a bomb.
In November 2005, when he was to go on home leave, Navy Criminal Investigative Service agents questioned him about his work, refusing his requests for representation by his employer, the Marines or an attorney. The Justice Department says he was told he was suspected of helping provide classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces attempting to cross from Syria into Iraq.
He says he refused to answer questions because of concern about confidentiality, and the agents handcuffed and blindfolded him, kicked him in the back and threatened to shoot him if he tried to escape. He was then transferred to an unidentified location for three days before being flown to Camp Cropper.
For his first three months at Camp Cropper he says he was held incommunicado in solitary confinement with a hole in the ground for a toilet. He says he was then moved to cells holding terrorist suspects hostile to the United States who were told about his work for the military, leading to physical attacks by his cellmates that left him in constant fear for his life.
He claims guards tortured him by repeatedly choking him, exposing him to extreme cold and continuous artificial light, blindfolding and hooding him, waking him by banging on a door or slamming a window when he tried to sleep and blasting music into his cell at "intolerably loud volumes."
He says he always denied any wrongdoing and truthfully answered questions but interrogators continued to threaten him. Both sides say a detainee status board in December 2005 determined he was a threat to the multinational forces in Iraq and authorized his continued detention, but he says he was not allowed to see most of the evidence against him. Documents the government filed with the court only say he is suspected of a crime, without providing details.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/iraq-s27.shtml

German court declares Iraq war violated international law
By Justus Leicht
27 September 2005
Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision was handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court but barely mentioned in the German media. With careful reasoning, the judges ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated international law.
Further, they meticulously demonstrated that the German government, in contrast to its public protestations, had assisted in the aggression against Iraq without having any legal right to do so. Although the decision was made three months ago, the judgement and its legal arguments have only just been made available in written form, comprising more than 130 pages.
The decision was made in relation to legal proceedings initiated by a German army officer who had refused to obey an order following the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition of forces because he feared that he would in effect be supporting the war. As a result, he was demoted from major to captain and the army filed a criminal complaint against him for insubordination. In its latest judgement, the Federal Administrative Court reversed the demotion and said the charges against the officer contravened Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the German Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of conscience.
The 48-year-old career soldier was assigned to work on the development of a computer program that he feared could be employed in the war against Iraq war. He informed his superior that he could not carry out the order. He then sought the army chaplain and his unit’s doctor and informed them that, in his opinion, based on what he had read in the German press, the war contravened international law. The doctor then sent him to a psychologist and even arranged for him to be examined to determine his mental sanity in an army hospital—a reaction that reminds one of Franz Kafka’s novels and the actions taken by Stalinist regimes against dissidents.
His superior also sent him to the army unit’s legal advisor so that “the legal background could be explained” to him. The advisor threatened him with dishonourable discharge and demotion. The soldier challenged the legal advisor over the war’s legality under international law, prompting the advisor to turn to the German defence ministry.
The advisor received a written reply stating that although the German government rejected the war, it had given permission to the US and Great Britain to use its airspace and their military bases in Germany, as well as agreeing to the operation of German AWACS airplanes for the surveillance of Turkish airspace.
The defence ministry defended its stance by citing Germany’s obligation as a member of NATO to assist the US and Great Britain, and United Nations resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with serious consequences unless it proved that it had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. It was “an open question” whether the employment of military measures required another UN Security Council resolution, the ministry said.
In other words, the German coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party used exactly the same legal reasoning as the Bush administration. As the officer was not prepared to accept these arguments and maintained his refusal to obey orders, he was demoted and a complaint filed against him. The German Federal Administrative Court has now pulled this argument to pieces and overturned it juridically.
Grave concerns for international law

Due to strong public resistance to the remilitarisation of Germany after the Second World War, under conditions in which the army leadership initially consisted largely of former members of the Nazi Wehrmacht, the rebuilding of the German army in the 1950s was tied to a series of democratic provisions. This included the right to not follow orders that contravened human dignity, the constitution or German law, or that violated international law.
The Constitutional Court, however, left open whether such criteria applied in this case. It said a decision on this issue did not have to be made. The defendant’s complaint was upheld because he made a difficult decision based on his conscience under special circumstances.
The court left no doubt, though, that it had “grave concerns for international law” arising from the Iraq war and Germany’s support for it.
The court referred to Article 4, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, which classifies “every” threat and use of military force against another nation as an act of aggression. It specifies only two exceptions: a formal resolution of the UN Security Council and for self-defence purposes. Neither of these was the case with Iraq.
In particular, the United States had no legal basis for attacking Iraq based on previous UN resolutions that it itself had introduced. UN Resolution 678 in 1990 had only authorised the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. The ceasefire Resolution 687 in 1991 certified that this aim had been realised. This resolution also threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” if it used poisonous gasses or other biological weapons and renewed the demand for Iraq to maintain a clear distance from “international terrorism.” This resolution was accepted by Iraq.
The court stated that UN Resolution 707 in 1991 did not revoke the ceasefire nor has it since been repealed. No subsequent resolution contained a justification for military operations, not even in relation to forcing Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors.
This fact was seen by the court as particularly valid in relation to Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002, which was later used by the US and Great Britain to justify war.
This resolution gave instructions to the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed El-Baradei, to report any lack of cooperation from Iraq to the UN Security Council, so that it could properly assess the situation. The decisions that the UN Security Council would then take in such a situation were left open, according to the court.
Although the Security Council threatened “serious consequences,” it did not make explicit what form they would take. On the contrary, Resolution 1441 expressed “unmistakably,” according to the court, that the matter had yet to be determined by the Security Council. The court argued that the resolution did not give a free hand for military action, but rather—based on the UN Charter—left the decision about any consequences to the UN.
With the formulation “serious consequences,” Resolution 1441 only issued a general warning, but had deliberately distanced the Security Council from authorising the use of force by the US and the UK.
The court argued that only if the UN Security Council resolution text had explicitly provided for the use of military force, within the confines of the UN Charter, would military action against Iraq have been permitted. An apparent “silence,” or the position that the meaning of “serious consequences” was left unclarified, did not suffice to justify military action.
The court also did not consider the objection valid that the resolution text was interpreted differently by the US and UK. It stated: “For the determination of what the UN Security Council had decided in one of its resolutions, what is decisive is not what government representatives ‘thought’ about the proceedings and resolutions themselves. It is far more dependent on what was actually laid down in the text of the agreed resolution. If it is not in the text, an appropriate draft resolution is lacking. The mental reservations of governments or their representatives are not valid insofar as international law is concerned.”
The text of Resolution 1441 showed, on the contrary, that an exemption to the fundamental prohibition on the use of force had not been decided on. Nowhere did it contain an endorsement or an authorisation for any government or state to use force according to Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The term “authorisation” in this context did not even appear anywhere in the resolution.
The attempt of the governments in the US, UK and Spain to have a resolution passed immediately before the start of the war that would have authorised military action did not find majority support in the Security Council. To avoid the resolution being defeated, the draft resolution was withdrawn.
German support for the war violated international law

