Talk:Human rights in Ba'athist Iraq

CIA

I don't see the need to mention the CIA in the article, and certainly it does not belong in the intro. Saddam had dozens of important international connections during his reign, and singling out one is not appropriate. Furthermore, the links cited to support this are highly dubious. The first states that UPI has "pieced together the following account", meaning it is original research by them and needs to be treated with skepticism, and furthermore is not nearly as explicit as what is in the intro. The second is just garbage from the far-left zine ZNet, which is not credible at all and doesn't really support the allegation anyway. At any rate, reverting my entire edit (and then duplicating another intro sentence!) is the sort of thing that creates so much conflict on Wikipedia. -- VV 06:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I should acknowledge that in fact you did move it out of the intro, although perhaps not intentionally. My other objections remain. -- VV 06:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as you feeling no need to mention it, apparently others do (me, Pir and Rei) feel it needs to be mentioned. Saying all "international connections" are equivalent is nonsense, if Iraq had an "international connection" to say Kenya, that "international connection" could not provide Apache helicopters, tanks and so forth like the US could. Perhaps you should go around all of the pages and remove that countries had the backing of the USSR if you feel this way. That what UPI reports is irrelevant and to be deleted is not a standard held on Wikipedia. You may feel that only the allegations of Baathist torture and murder are relevant (which happened while the US backed Hussein), but your removal of subsequent accounts does not do, it does not do. I've heard first hand accounts of people being shot for throwing rocks and the like. Your standards for deletion are held nowhere else on Wikipedia. Venceremos 08:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A wealth of information was published in an article entitled, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making", by Roger Morris, in the March 14, 2003, New York Times. In it, Morris details the role of the CIA in the toppling of the Kassem (Qasim) government in collusion with the Baath Party (involving Saddam) in 1963. Following the coup there was a bloodbath in which hundreds of suspected Communists and other leftists were killed, using lists passed by the CIA to Baathists. --Jose Ramos 08:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well if you have a better source than the two cited then that's a start. But I don't see you saying the CIA actually sought their murder. And at any rate it should be a side note in an article that covers a lot of major incidents, and certainly does not belong in the intro paragraph. -- VV 08:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have read this article as well, The New York Times has reported that the CIA provided lists of people to kill as well. As if UPI was not good enough. And then you're deleting any murder and torture that happened post-invasion as well of course. Venceremos 09:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then edit in in an appropriate and NPOV and appropriate place as per my repeated explanations, and do not undo my other changes. -- VV 09:07, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pir's entry is appropriate and NPOV. As far as your "other changes", meaning your deletion of any post-invasion torture and murder, I will continue to undo your undoing of them because while you may not want people to know about CIA involvement in Hussein's initial coup or murder and torture that happens in Iraq after the invasion, I'll leave it up to them to decide whether they should know it or not. Venceremos 09:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

VV, Venceremos, Rei, and all other readers: do you feel that the latest version before protection by 172 is acceptable? pir 13:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not, at all. The 1,131,000 dead is incredibly inaccurate, since that is mostly composed of deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, and are not "torture and murder in Iraq". It's a distortion that has been continually used to try and create an illusion of a need to invade the country (that, and the pretending that torture and murder in Iraq were just as common in the late 90s/early 00s as they were during the Anfal campaign in the 80s). The entire ANFAL campaign, of which part was conducted as retribution for supporting Iran in the war, is described by HRW and Amnesty as being in the tens of thousands, usually with a "minimum" of 50,000. Rei

---

I did not look up the claim of 1,131,000+ dead, but if most of them were indeed killed in the war, this figure should be removed as it is misleading. Victims of war or not usually considered to have been 'murdered'. As the article is now, it reads like Saddam and the 'dirty dozen' personally killed over a million people.... It would be far better to list the different groups of people that were victims of murder and torture under Saddam (e.g. Communists, Kurds, Marsh Arabs, etc.), and give estimates of the numbers. Does anyone have a source for such info? pir 18:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Okay, two issues are being drawn out: First, West, I gave as an example; by "facing" court martial (which, by the way, you keep misspelling, breaking the link) I meant he was threatened with it (which forced the decision you alluded to); by "face" you maybe mean something stronger, but the point is that soldier misbehavior is in gross violation of the coalition's rules of engagement, which is not adequately emphasized in the article right now. The current text looks like it seeks to draw a moral equivalency between this handful of coalition misdeeds and Saddam's brutal regime of rape rooms and torture chambers, which, for lack of better words, is both perverse and inhuman. The second issue is that I don't think every single bad thing done by coalition soldiers needs to be explicated; no such corresponding exposition is given for the thousands of Saddam's victims, why the detail for these cases? (Of course, I know why some want it.) There is already a link provided where a person can read about the alleged mistreatment in detail if they want to. Right now this article is losing focus in the desire by some to paint an equivalency which does not exist. Personally, and unrelated, I think at this point it should be split up into two articles, one on Saddam's regime, one on the aftermath (or that info can be attached to an existing article on the occupation), since they are wholly different topics, but such a radical change can wait. -- VV 02:03, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV, from what you write it seems that you are concerned about the conclusion readers will draw from the article, but not about the factual accuracy of it. Wikipedia should bring facts in a NPOV manner (leaving the spin to the spin-doctors) and let readers make up their mind.

