Changes She WroteBlurred image of liberators and terrorists [Archives:2004/737/Culture]

May 13 2004

By Sadaf Shah
[email protected]
For the Yeamen Times

For anyone watching the Iraqi fiasco as an impartial observer must now be extremely confused as to who the civilized liberators are and who the hell are the insurgents/terrorists? The lines that bordered between humane and inhumane behavior are so blurred that it is impossible to even locate where they were originally drawn. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions are a thing of the past or they only apply to certain people from a certain place, the United States and Britain only. Yes, we do not need any monitoring of the troops wreaking havoc in Iraq or Palestine or even Chechnya! No, for they are doing a 'splendid job risking their lives' for the sake of their countrymen. That was the broken record being played over and over again at the U.S House Committee Hearing by the destructive arrogance of Donald Rumsfeld and his top military officials. General Richard Myers, U.S Joint Chiefs Chairman, said the pictures depicting abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib showed “sadistic activity” and that “This is failure of individuals.” General Peter Schoomaker, U.S Army Chief of Staff said he had never seen anything like this and that “we're dealing with actions of just a few.” Unbelievable! Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross had prepared reports since last year detailing prisoner abuses occurring not only at Abu Ghraib, but all of the prisons being used by the coalition forces. So, Mr. Rumsfeld, no matter how many times you say you did not know about the abuses or that 'these are isolated instances', will do no good. The truth of the matter is that Rumsfeld and his top military officials were full aware of the abuses, but did nothing to stop them. Why? Maybe because Rumsfeld thought that since the insurgents/terrorists treat the coalition troops so ruthlessly, so if the troops treat the prisoners ruthlessly, it does not matter. Call it 'tit for tat' policy.
However, what Rumsfeld failed to comprehend is that in the eyes of the international community, the American and British troops should have shown their better, more humane side in order to justify their war on terror. Even better would have been their support from the Iraqi people had the people of Iraq seen the difference between their previous leader and their now occupiers. Apologies came from Rumsfeld all the way to Jeff Hoon and Tony Blair in the wake of increasing Iraqi insurgence. The debate now has shifted towards whether or not more pictures should be released. For some observers, the question is not why the abuse took place, but why pictures were taken? Some analysts have drawn a much more grotesque image of the human psyche to answer this obvious question. These pictures are released to further fuel Iraqi insurgence, which will in turn justify coalition response of collective punishment and in the long run, the support for the war on Iran. Since Shiite support of the insurgence will be linked to Iran, and that would ultimately justify overthrowing Iranian authority and dismantling the country so that “democracy can have a chance to flourish” – the same mission Rumsfeld outlined for Iraq before the House Committee. The world should now be prepared to see more disgusting pictures and more horrifying images of war yet to come.

Killing without justification
On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, Amnesty International released a report charging British troops of killing civilians, including an eight-year-old girl, without just cause. Our world has become a playground for arrogant, and disillusioned leaders playing out their childhood 'Cowboys and Indians' game with no rules to adhere to and little concern for the cost of human life lost. The British government has responded by saying that they will investigate. Please investigate and find out why that little girl was killed. In the meantime, brace yourselves for the “worse is yet to come.”