What was particularly noteworthy was that the judges continually referred to a paper published by the scientific study service of the German parliament committee on January 2, 2003, that also concluded that the UN resolutions did not legitimise an attack on Iraq. Even if one assumes that not every parliamentarian read this paper, one has to assume, at the very least, that members of the cabinet and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder himself must have been made aware that the Iraq war violated international law.
The court said that the US and UK had, in their diplomatic notes to the UN Security Council, nowhere made a substantiated claim that a dangerous situation existed—something necessary if a right to self-defence was being put forward as the justification.
The court devoted much detail to the logistical support provided by Germany to the war—in particular, the use of military bases and the fly-over rights for the US and UK.
It soberly declared: “The support for an illegal military action can not only be expressed through military participation in combat operations, but also in other ways. A breach of international law can be committed through an action or—when an obligation exists under international law—through inaction. Support given to an offence under international law is itself an offence.” Article 26 of the German constitution, which prohibits the “preparation” of an illegal war, prohibits even more forcefully any support of such a war.
The obligations of Germany under international law were sourced to Resolution 3314, passed by a general sitting of the United Nations on December 14, 1974, the works of the International Law Commission of the United Nations, and various international treaties and customs that stem back to the Hague Convention of 1907.
The last-mentioned prohibited states from allowing their territory to be used for the transport of troops or military supplies. The Hague Convention also prohibited third nations from supplying telecommunication services in every form as well as airspace rights. By Article 25 of the German constitution, these general rules of international law, as part of German federal law, take priority over other laws.
The claim of the German government that it had a “partner duty” as a member of NATO did not invalidate these rules. The NATO Treaty refers to the UN Charter and does not compel its member states to support wars conducted by other NATO members that violate international law. In addition, the court stated that the clause that specifies supporting other NATO members only applies in those cases where an “armed conflict” takes place inside NATO territory. Nor did the NATO Council agree to any kind of cooperative action in the case of war with Iraq. In addition, the NATO Treaty contained a clause—inserted in 1949 at the behest of the US—where member states cannot be forced to fulfil obligations to the NATO Treaty or its implementation if this violates their own national constitutions.
The German government also did not have the right to offer its support for the war for political reasons, as it was bound to the rule of law by Article 20, paragraph III of the Constitution and by Article 25 to the general regulations of international law.
At first glance, it is amazing that this judgement did not make larger waves, as the German government has effectively been accused of violating both the German constitution and international law. The government’s claim that it did everything in its power to prevent war in Iraq was proven to be false by one of the highest courts in the land. Not only did the government have the legal possibility, but it also had the responsibility to bar use of German airspace and bases on German soil from use for the Iraq war.
In most of the media, Gerhard Schröder is celebrated for his supposed anti-war stance. Others accuse the SPD-Green coalition government of having damaged the transatlantic alliance with the United States over its handling of the Iraq war. If a coalition government consisting of the Christian Democratic Union, Christian Social Union and Free Democratic Party emerges out of the recent German elections, it will either continue the policy of Schröder or bring Germany closer to the US—and most likely confront decisions similar to those made by Schröder the next time the US attacks a country. As for the recently formed Left Party-Party of Democratic Socialism, one only needs to note that its leading candidate, Gregor Gysi, has praised Schröder’s policy with regard to Iraq.

From the WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION.

http://www.emro.who.int/publications/emhj/0604/20.htm

SUMMARY In this article the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi people is reviewed. The health services and situation in Iraq before sanctions were imposed in 1990 are described indicating their adequacy. The adverse effect of the sanctions on the health services and on health indicators are outlined, as evidenced by, among others, the increased malnutrition among children, increased infant and under-5 mortality rates and the increase in foodborne and waterborne diseases. The situation in Iraq illustrates the devastating effects of sanctions on people, particularly children, adolescents, women and the elderly, and highlights the need for more balanced and comprehensive humanitarian programmes.

Introduction

While natural disasters dominated in the past and usually caused swift and sudden destruction of human settlements, man-made disasters have become more common in recent times. Most man-made disasters are complex and involve many factors, which makes them challenging. In many cases, such disasters demand remedial action that extends beyond the mere provision of emergency relief. Humanitarian crises are not an isolated concern or phenomenon; rather they are intricately connected with the broader human rights issue under a given sanctions regime.

The present humanitarian crisis in Iraq continues to smoulder and takes a heavy toll in human lives and health conditions. It shows little sign of ending, in spite of a significant humanitarian assistance programme launched in 1996. The current level and type of humanitarian assistance seems to fall short of what is actually needed. The suffering of millions, especially children, women, the elderly and the disabled, continues to be a cause of concern to the rest of the world.

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq in August 1990. The United Nations (UN) Security Council decided in Resolution 986 to launch the "oil-for-food" programme in May 1996. The Memorandum of Understanding concluded between the UN and Iraq stipulated the modalities of this humanitarian assistance programme. The severity of the Iraq humanitarian disaster arises from the massive and swift degradation of the country's infrastructure as a result of the two wars Iraq was engaged in (the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Gulf War). A review of the progress of the programme shows that shortages of medicines, medical supplies and equipment have been relieved and distribution of supplies is reasonably efficient in most parts of the country. Yet, there has been no significant reduction of disease-specific deaths and illnesses. Malnutrition and under-nutrition are now chronic, and health facilities remain in a poor condition.

The purpose of this paper is to present the direct health consequences of the sanctions as reflected in health conditions and health services performance.