It's fair to say that Saddam's use of torture and murder was far, far more extensive and brutal, and this should be reflected in the amount of text dedicated to it. We should expand the bits on T&M committed by Saddam.

We need to recognise T&M for what they are: a tool to control the population when some sections of that population reject those in charge. That's is the reason why both Saddam and the current occupation make use of it. We should not break up the article. MAybe we should rename it though, as torture and murder are terms loaded with moral judgement.pir 10:50, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also: it is rather naive to argue that T&M are not official US/UK occupation policy, and that therefore they are only 'individual misdeeds'. Do you think T&M were written into Saddam's constitution? No, it happened exactly the same way, they were illegal but the torturers and murderers did their job in the interest of the state and were therefore free to do it.pir 10:56, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd second adding more details of torture used when Saddam was in charge, although you need to make sure that you're reporting from a reliable source (i.e., not anything that traces back to Ahmed Chalabi's thugs, who've been found to have made up almost everything they told the US). Get some from Amnesty or HRW - they cross-reference their sources. I also would like to add that I agree with everything that Pir said above. Lastly, VeryVerily, I commented already in the article about what sort of torture facilities were found in Iraq after the invasion - they weren't incredibly impressive by middle-east standards, but they were present and found in most police stations. In short, I think you need to quit reciting the INC-created fables that all but say "He Ate Babies!", and actually cite some of the real atrocities that were committed under Saddam Hussein that have been well documented. User:Rei

Oh, and I should also add: It is completely incorrect to say that West faced court marshal. He did not face court marshal. He got off from breaking the Geneva Conventions without any sort of trial and no punishment worse than what is basically getting "fired". And even *that* has been rare compared to the number of reported cases of abuse. It's no real shock that we're using Abu Gharib for all of this... it was Saddam's most infamous prison in Iraq, and now it's our most infamous prison. If you'd like, I can get you some articles from people who were held there who compare and contrast the conditions at the prison from when Saddam was in power and what it's like now (it's improved on a number of fronts, but actually gotten worse on a few fronts). Rei

(Copying some relevant excerpts from my comments on User talk:Pir:) I agree with you that all information should be presented and in a proportionate/balanced manner, including reports regardless of the perpetrators; what bothers me balance-wise is that the article goes on at length about coalition misdeeds, but only gives passing reference to torture by Saddam's regime. Of course, this can be corrected with more detail, but at present it leaves I think a very wrong impression, an impression which, I believe, some users would like to leave readers with. I see from your comments on talk that you recognize that I have this concern. As for your point about official policy, well, call me naive, but I don't believe for a second George Bush would ever authorize soldiers to engage in "sexual misconduct" with prisoners, while I am fairly convinced Saddam countenanced such behavior regularly. I believe this is a hugely important difference which needs to be emphasized. As for the claim that torture is a tool of control, I think that is a controversial assertion. Some would contend that torture is of little use in this regard and is more the result of runaway sadism and cruelty/vengeance by people with power. The torture article or its offshoots is probably the right place for these debates, which is why I think splitting the article into one on the "Dirty Dozen" and one on post-Saddam Iraq does not take away anything; the general subject of torture is too broad anyway for an article focusing only on Iraq. (VV 22:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC))

1) I already agreed that it would be good to get some more specifics about torture and murder in Iraq under Saddam - *so long as they're from a reputable source*, and not stories that originated from Ahmed Chalabi's thugs. By all means, go ahead and add some.

2) As for your comment about sexual misconduct, I'd just like to add that about 30% of US servicewomen reported being raped or having an attempted rape while in the service [1], so don't pretend that it's so beyond us. These are our *own people*, and the rate is that high. Secondly, I actually would be surprised if you found that Saddam Hussein had personally endorsed rape, although he certainly tolerated its use by his security forces at least for high-ranking detainees - for example, a relative of former general Najib al-Salihi.

