GM, how can you deny that torture took place at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo? That's kind of strange by now to argue, no? I don't buy the outrage at Saddam's torture propensities however. Look at our current support and supply of weaponry to help the Uzbekis carry out there regime of torture and murder? What's a little torture among friends?

France arming Iraq? Yes, they did, as did the Germans and with no objections raised by the US in fact. Is the French selling of arms to Iraq supposed to somehow justify US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war? Support of Saddam's role in the war? And are we supposed to believe that the torture that took place under Saddam was what mottivated the invasion and current occupation? There's truly little evidence that that is the case, though it makes for comfortable rationalization as we reach 2,000 deaths of soldiers in Iraq and 20,30,40 who knows how many times more that of Iraqis since the official invasion.

Posted by steve at June 1, 2005 10:25 AM

This review of Kenneth Timmerman's book on the US and its allies' roles in arming Iraq:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=sep92hartung

"Timmerman persuasively demonstrates that the U.S. role in arming Iraq was not a result of errors in judgment or loopholes in U.S. export controls, although there were plenty of both along the way. From the beginning, the United States was motivated by strategic and political considerations, not the least of which was building a counterweight to the fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iran. The Death Lobby traces the origins of the now infamous U.S. "tilt" toward Iraq to Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who met with Saddam Hussein in July 1980 to discuss coordinated efforts to oppose "Iran's reckless policy." In August, the State Department won clearance to export General Electric engines to Italy for eight naval frigates that country was building for Iraq. By the end of September, Iraq had invaded Iran, and the U.S. policy of providing indirect support to the Iraqi war effort had been firmly established.

But Brzezinski's pro-Iraq maneuvering pales compared to Reagan and Bush administration efforts. Timmerman describes in detail how U.S. government officials looked the other way as Saddam Hussein's regime received U.S.-designed helicopters, howitzers, and cluster bombs through third parties such as Chilean arms dealer Carlos Cardoen and the South African government; as hundreds of millions of dollars worth of dual-use equipment, such as machine tools and advanced computers, were put to use in Iraqi missile and bomb factories; and as billions in U.S. government export credits helped Iraq defray the cost of a healthy proportion of its weapons procurement budget during the late 1980s.

Timmerman criticizes Paul Freedenberg and Dennis Kloske, two former directors of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration, for what one former Pentagon official described as a "casual attitude" toward approving militarily useful exports to Iraq. When asked why his office approved over 30 export licenses for advanced computers, test instruments, and other sophisticated equipment despite Pentagon objections, Freedenberg replied that "it just wasn't a big issue" at the time. "

Posted by steve at June 1, 2005 10:48 AM

Even international law does not define what has happened at Gitmo as war crimes.

This Australian article sums it up
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/When-rules-go-out-the-window-and-neartorture-is-selfdefence/2004/12/06/1102182221713.html

* The Geneva conventions don't apply to Al Qaeda

* The only international convention which appears to apply to US forces is the 1984 Torture Convention.

* The Torture Convention (and US implementing Acts) defines torture very narrowly.

Because Amnesty International didn't go after Saddam for the atrocities he committed, (only wrote a limp-wristed request for him to stop)~I find the allegations against the US pretty incredible and downright ridiculous.

If you want to argue that the US should nonetheless unilaterally undertake to treating recalcitrant prisoners at Gitmo uber-'humanely' (since they are already under orders from the president to be treated 'humanely'), your argument cannot be one of legal obligation, but rather must instead be based on: Concern for the fabric of US society and culture (the argument for fighting with one hand behind our backs). I say~do whatever you have to do to win the war against the scumbags.

End of rant.

Posted by Cao at June 1, 2005 05:31 PM

Cao, you can rant on my blog ANYTIME you want.

Posted by GMRoper at June 1, 2005 07:07 PM

So, Cao, if I'm understanding you correctly, you don't mind if your wife or child or mother or best friend is beaten, strung up by chain, or even killed if a military officer thinks that maybe you might be a terrorist because you are in a prison that is run by the United States military? If you do think that, there's not much that any rational person could do with that, but if you don't have that opinion, then you're not being consistent with what you've just written.

Posted by steve at June 3, 2005 03:53 PM