Iraq before sanctions

Before 1990, Iraq belonged to the group of middle-income countries with a gross national product per capita of US$ 2800. The state policy during the sixties and seventies strongly supported the creation of extensive and a well distributed physical and social infrastructure. Public services, including an extensive network of well equipped and well staffed health facilities, ensured wide and equitable access of the population to health care. Drugs, medical supplies and equipment were amply provided as needed to the heath facilities. All in all, the Iraqi health system was probably one of the best in the Middle East at that time.

Public health services, notably epidemic disease control, sanitation and clean and safe drinking-water were well established; over 500 modern water treatment plants assured nearly universal access to abundant safe drinking-water and modern sewage treatment plants kept the sanitation system in the country at a relatively high level, comparable to that of some countries of Europe.

The extensive network of communications, including telephones, coupled with an efficient ambulance service for patient transportation in emergencies, allowed the health referral system to perform competently, and brought secondary and tertiary care within the reach of all those in need. This well developed and distributed infrastructure helped to secure the benefits of improved living standards and a higher quality of life for the Iraqi population.

Selected health indicators before the sanctions

A look at the health indicators for 1989 (Table 1) gives an indication of the health conditions in Iraq before the sanctions. These indicators are comparable to those of a country with adequate and equitably distributed health care, accompanied by complementary health promotion conditions.

It is worth noting that conditions related to poverty and poor environment, such as cholera, typhoid, poliomyelitis and tuberculosis, had low incidence rates. Diseases related to affluence and inappropriate lifestyle were also not reported in any significant numbers.

Effect of sanctions on Iraq

The infrastructure, the public services and, above all, the health and human conditions of the population, particularly the children, the women, the elderly and the disabled, started to decline rapidly after 1991.

Since the economy as a whole is under siege, widespread unemployment and shortages of hard currency have resulted in significant erosion in the purchasing power of most families. They can no longer buy the food and medicines they need, the housing and utilities they require and, most importantly, the balanced food stuffs families need to maintain adequate nutrition. Table 2 shows selected nutrients available before and after sanctions.

As of May/June 2000, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed there were still about 800 000 children under 5 years who were chronically malnourished. The report also indicated a high prevalence of anaemia in schoolchildren. The occurrence of rickets (vitamin D deficiency) is still being reported. Diarrhoea contributing to malnutrition is high and wasting (low weight-for-height) in the under-5s is over 10% in Baghdad, Kerbala and Diyala governorates. There were 30 232 cases of kwashiorkor registered in 1998 and 264 468 cases of marasmus, while an estimated 1 910 309 children were suffering from other protein-, calorie- and vitamin-related malnutrition in 1998. These figures confirm the general evidence that stunting in children is a clear expression of chronic low nutrition over a long period of time. What is even more alarming is that there is a real possibility that many of these children will fail to catch up and achieve their potential intellectual growth and development in later life. Particularly significant are the unacceptably high infant mortality rate and deaths of children under 5 years (Figure 1).

Waterborne and foodborne diseases such as cholera, poliomyelitis and typhoid, vector-borne diseases such as malaria and leishmaniasis, and other bacterial diseases such as tuberculosis are on the increase (Figures 2 and 3). The numbers of infants with low birth weight and women with severe anaemia have also increased. This again indicates the general decline in the performance or services output of the hospitals and range of services in primary health care facilities.

Many secondary and tertiary care clinical support services, such as blood transfusion and ambulances for referral, have also deteriorated. Most of the health facilities are in poor condition with insufficient equipment and often without a power supply, which makes them unsafe and unsuitable for good patient care

Unsafe drinking-water, polluted environment and poor sewage systems continue to endanger the health of large sections of the urban and semi-urban population.

There has been a statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancers, including leukaemia particularly in the south, which remains unexplained because the cause has not been investigated. This and other obscure health and environmental effects are yet to be studied and fully assessed. Regrettably chronic diseases are showing higher rates of death and emerging as public health problems. In only 8 years since 1990, the number of deaths of people over 50 years as a result of hypertension, diabetes and cancer has increased sharply as shown in Figure 4.

Conclusion

The Iraq humanitarian crisis is unique in many aspects, being the result of two wars and the prolonged period of international sanctions. Since the implementation of Security Council Resolution 986, some improvement has been seen in the availability of drugs and medicines, medical supplies, and hospital equipment. However, restoration of health facilities, warehouses, transport and logistics has gone at a slow pace due to lack of funds. Importation is subject to approval of contracts by the 661 Committee of the Security Council. The list of items on hold is often very long and of a very large value.

During the 1998 review of progress, the Secretary-General of the UN made supplementary proposals on humanitarian requirements, but most of these could not be implemented because of inadequate funds or non-allocation of funds, including cash funds. The basic infrastructure of power, water and sanitation has remained largely unrestored. In the absence of these critical inputs, the importation of huge quantities of medical supplies has failed to produce a commensurable impact on health care.

Economic and trade sanctions for long periods can have severe humanitarian consequences. It hurts children, adolescents and women disproportionately. This is an example where the civilian and human cost of sanctions has been far too high compared with the objectives achieved. It is to be hoped that lessons will be learnt and, in future, more balanced and comprehensive humanitarian programmes will be put in place. A new concept of a "pre-assessment" protocol before sanctions in future are even contemplated may be useful.

It is dreadful to think of entire populations subjected to avoidable health conditions; it is even more dreadful to contemplate an entire generation of young people having their right to human development compromised.

Sources

1. The Work of WHO in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Annual Report of the Regional Director, 1 January-31 December 1999. Alexandria, World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000.

2. Report to the Secretary-General dated 15 July 1991 on humanitarian needs in Iraq prepared by a mission led by the Executive Delegate of the Secretary-General. New York, United Nations, 1991.

3. Sidel VW. Can sanctions be sanctioned? American journal of public health, 1999, 89(10):1497-8.

4. Assessment of food and nutrition situation, Iraq. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization, 2000.

5. Child and maternal survey. New York, United Nations Children's Fund, 1999.

6. Evaluation of food and nutrition situation in Iraq. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization, 1997.

7. Nutritional status survey at primary health care centres during polio immunization days in Iraq. Iraq, United Nations Children's Fund, 1997.

