Finding U.S. Abuse in Iraq Left Red Cross Team in a Quandary (WSJ)

Standard notice re: Wall Street Journal stories. The journalistic (non-editorial page) side of this paper is one of the best in the world. This story is another good example. Unfortunately, the paper requires a subscription to read any of its stories. What follows is a report, by me, on their story, together with a few exerpts in bold.

Todays WSJ story on the ICRC may open new lines of inquiry into whether the US had a hand in trying to intimidate the organization after its abu Graib inspections last October. The story reports that daily US military operations were netting hundreds of suspects every week; most very young, many with no military connection. The jail system became overwhelmed as its population swelled to 10,000 by last September. Many spent months in captivity with no review of their case.

Not long after that (Sept 2003), Mr. Damary (an ICRC prison inspector) says he bumped into an agent with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. He says that in confidence, the agent told him that "you guys have to start working on the Abu Ghraib problem." ...When ...Damary... entered cellblock 1A inside Baghdad's Abu Ghraib facility in October, he was taken aback. Two of the first prisoners he saw were being held inside a tiny, darkened cell. One was naked. " ... It was just one sign the Red Cross's prison inspections in Iraq would be among the most extraordinary since the group began monitoring detention camps during World War I.

Then this:

...Red Cross inspectors would gather for about 15 minutes at 8:15 each morning in the parking lot of their Baghdad headquarters office. They made their final prison visit on Oct. 25, then flew that day to Jordan. Two days later, at about 8:30 a.m., a massive car bomb exploded in the parking lot, killing two Red Cross guards and damaging the building. All but a handful of the Red Cross's foreign nationals left. Local employees moved to secret locations. The Red Cross's logo was removed from its white vehicles.

On the US reaction:

(US) military officials involved acknowledge privately that they didn't believe the Red Cross when it delivered the working paper in November detailing abuses at Abu Ghraib. "My thought at the time was that the detainees were exaggerating if not outright lying. ... I now know that not to be true," one officer says.

Meanwhile, inside the ICRC they argued over whether the situation was so bad it justified making the ICRC inspection report public and denouncing the operations. (Some ICRC members say their families question them still about why they did not speak out sooner.)

The Red Cross tally so far in Iraq: 4 employees killed (one shot while riding in a white RC truck with the RC logo all over it), plus the October bombing which shattered the front of the Red Cross Baghdad headquarters, causing staffers to leave and inspectors to quit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108508787939617267-email,00.html

(subscription, sorry)

Is that like the chicken crossing the road story? Would the answer be to intimidate and shut them up?

Red Cross inspectors would gather for about 15 minutes at 8:15 each morning in the parking lot of their Baghdad headquarters office. They made their final prison visit on Oct. 25, then flew that day to Jordan. Two days later, at about 8:30 a.m., a massive car bomb exploded in the parking lot, killing two Red Cross guards and damaging the building. All but a handful of the Red Cross's foreign nationals left.

Who REALLY wanted the Red Cross out of "their" business?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310C.html
snip
Who was behind the attack on the Red Cross on October 27? While pointing to foreign terrorists linked to bin Laden, what the press failed to acknowledge was that this was the second attack on the Red Cross.

On April 8th, the day "Baghdad was Liberated", a convoy of seven vehicles of the Red Cross (ICRC), involved in re-supplyng the city's hospitals .was fired on leading to the death of 13 health workers as well as the ICRC's delegate to Iraq (who was a Canadian citizen).

The US media casually dismissed the incident: "A Canadian worker for the International Committee of the Red Cross was killed when gunfire strafed his car while driving through Baghdad." The April 8 attack against the Red Cross was barely reported by the Western media, which was celebrating "the Liberation of Baghdad".

...
Did US Troops Attack the Red Cross on April 8?
Reading between the lines of the ICRC statement and the various press reports, there are indications, although no official evidence, that Red Cross vehicles were targeted by Coalition forces. As mentioned earlier, Iraqi forces had no reason to target ambulances which were collaborating with Iraqi health officials.

The ICRC was careful not to openly accuse US forces:
...more http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310C.html

"Someone" did not want any international bodies in their way.

Now, think about who (what group) had set out on a campaign to diminish the value/worth of not only international bodies but also all other humanitarian organizations. They still do so this very day.

I never thought I'd actually hear people demonize humanitarians as those "stupid do-gooders".

Jesus would be furious!!!!

<whoops - I should have read the whole thread - sorry>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1621921.stm

US military warplanes "inadvertently dropped bombs" on Red Cross warehouses and on a nearby residential area in the Afghan capital Kabul, the US Defence Department said on Friday.

US Navy fighters and B-52 bombers mistakenly bombed six warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), destroying vital stocks of food.

This is the second time ICRC buildings have been hit since US air strikes began on 7 October. Two of the warehouses hit this time were struck last time around.