3) If torture is runaway sadism, what do you think of the continued reports of our troops use of torture in both Afghanistan and Iraq? What about the fact that we've been deporting prisoners to their countries of origin for interrogation instead of leaving them in the US because their countries of origin use torture (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc)? Torture isn't used for sadism in almost all cases. In some cases it is used as punishment; however, the most common use of it is interrogation. There are a lot of debates over whether it is an effective interrogation tool, but that's what it's almost always used as. By the way, I get the impression that you have no clue how widely used torture is in the world... especially among our allies. Hell, even Israel uses torture, let alone extensive use in countries like Uzbekistan, the Phillipines, essentially the entire arab world, etc. It's not nice, and it's something to be worked against, but it's reality. Rei

(1) Well one of my implicit points was that an equivalent level of detail on Saddam's atrocities would turn this into a megamile-long article; the current level is maybe less than desirable but perhaps appropriate for Wikipedia's scope, which is why the current level for anti-coalition allegations strikes me as too high. (2) Such rapes are gross misconduct and are not sanctioned by the government; again, I see an attempt to equate Saddam's clear "toleration" of rape (which is probably a good deal more than that) with criminal behavior within the ranks of US soldiers (which, incidentally, touches on other issues like women in the military and so forth), when there is simply no comparison. It is a whitewash to blur this. (3) I'm not endorsing the view that torture is runaway sadism, noting merely that is a possible POV. I think most would say that it is a combination of different factors, sometimes being used in a utilitiarian manner, interrogation or punishment, sometimes for gratification. (Do you not think Saddam might torture his enemies "just because"?) Finally, one last equivalency to attack: the things called "torture" which you refer to (e.g., "torture lite" and Israel's "moderate physical pressure") are again nowhere near the severity of what occurred under Saddam and other such regimes (such as in the Arab world). This again is a very important distinction I feel you are trying to blur. -- VV 06:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VV, you accuse us of trying to whitewash T&M under Saddam and equating it with T&M under the occupation - a pretty serious accusation to make. You really should explain why you think that is our goal. There is consensus that there's a disbalance between Saddam T&M and occupation T&M as the article is now, and we agree that we should expand Saddam's use of torture. We should also contrast the methods used under Saddam with those used by the occupation. What I am interested in is painting a realistic picture of T&M in Iraq - are you too? pir 13:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to Rei's points, in particular #2. I'm not sure there is consensus that there is a disbalance, in that Rei seems to feel the level of coverage for the occupation is appropriate (see my point #1 and his reverting of my trimming of a description) and does seem to want to blur the distinctions between then and now. Certainly the old text before I worked on it (suffering numerous reverts) makes it sound like there's basically no difference at all ("... has not ended the use of torture in Iraq"). I'm glad you acknowledge that that is not the case, because the article does not seem to very well. -- VV 00:32, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

My first impression of this page is that it focuses way too much on post-Saddam human rights abuses, and that it is too easy to discern the writer's point of view (which is clearly antiwar, anti-occupation). I actually came to this page looking for an estimate (or discussion of competing estimates) of how many people died as a result of human rights abuses in Saddam's Iraq. The information on the page failed me.

Examples of problems with this page:

• The order is chronologically wrong. The US human rights abuses are mostly listed before the ones that occurred under Saddam.
• For the human rights abuses under Saddam, reasons to doubt that they happened are given. Whereas for the ones under the US, no reasons to doubt that they happened are given.
• Far more information is given about US human rights abuses than Saddam's human rights abuses.
• The entire article generally has an anti-occupation, anti-war tone.

I should qualify that statement by saying that I myself am totally antiwar and anti-occupation, and have devoted way too much of my personal time to opposing the war! In fact, the reason I was looking for an estimate of the death toll under Saddam Hussein is I suspect the coalition's 'kill rate' of civilians might be as much as or even exceed Saddam's. So I wanted that information in order to make an anti-occupation point in the blogs!

But Wikipedia ain't meant to be a place to put across your personal views. It's meant to give us all the facts. Can I make a suggestion? It might be a good idea if the "Torture and murder in Iraq" page were split into two new pages:

• Human rights abuses in Saddam's Iraq
• Human rights abuses in post-Saddam Iraq

Perhaps this would take a lot of heat out of the debate over this page, and be conducive to objectivity on all sides. What do people think? Apologies if this idea has been posted before, I haven't read the entire discussion (it's a bit long for that!)