8. Report on nutritional status assessment mission to Iraq. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization, 1993.

9. Marks SP. Economic sanctions as human rights and public health imperatives. American journal of public health, 1999, 89(10):1509-13.

some of the British abuse.

9-ytlw0XPOY

From the British Medical Journal. "Effects of Sanctions on Iraqi Children".

http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/1/92.1.full

The effect of sanctions on children of Iraq
L Al-Nouri, Q Al-Rahim
+ Author Affiliations

FRCPCH, Yarmouk, PO Box 15103, Baghdad, Iraq
Correspondence to:
Dr Al-Nouri;
al-nouri@uruklink.net
Sanctions were imposed on the people of Iraq in 1990. Iraqi people are still suffering, especially children. Infant mortality (IM) has increased more than five times. Previously it had decreased from 139 in 1960 to 20 in 1989, which was comparable to developed countries. In 1992 it went up to 111.1 In 1999, a decade later, IM was still high at 104.2 The Gulf War and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality amogn Iraqi children under 5 years of age. It has been estimated that more than 46 900 children died between January and August 1991.3

The study of the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, published in a letter to the BMJ in 1995, concluded that deaths of more than 560 000 children could be attributed to UN sanctions. It also stated that the death rate among children under 5 years in Baghdad had increased fivefold since the war ended in 1991.4 Data for 1994–99 showed that mortality for children under 5 years was 131 per 1000 live births, compared with 56 for 1984–9, before sanctions. The reasons for excess deaths are clear—economic collapse with plummeting wages, soaring food prices, poor sanitation, lack of safe water, and inadequate provision of health care.5

The rate of low birth weight (<2500 grams) which was in the region of 9% in the period 1980–88, increased to 21% in 1994.1 The 1995 Baghdad nutrition survey of children under five years of age showed that the percentage of children below −2SD in urban Baghdad was 28% for stunting, 29% for underweight, and 12% for wasting. Severe malnutrition (−3SD) was noted among children, 10% for stunting, 7% for underweight, and 3% for wasting.6 The survey by FAO in the year 2000 indicated the prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years at the unacceptably high level of 10%, only a marginal difference from the 1995 survey.7

In school children aged 6–8 years the prevalence of wasting ranged from 1% in the upper class to 6.7% in rural areas. Similar differences were found for stunting and underweight.7 In a 1994 survey 1.6% of children under 5 years were reported to have night blindness, indicating vitamin A deficiency. A survey of school children in the north in 1994 showed a 30–50% prevalence of goitre, and evidence of iodine deficiency disease elsewhere throughout the country. Rickets are still being reported from hospitals at a rate of 3–5 cases per week.7

Diarrhoeal diseases and mortality due to dehydration were well under control prior to the Gulf War; there was a threefold increase from May 1990 to May 1991.8 Other water born infections increased from 1990 to 1999, for example typhoid by 60% and cholera almost fivefold.7 A measles epidemic occurred in 1998.7 There have been alarming rises in cases of malaria and leishmiais.1 Other infections like tetanus, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, and pertussis all showed an increase after the Gulf War.1

The National Immunization Programme which had begun in 1985 came to a complete halt between January and April 1991.8 The percentage of fully immunised one year old children fell from 94 for tuberculosis, 83 for diptheria, tetanus, and pertussis, 83 for polio, and 82 for measles to 79, 63, 64, and 68 respectively.1

A child psychology study (1991) revealed a level of psychological stress and pathological behaviour that was the highest the authors had seen in 10 years of conflict research. It revealed a highly disturbed population of children. Fear and anxiety were associated with memories of crisis. Seventy five per cent felt sad and unhappy, and four out of five expressed fear of losing their family by death or separation.8

There was a threefold increase in leukaemia in the southern provinces, sites of the Gulf War battlefield. A WHO investigation in 1995 suggested a possible link to products—now incorporated in the food chain—which were derived from depleted uranium used in piercing artillery shells. There were staggering deficiencies in cancer treatment facilities because of UN sanctions which were intended to exclude food and medicines.9

A report in 1996 showed that one third of hospital beds were closed. More than half of all diagnostic and therapeutic equipment was not working due to lack of spare parts and maintenance. All public hospitals experienced serious problems with lighting, cleaning, water supply, and sewage. The population had been burdened by a rapid rise in serious infections, nutritional deficiencies among children and pregnant women, and other treatable conditions for which neither drugs nor operations were available.10

Paediatricians have been isolated by the intellectual embargo from the international medical community. Physicians who wish to attend international conferences face travel restrictions, like denial of visas to European countries or the USA. In 1990, the delivery of European and American medical journals was abruptly stopped. This intellectual embargo served to undermine the care of patients, and denies Iraqi doctors the right to share scientific advancement and its benefits.11

References
↵ Niazi AD, Al-Kubaisi WAQ. The humanitarian and health impact of war and embargo on Iraqis. Iraqi Med J1998;47:1–4.
↵ UNICEF. The State of the world’s children. 2001.
↵ Ascherio A, Chase R, Cote T, et al. Effect of Gulf War on infant and child mortality in Iraq. N Engl J Med1992;327:931–6. [Medline][Web of Science]
↵ Court C. Iraq sanctions lead to half a million child mortality. BMJ1995;311:1523. [FREE Full text]
↵ Dobson R. Sanctions against Iraq “double” child mortality. BMJ2001;321:1490. [CrossRef]
↵ FAO. Technical cooperative programme. Evaluation of food and nutrition situation in Iraq. Rome, 1995.
↵ FAO. Technical cooperative programme. Evaluation of food and nutrition situation in Iraq. Rome, 2000.
↵ UNICEF. Children and women in Iraq: a situation analysis, Baghdad. 1992.
↵ Sikora C. Cancer services are suffering in Iraq. BMJ1992;318:203. [FREE Full text]
↵ Garfield R, Zaidi S, Lennock J. Medical care in Iraq after six years of sanctions. BMJ1997;315:1474–5. [FREE Full text]
↵ Richards LJ, Wall SN. Iraq medical education under the intellectual embargo. Lancet2000;355:1093–4. [Medline]

Hans Von Sponeck who was the UN coordinator for the Oil for Food Programme during the years of genocidal siege against Iraq.

straight from the horse's mouth.