The US admitted accidentally bombing ICRC warehouses in Kabul on 16 October, injuring a security guard, but said that Taleban vehicles had been seen in the area.

more ..

the most experience (sorry can't remember his name...too much info overload) and the right hand man of Kofi Annen was killed.

Plus all the International Mercenaries who are in Iraq which I posted about in GD Forum this morning.

How do we know it's Our Soldiers, and not orders to the Mercenaries. Blair and Bush were desperate to cover up why we were in Iraq and what was really going on.

This all gets sicker and sicker and frankly nothing is too :tinfoilhat: to believe anymore, imho.

Until about 6 months ago, I was content to wear a straw hat because I thought the b*$hadmin was just plain incompetent. Now I won't leave home without the tinfoil. Unfortunately, every action/event must be treated with suspicion until proven otherwise.

This

(snip)
All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree… Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability…. their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy… The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn't too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an "American greatness" imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster…. This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy… Who knows where we'll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?… Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones… Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war "cowards and appeasers of tyrants." Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America's best "traditions."

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas address to the U.S. House of Representatives, July 10 (2003
(snip)
http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/new_world_order_quotes6.htm

I am sure there is thread on this in the DU archives, but I just happened upon it there.

I believe that was the UN adminstrator who was killed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/19/sprj.irq.main/

Wednesday, August 20, 2003 Posted: 2:09 AM EDT (0609 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.N. special representative in Iraq and at least 16 others died Tuesday in a bomb explosion that ripped through the organization's headquarters in Baghdad.

Sergio Vieira de Mello, a veteran U.N. official appointed to the post in May, was killed when a bomb-laden cement truck exploded beneath the window of his office in the Canal Hotel at about 4:30 p.m. <12:30 p.m. GMT; 8:30 a.m. EDT>.

They hate them quiter badly. A Good Man is the opposite of a Sraussian Bushevik.

The exact opposite.

Blown up. At his post, doing his job. Blown up.

He made the fatal mistake of believing Iraq should be governed by the Iraqi people. I thought the very same thing you did the day it happened. He was not a war-monger.



Top UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello killed in terrorist blast in Baghdad
Sergio Vieira de Mello
UN Press release
19 August - The top United Nations envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed today when terrorists blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing at least 14 others and injuring dozens more in what Secretary-General Kofi Annan denounced as an inexcusable "act of unprovoked and murderous violence."

Mr. Annan immediately cancelled his holiday in Europe to return to UN Headquarters in New York, where he is expected to arrive tomorrow, and the Security Council held emergency consultations, condemning in the strongest terms the "terrorist criminal attack" and vowing to further intensify its efforts to help the people of Iraq.

Mr. Vieira de Mello, a 30-year Brazilian veteran of many UN peacekeeping operations from the Balkans to East Timor to Africa, had been trapped in the rubble of the devastated Canal Hotel, which served as UN headquarters in the Iraqi capital. He was 55 and was UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Mr. Annan mourned his death as "a bitter blow for the United Nations, and for me personally."

"Those who killed him have committed a crime, not only against the United Nations but against Iraq itself," he said in a statement issued in New York. "The death of any colleague is hard to bear, but I can think of no one we could less afford to spare, or who would be more acutely missed throughout the UN system, than Sergio."

Among others killed were Rick Hooper of the United States, Ranillo Buenaventura and Marilyn Manuel of the Philippines, Jean-Selim Kanaan of Egypt and Fiona Watson of the United Kingdom. In addition, the Programme Coordinator for the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Iraq, Christopher Klein-Beekman, also died. He was a 32-year-old Canadian who was the agency's Officer-in-Charge in the country at the time of his death. "The people of Iraq have suffered an enormous loss today," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said.

Mr. Vieira de Mello made the establishment of full human rights a major part of his mission to Iraq ever since he arrived at the beginning of June as Mr. Annan's Special Representative and insisted that full sovereignty should be restored to the Iraqi people as soon as possible following the occupation of the country by the United States-led coalition.
(snip/...)

http://www.una-uk.org/iraq/demello.html

,...I always believed the neocons were responsible. After all, it's consistent with their Machiavellian MO,...yes. Sadly, "the ends justify the means",...whatever means, in their view.

They were going through the chaos part of the operation and anybody or anything that could represent any threat to their authority was to be pushed down.

Does anybody remember this thread

Curiouser and Curiouser
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=56370

,...and have unfortunately taken power,...that would be my guess,...but, I don't want to put words in another poster's mouth.

Every reason to get everyone out of their way.

for believing they can control other human beings by intimidation, threats and reprisals.

That is the key flaw in their entire effort, imo, and it's very similar to the attitude we employed for the most part in Vietnam.

The fact is that intimidation, threats and reprisals most often do not silence people, but quite the contrary, stir them to even greater determination.

I remember hearing long ago the military realist's rule of thumb:
Bombing doesn't shut people up. You never get them all. And the ones who are left are really pissed off!

and why the ICRC did not speak out earlier? They may have beleived they still could work with these war criminals and slow them or stop them. Now they do not believe this