Russell

The split sounds like a good idea. If you had followed the discussions here, we have continually invited more information about torture and murder in Iraq under Saddam, so long as it is accurate (I.e., not reports that came from the INC, either directly or indirectly, since Chalabi has admitted that the INC made up almost everything that they told the US, to get them to invade). For example, adding information about the Stalin-like executions conducted when Saddam took power, or references to the Anfal campaign in the 80s (so long as the context is mentioned - it's still an atrocity, but one does need to mention that PUK sided with Iran), would be very welcome - they're well documented. Unfortunately, there aren't too many well documented non-INC cases in the 90s. There's the Olympic team torture, and there were lots of death penalty cases (although I don't think that counts as "murder", and most weren't political prisoners). Also, Iraq had your typical harsh arab security service, which used as standard practice beatings, hanging from hooks, electric shock, humiliation of prisoners, confinement in bad conditions, etc (all common in the middle east - even Israel); the only major difference is that they widely used it for minor crimes as well (Iraq even had a feared traffic police  ;) ). It was, in this respect, more reminiscent of the security service of countries like Uzbekistan, worse than countries like Saudi Arabia, but better than countries like North Korea (who have literal concentration camps where prisoners are worked/starved to death). --Rei

---

OK I've done it. Hope the results are acceptable to everyone! We now have two pages:

• Human rights abuses in Saddam's Iraq
• Human rights abuses in post-Saddam Iraq

The new pages link to each other. I hope this will encourage NPOV! The change from 'Torture and murder' to 'Human rights abuses' is for two reasons:

• I hope the new term will also encourage NPOV
• it covers a wider range of crimes against humanity than 'Torture and murder'

I haven't had time to add any content to either page, apart from a brief mention of US tactics at the siege of Fallujah (on the post-Saddam page).

russell_j

Good job on the split! Indeed, I suggested doing this myself a couple of times above, but I got too bogged down in keeping the page from being a pure anti-US spiel (despite the problems you note, before it was even more slanted and one-sided against the US) and battling trolls to take the time out to do that. Some of the copy needs to be worked over now that it's in its new form, but I'm an eventualist about that. One thing that might be helpful is to note that Iraq was a closed society and so "hard" proof of abuses was harder to come by (hence the imputed value of the Chalabi reports) than in the relatively open occupation. -- VV 07:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a note: The imputed value of the Chalabi reports is due to the fact that he admitted that the INC put forward people who were lying. When asked about whether he deliberately misled the US, he excused it by referring to the INC as "heroes in error" and claiming that it's not important why the US invaded, only that they're there and Saddam is gone. They put out people like "Curveball" and Hamza to give reports which were pure fabrication, and we were so desperate for bad things about Iraq and Saddam that we bought it. Let's not forget that Chalabi is a many-count felon who embezzled money in the largest banking scandal in Jordan's history, and fled the country in the trunk of a car; he used the money to found the INC, and has been on the dole for over 300k a month personally from the US.

Do you think Saddam's government was *less* oppressive during the 1980s? Yet, what happened back then was well documented. Now that the US is (kind of) running Iraq, there have been lots of accounts by locals who had no incentive to lie (although in some articles, people got paid for their interviews, so you need to be careful). And certain pre-war accusations seem to have held true, such as the allegations of torture of the olympic team. I just want to make sure that wikipedia isn't spreading false information, when there is plenty of true information out there.

P.S. - Good job with the split! --Rei

---

Thanks for those positive comments about the split! Today I have changed the page names again, to use 'situation' rather than 'abuses'. I believe this is more NPOV because:

• It doesn't prejudge the state of human rights in Iraq at the time in question (pre or post Saddam). The reader is invited to read about the human rights situation and make his/her own mind up whether it was/is good or bad.
• It opens the way to include the fact that there have been some human rights improvements in Iraq since the invasion (notably more press freedom, although the CPA has undermined that by trying to shut down Sadr's paper).
• It opens the way to include the single positive thing that I have ever heard anyone say about human rights in Saddam's Iraq - the position of women in society was actually quite good for a middle eastern country. Witness the fact that one of the top WMD scientists was female. Of course, for those women who fell foul of the regime, the human rights situation was not very good at all...  ::((

Hope people are happy with this... Russell_j

Lynch

Why include this line on J Lynch? Lynch has refuted this account, and it didn't occur under what we can call Saddam's Iraq.

Count Iraq/Iran War

If you were to count Iraq/Iran war into the sum total of deaths. The number inflates to 400,000 deaths. Since ofcourse the war was instigated by the tyrant himself, I think these numbers should be included much like Hitlers invasion of Poland was counted against him.

Misleading Comparison to World War 2

The U.S. didn't have a choice during WW2 whether to help the Soviets since they were already fighting when the U.S. entered the war. A more apt comparison would be if the U.S. supported the Nazis after they invaded the Soviet Union because they were the "lesser of two evils". After all, the U.S. did support a modern day Hitler who gassed his own people.

Tell that to the "modern day Hitler's" rotting corpse.

CW

CW CW CW CW CW