5Q3cNLSwgLo

Compelling case for Iraq war crime tribunal
The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times by Mohamed ElBaradei

Reviewed by Kaveh L Afrasiabi

This book, eloquently written by a former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is a must read, both for the wealth of information it provides on the contentious issues of global nuclear diplomacy as well as for the passionate and compelling case that it presents for a war crime tribunal to prosecute United States and British leaders who instigated the calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction.

In blunt yet sincere language steeped in international law, ElBaradei writes that in light of the US's complete "disdain for international norms" in its invasion of Iraq, the United Nations should request an opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as to the legality of the Iraq war.

Convinced that the overwhelming weight of evidence favors a negative verdict if the ICJ ever braved such an initiative, ElBaradei then makes a case for the International Criminal Tribunal to "investigate whether this constitutes a war crime". (pg 87)

Irrespective, ElBaradei is so morally outraged by the blatant pulverization of a sovereign Middle East country by a Western superpower and its allies that he also advises the Iraqis to demand war reparations - that is sure to amount to tens of billions of dollars.

If for nothing else, this book's value - in putting self-righteous Western powers on the defensive and depicting them as essentially rogue states that have caused a new global anarchy by their willful exercise of power without much regard for the rights of others - is indispensable.

Divided into 12 chapters with a useful conclusion on the future of nuclear diplomacy, the book covers nearly three decades of the author's involvement with various cases, ie, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Iran, the notorious "nuclear bazaar of Abdul Qadeer Khan" in Pakistan, as well as nuclear asymmetry and the hypocrisy and double standard, not to mention outright deceptions, marking the behavior of US and other Western countries (along the familiar North-South divide).

In the chapters on Iraq, ElBaradei defends the cherished record of his agency in refusing to act as a sounding board for post 9/11 warmongering US policies, which earned him the occasional venom of US media that questioned his integrity. In fact, ElBaradei is equally critical of the compliant Western media that often act as indirect apparatuses of state despite their wild claims of neutrality and objectivity.

Although much of what ElBaradei writes about the US-British deceptions to go to war in Iraq is already well-known, it is instructive to revisit those "grotesque distortions" - as he puts it - from a reputable source who for years was caught in the maelstrom of contesting politics of non-proliferation.

With respect to the British role under premier Tony Blair, whom he accuses of a false alarm on Iraq's chemical weapon capability, ElBaradei actually underestimates the degree to which London influenced Washington on Iraq, characterizing this instead as a "one-way street" with the British "acting as apologists for US". (pg 67).

But, ElBaradei is not a foreign policy expert and his shortcoming, in detecting the American foreign policy elite's vulnerability with respect to British political influence, is forgivable. This is a minor defect in a solid contribution that sheds much light on how the US manipulated the UN atomic agency as "bit players" in its scheme to invade Iraq.

It shows the Pandora's box opened by the IAEA when it agreed to receive foreign intelligence from member states spying on others, thus opening the door to calibrated disinformation often beyond the ability of the agency and its meager resources to authenticate.

As a result, today the IAEA has turned into a de facto ''nuclear detective agency" that constantly receives tips from Western clients targeting specific countries. Sooner or later, either this unhealthy situation is rectified or we must expect more gaping holes in the agency's credibility.

With respect to North Korea, which has exited the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and proliferated nuclear weapons without much international backlash, ElBaradei blames the US's failure to live up to its agreed commitment and the fallacy of "attempts to contain proliferation ambitions through confrontation, sanctions, and isolation". (Pg 109)

He also writes about Libya's voluntary disarmament in 2004, a decision that the late Muammar Gaddafi now regrets in his grave, given the likelihood that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would have thought twice about attacking Libya under the guise of "responsibility to protect", thus making a mockery of the UN, if Tripoli had retained a nuclear shield.

For sure, this issue must loom large on the mind of many developing nations that have clashing interests with the (increasingly bullying) Western powers.

ElBaradei has devoted a whole chapter to the subject of nuclear double standards that discusses, for instance, how South Korea's clear evidence of non-compliance was shoved under the rug by the US in 2004 simply because it is a US allay.

The US and other privileged nuclear-have nations have been derelict in their NPT obligations to move toward nuclear disarmament, some, like France and Britain, modernizing their arsenals, while at the same time having the audacity of taking the moral high ground against countries suspected of clandestine proliferation.

ElBaradei writes that in the Middle East, "The greatest source of frustration and anxiety was the regional asymmetry of military power symbolized by Israel's arsenal." (pg 223) And yet, Israel, which since its bombardment of Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981 has been mandated by the UN Security Council to place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA inspections, has evaded this obligation with impunity.

Regarding Iran, extensively dealt with in four chapters, ElBaradei seeks to present a balanced account that pinpoints the chronology of events, interactions and negotiations that are still ongoing as of this date, thus making the book an indispensable tool for those who follow the developments in the Iran nuclear crisis.

Since his retirement from the IAEA, ElBaradei has repeatedly gone on record to state that during his tenure at the agency he never saw any evidence that Iran was proliferating nuclear weapons.

What is more, he informs readers that after the 2007 US intelligence report that confirmed that Iran's program had been peaceful since 2003, "I received a follow-up briefing by US intelligence. They did not show the supposed evidence that had let them to confirm the existence of a past Iranian nuclear weapon program, other than to refer to the same unverified set of allegations about weaponization studies that had already been discussed with the agency." (pg 269)

He also writes, "The Americans did acknowledge - as in most previous intelligence briefings - that there was no indication that Iran had undeclared nuclear material." (pg 262) Indeed, this is important information, given that in more than a dozen reports on Iran the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed the absence of any evidence of military diversion of "declared nuclear material".

In Chapter 11, on the "squandered opportunities" with Iran, the author writes about Iran-IAEA cooperation through a workplan that resulted in the successful resolution of the "six outstanding" issues that had led to the IAEA's referral of Iran's file to the UN Security Council.

Missing in this book is any mention of that workplan's concluding paragraph that stipulated the agency's treatment of Iran's nuclear file as "routine" once those issues were resolved. That this did not, and as of today has not, happened is solely due to the US-led disinformation campaign that burdened the IAEA with new data coming from a stolen Iranian lap top, even though ElBaradei readily admits that "the problem was, no one knew if any of these was real". (pg 281).

He discretely blames his deputy, Ollie Heinnonen, now turned into a valuable US asset from his recruitment by Harvard University, of buying "into the US accusations" (pg 281), and laments the fact that on a number of occasions the US scuttled meaningful negotiation with Iran by "refusing to take yes for an answer".

Questioning the US's negotiation strategy toward Iran, in a memorable passage that rings relevant to today's context of new multilateral talks with Iran, ElBaradei writes: "It was naive to ask Iran to give up everything before the start of the talks and expect a positive response. But the problem was familiar, nothing would satisfy, short of Iran coming to the table completely undressed." (pg 313)

In a clue to the direct relevance of this book to the Iran nuclear talks this weekend in Istanbul, where the US has put its foot down by demanding Iran's suspension of its 20% uranium enrichment, ElBaradei readily admits that under the NPT, Iran has the right to possess a nuclear fuel cycle, like "roughly a dozen countries" around the world. Moreover, he reminds us of the absence of a legal basis for the US's demand, in light of the fact that "many research reactors worldwide also use 90% enriched uranium fuel for peaceful purposes, such as to produce medial radioisotopes". (pg 14)

As he puts it in the final chapter, on the quest for human security, this cannot be a selective, or rather elitist, process that benefits some while depriving others. In today's increasingly interdependent world, the idea that the threat of nuclear proliferation can be contained while the asymmetrical nuclear-have nations hold onto their prized possessions and even use them to threaten the non-nuclear nations, is simply a chimerical dream that has a decent chance of turning into a nightmare. This is the core message of ElBaradei's timely book that cannot be possibly ignored.

For many years those in the private security contracting industry have argued loudly that the people who carry guns in the field are not mercenaries. And they are exactly right, as I have noted many times in the past.

Words do have specific meaning and when it comes to meaning, the most precise and globally recognized meaning is embodied in three international treaties, namely the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter Additional Protocol I); the 1977 Organization of African Unity Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa (hereinafter OAU Convention); and the 1989 International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (hereinafter U.N. Convention).

With regard to Additional Protocol I, Article 47, para. 2, lists six cumulative conditions for a person to be considered a mercenary. It proclaims:

A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

This is such a high hurdle to pass that it is widely recognized that any first-year law student should be able to get off any contractors accused of being a mercenary. Of course, the fact that nobody in places like Afghanistan or Iraq has ever been charged with being a mercenary tells you that people recognize how difficult it would be prosecuting someone for being one.

But that still leaves some definitional pitfalls for security contractors. While what they do may not fulfill ALL of the conditions for the mercenary definition some do, or come very close.

To see what I mean consider this 2010 working paper, Private Military and Security Company Employees: Are They the Mercenaries of the Twenty-First Century? by Marina Mancini.

Security contractors will always emphasize they are not soldiers. They are there to protect clients, not engage in battles. In principle, armed security contractors may not participate in offensive operations. But from the viewpoint of whoever may be attacking them it makes little difference. Mancini writes:

Although armed security contractors are not recruited to conduct offensive operations, they fulfill the requirement of being recruited to fight in an armed conflict, if they are engaged to protect military objectives (e.g. ammunition trucks or military depots), which as such may be lawfully targeted by the enemy. Evidently, armed reaction to enemy attack constitutes fight. In this regard, it has been correctly stressed that 'the phrase "to fight" under international humanitarian law is not synonymous with an offensive attack'.44 The nature of the act of violence, offensive or defensive, is irrelevant. What matters is the subject against which it is committed. Only acts of violence against enemy forces constitute "attacks" within the meaning of Article 49, para. 1, of Additional Protocol I. According to this provision, "'attacks' means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offense or in defense." Consequently, armed security contractors could not be considered as recruited to fight in an armed conflict if they were hired to protect military objectives against common criminals.45 However, it is unthinkable that, in a situation of armed conflict, those protecting a military objective may be ordered to react only if the attack comes from common criminals. Besides, it may be very difficult to discern the nature of the aggressor on the spot.
Furthermore, acting defensively does not exclude a contractor from having participated in combat operations.

Engaging in defensive combat also constitutes direct participation in hostilities. As has been rightly pointed out, 'international humanitarian law does not draw a distinction between offensive or defensive operations'.58 As a matter of fact, the ICRC interpretive guidance regards 'the defence of military personnel and other military objectives against enemy attacks' as direct participation in hostilities (commentary on recommendation III).59 Several instances of defensive combat involving security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have been reported. As regards Iraq, a well-known episode occurred in Najaf on 4 April 2004. Blackwater employees tasked with the protection of the Coalition Provisional Authority headquarters in Najaf repulsed an attack by hundreds of Shiite militia members. The combat lasted about three and a half hours. Blackwater's helicopters had to resupply the employees with ammunition. In order to repel the attack, thousands of rounds and hundreds of grenades were expended.60

Have you seen the blackwater videos on youtube? :@

yes indeed. excellent evidence against them.

But with their arrogance and lack of introspection they just never realised they were committing crimes... since "hadjis" are not people.

Mentally disturbed and ill is what they are. Especially their music of choice when roaming around the streets. I hope your not a fan of heavy death metal as it correlates with your avatar.

U.S.-U.K. Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012 Killed 3.3 Millions
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were "exterminated" by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.

The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.

The U.S. and U.K. "obstinately insisted" that their sanctions remain in place until after the "illegal" Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UK's Tony Blair in March, 2003, "not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children" but "to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people," Boyle said.

In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:

# The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.

# The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.


# The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis "as a direct result" of the genocidal sanctions.

Boyle's class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.

The "grossly hypocritical" UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organization's Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.

Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, "we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it."

Albright's shocking response provides "proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq" under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.

Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including " Destroying World Order" (Clarity Press.) #

(Sherwood Ross is a columnist, broadcast commentator and public relations consultant "for good causes." He formerly reported for major dailies and wire services and is the author of " Gruening of Alaska "(Best).


Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C. In the Sixties he was active as public (more...)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/U-S-U-K-Genocide-Against-by-Sherwood-Ross-121203-78.html

FANTASTIC THREAD!

Sincerely شكرا لك Sheytan. We should really sue/voice up against those murderous. I just saw that Czech Jew Albright talking about the killing of 500.000 innocent Iraqi children during the sanctions. Having extended family that was affected by those sanctions it made my blood boil.

The most shameful thing is that those murderous are walking like free men and "adored" by mindless morons and ignorants for doing "us" a favor. How I would have loved to take them to Fallujah or Ramadi for a little fun or two.

Lowest of the lowest. Hope that there will one day be strong Arabs with charisma and dynamism that could expose all the crimes/lies and make the criminals responsible for their crimes. They should be ashamed.

If I was a billionaire I would certainly use my influence to get those people in some way or another.

Why the hell is the world silent? How many crimes do they need to make in the Arab world before they will be held accountable?

The same thing with the Mullah's in Ajam. The Ba'ath regime already has met it's faith and by far most of it's leaders held accountable. This should happen with al the parties.

Al-hashimi you didn't see anything.

we, the people who were in Iraq at the time literary had people make bread out of "3lf", which is made for animals.

the sanctions destroyed the middle class in iraq. my father used to make around 4000 dinars during the 1980's, which was about $20,000 every month, something even westerners dream of making at the time.
we also had a pillowcase of cash which became worthless paper after the sanctions.
many people died from the lack of medicine as well.

That's why i am against sanctions against any country, including Iran

First of all from what I remember we two have a similar age with you slightly being older.

Second of all my first visit to Iraq was before the 2003 invasion so I saw the sanctions with my own eyes although being less than 10 years old.

Thirdly as I stated I have extended family in Iraq who were affected by the sanctions so I know the realities very well. Alhamdulillah most of my family in Iraq were able to move to other Arab countries and settle there or to the West. Most have now returned again.

Anyway not sure what you want to say with your post?

This is about Iraq and not any other country. This is about criminals that killed thousands of Iraqis and are walking like free men.

We should concentrate on getting them to justice.

First of all from what I remember we two have a similar age with you slightly being older.

Second of all my first visit to Iraq was before the 2003 invasion so I saw the sanctions with my own eyes although being less than 10 years old.

Thirdly as I stated I have extended family in Iraq who were affected by the sanctions so I know the realities very well. Alhamdulillah most of my family in Iraq were able to move to other Arab countries and settle there or to the West. Most have now returned again.

Anyway not sure what you want to say with your post?

This is about Iraq and not any other country. This is about criminals that killed thousands of Iraqis and are walking like free men.

We should concentrate on getting them to justice.

I think people on this forum misunderstand each other too much lol.

What he meant was that it was even worse than you'd imagine.

My intention was to point out the severity of the sanctions. The west thought "weakening" the "regime" was going to make Iraqis "like" them, which is completely false. I thought you didn't live under the sanctions so I wanted to tell you how bad it was.

I actually left iraq at 7 years, but I still remember eating the stone filled bread. The "oil for food" program was the most corrupt program, they brought the worst quality supplies to save money and maximize profits.

My intention was to point out the severity of the sanctions. The west thought "weakening" the "regime" was going to make Iraqis "like" them, which is completely false. I thought you didn't live under the sanctions so I wanted to tell you haw bad it was.

I actually left iraq at 7 years, but I still remember eating the stone filled bread. The "oil for food" program was the most corrupt program, they brought the worst quality supplies to save money and maximize profits.

I did not live in Iraq. Never have. Although I visited Iraq before the 2003 invasion and saw what the sanctions had of an impact with my own eyes. I have family members who were directly affected by it. My father was always visiting Iraq a couple of times a year even during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980's despite knowing the dangers of that. Always incognito.

Also sadly what Iraq suffered during the sanctions will not be repeated since they cannot commit such a crime again. The world has changed TREMENDOUSLY just in the last 15 years. Today almost everything is documented through the internet/smartphones etc. and reaches the whole world in a instant. Such things are not possible for any country to hide - expect North Korea which is must alike Iraq during Saddam since they appear to be 15 years backwards.

The sanctions were genocidal. I think its one of the most evil programs since WW2. A group of Western countries, lead by the US got together and basically decided that an Iraqi life is worth almost nothing.

I don't know if there is any point suing, but what Iraq definitely should do is maintain the memory the same way the Jews have maintained the memory of the holocaust. It was a holocaust.

--

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/dec/20/mod-iraqi-torture-victims

The Ministry of Defence has paid out £14m in compensation and costs to hundreds of Iraqis who complained that they were illegally detained and tortured by British forces during the five-year occupation of the south-east of the country.

Hundreds more claims are in the pipeline as Iraqis become aware that they are able to bring proceedings against the UK authorities in the London courts.

The MoD says it is investigating every allegation of abuse that has been made, adding that the majority of British servicemen and women deployed to Iraq conducted themselves "with the highest standards of integrity".

However, human rights groups and lawyers representing former prisoners say that the abuse was systemic, with military interrogators and guards responsible for the mistreatment acting in accordance with both their training in the UK and orders issued in Iraq.

The campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the UK's detention and interrogation practices following the 2003 invasion. An inquiry would be a development the MoD would be eager to avoid.

Payments totalling £8.3m have been made to 162 Iraqis this year. There were payments to 17 individuals last year and 26 in the three years before that.

The average payment to the 205 people who have made successful claims has been almost £70,000, including costs. The MoD says it is negotiating payments concerning a further 196 individuals.

Lawyers representing former prisoners of the British military say that more than 700 further individuals are likely to make claims next year.

Most of those compensated were male civilians who said they had been beaten, deprived of sleep and threatened before being interrogated by British servicemen and women who had detained them on suspicion of involvement in the violent insurgency against the occupation. Others said that they suffered sexual humiliation and were forced into stress positions for prolonged periods.

Many of the complaints arise out of the actions of a shadowy military intelligence unit called the Joint Forward Interrogation Team (Jfit) which operated an interrogation centre throughout the five-year occupation. Officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross complained about the mistreatment of detainees at Jfit not long after it was first established.

Despite this, the interrogators shot hundreds of video films in which they captured themselves threatening and abusing men who can be seen to be bruised, disoriented, complaining of starvation and sleep deprivation and, in some cases, too exhausted to stand unaided.

A former soldier who served as a guard at Jfit told the Guardian that he and others were ordered to take hold of blindfolded prisoners by their thumbs in between interrogation sessions then drag them around assault courses where they could not be filmed.

He also confirmed that the prisoners were often beaten during these runs, and that they would then be returned for interrogation in front of a video camera.

The interrogators were drawn from all three branches of the forces and included a large number of reservists.

During proceedings brought before the high court in London, lawyers representing the former Jfit prisoners suggested the interrogation centre could be regarded as "Britain's Abu Ghraib".

Questioned about the compensation payments, an MoD spokesperson said: "Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast majority have conducted themselves with the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. All allegations of abuse will always be investigated thoroughly. We will compensate victims of abuse where it is right to do so and seek to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice."

Lutz Oette, legal counsel at Redress, a London-based NGO which helps torture survivors get justice, said: "The payments provide a long overdue measure of redress. However, for the victims compensation without truth and accountability is a heavy price to pay. For justice to be done there is a need for a full independent inquiry to establish what happened and who is responsible.

"Looking at the number of claimants and scale of payments, there clearly seems to be a systemic problem. It is high time for this to be fully accounted for, first and foremost for the victims but also the British public, which has an obvious interest to know the truth behind the figures."

Next month, the high court will hear a judicial review of the MoD's refusal to hold a public inquiry into the abuses. Human rights groups and lawyers for the former prisoners say the UK government is obliged to hold an inquiry to meet its obligations under the European convention on human rights – and particularly under article three of the convention, which protects individuals from torture.

After a hearing, the high court highlighted matters supporting the allegations of systemic abuse. These included:

• The same techniques being used at the same places for the same purpose: to assist interrogation.

• The facilities being under the command of an officer.

• Military doctors examining each prisoner at various stages in their detention.

• Investigations by the Royal Military police that were concluded without anyone being held to account.

If the court does order a public inquiry, responsibility for any systemic abuse is likely to be traced up the military chain of command and beyond.

The MoD claims no public inquiry is necessary as it has instituted an investigation body, the Iraq Historical Allegations Team (Ihat), which is examining the abuse allegations as well as a number of prisoner deaths in British military custody.

After Ihat investigators examined the videos shot at Jfit, three interrogators were referred to the Service Prosecuting Authority with a recommendation that war crimes charges be considered.

Prosecutors eventually decided that the matters were insufficiently serious for war crimes charges and that disciplinary charges were unlikely to lead to convictions. They concluded that one soldier had committed offences, but that this was "in accordance with the training that they had been given"; it would be inappropriate to charge him.

Other inquiries have led Ihat to recommend that the MoD makes compensation payments to former prisoners.

But lawyers for the former prisoners believe Ihat is insufficiently independent as it answers to MoD officials. One investigator quit Ihat alleging that the organisation's inquiry is not genuine, but more a face-saving exercise.

I did not live in Iraq. Never have. Although I visited Iraq before the 2003 invasion and saw what the sanctions had of an impact with my own eyes. I have family members who were directly affected by it. My father was always visiting Iraq a couple of times a year even during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980's despite knowing the dangers of that. Always incognito.

Where did you live, in Saudi Arabia?

----Edit----
Removed some stuff, because I found it a bit unnecessary and and offensive... I will try to keep a better tone :)

KARMA!


http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10124371.Patients__fury_after_Iraq_death_GP_is_struck_off/

PATIENTS of a family doctor found guilty of misconduct over the death of an Iraqi detainee have condemned a decision to strike him off the medical register as a “travesty”.

Scores of supporters of Dr Derek Keilloh, a widely-respected GP at Mayford House Surgery, in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, said they were devastated he had been banned from practising medicine following a 47-day Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing.

The 38-year-old former accident and emergency doctor at the Friarage Hospital, in Northallerton looked down and blinked as the medical watchdog said with regret it had no option but to issue its most severe sanction today (Friday, December 21).

Dr Keilloh supervised a failed resuscitation attempt to save the life of hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, who had been beaten by soldiers after his arrest as a suspected insurgent in Basra in 2003.

The former Queen’s Lancashire Regiment captain and medical officer had claimed while giving mouth-to-mouth and CPR he had only seen dried blood around nose of Mr Mousa, 26, who had suffered 93 separate injuries.


The panel heard at the time of Mr Mousa’s death, Dr Keilloh was eight weeks into the job, was inexperienced and inadequately-trained and had been given little support in a chaotic setting.

But they ruled he must have seen the injuries and had a duty to act over the incident, which was later condemned by David Cameron as “appalling”.

The MPTS said Dr Keilloh, a married father-of-two, did not do enough to protect other detainees from mistreatment, breaking a fundamental principle of the medical profession.

Dr Brian Alderman said: “It is considered that this action is the only way proper standards of conduct and behaviour may be upheld and trust in the profession as a whole may be restored.”

Speaking after the hearing, Mr Mousa’s father, Colonel Daoud Mousa, said: “I wanted the doctor to be banned for life. He did not have humanity in his heart when he was supposed to be caring for my son.”

A spokesman for Dr Keilloh, who has 28 days to appeal against the decision in the High Court, said he was extremely disappointed at the decision and was considering his options.

The spokesman said: “He would like to say how much he appreciated the wealth of support he has received from his family, patients, colleagues and friends.

“This support has helped him through these very prolonged and difficult hearings and hopefully will continue to support him in the future.”

Patients said they felt devastated after hearing the “outrageous” decision and called for a protest march.

They said Dr Keilloh had been made a scapegoat.

Former Northallerton councillor Doug Doherty said: “As one of his patients, I feel the outcome of the hearing has proven to be unjust, not only to him but to his community, because the community has lost an understanding and professional doctor.”

Patient Jean O'Hanlon said: “A very sad day for Northallerton, Dr Keilloh was an asset to both Mayford House and the NHS . Dr K will always be, in my opinion, the best GP that I have ever met. He must appeal.”

A spokesman for Mayford House Surgery said: “Whilst this will be a shock to his patients, we want to reassure local people that we have put GP cover in place for Dr Keilloh and the surgery will operate as normal.”

KARMA!


http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10124371.Patients__fury_after_Iraq_death_GP_is_struck_off/

It would've been karma if he died of treatable injuries. Close enough, though