Winston Churchill once said: "When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise." It is common practice in conflicts that governments ignore and cover up potential war crimes committed by their troops, which otherwise could reduce support for the war both on the ground and at home.
Therefore, the recent release of classified documents by WikiLeaks is not a reckless endangerment of troops as advocated by the American, Australian and British governments, but a necessity to ensure justice and morality is upheld and reinforce our position as protectors of the Iraqi people against violence and oppression (See no evil: secret files show how US ignored Iraq torture, 23 October). There is no stronger incentive for a shift towards extremism than witnessing alleged abuses first-hand, which then remain unpunished.
Yes, Iraqi militants will use the release to try and rally support. However, with so many potential cases of human rights abuses revealed, this is an opportunity for governments to take action against perpetrators, which would demonstrate to everyone that we are there to help the Iraqi people and are committed to treating all crimes – whether carried out by our own troops or by the enemy – with the severity and disdain they deserve.
Dhiraj Joti
Victoria, Australia
•?The revelations of the scale of torture and related abuses carried out by the Iraqi army and police should do more than cause us to ponder the state of the prohibition of torture in Iraq, they should also force us to confront the fact that neither the US nor UK authorities seem to see this as anything other than an inconvenience. Reliance on the strength of Iraqi military and policing authorities is the backbone of the policy by which US and UK governments can progressively disengage from Iraq – detainees in US and UK custody are regularly being transferred to Iraqi custody, and the WikiLeaks documents are a stark indication of what these detainees will face once transferred.
Earlier this month, the European court of human rights' decision in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v the United Kingdom became final. The court ruled that transferring two Iraqis held by the British army to Iraqi custody breached their rights to be free from torture. The case sends an important message to all states carrying out military action in Iraq and elsewhere: if you are detaining people, not only must you ensure that the treatment accords with applicable human rights standards, you cannot transfer the individuals to the care or authority of the local authorities unless it is clear that they do not face a real risk of torture and/or other prohibited ill-treatment.
Not only do UK and US authorities have an obligation not to hand over detainees to Iraqi custody where there is a real risk of torture, they also have the obligation to do all in their power to stop the abuses, including by investigating cases that come to their attention and taking all appropriate steps to ensure prosecutions.
Carla Ferstman
Director, Redress
•?The news that Iraqi prisoners, including women, were subjected to torture and rape by Iraqi guards while in US custody is old news in Iraq. This is what prompted Dr Nawal al-Samaraie, the former minister for women's affairs, to resign her post in February 2009. Al Jazeera publicised her findings while the western media ignored her.
Tahrir Abdul Samad Numan
Orpington, Kent
•?Many thanks to WikiLeaks and the Guardian for your work on these Iraq documents, the final bloodstained nail in the coffin of the Iraq War Party. Yes, we invaded Iraq so we could make it safe for democracy. By setting up a new police force and army that could use rubber hoses, acid and electric drills on "suspects". But this time it's OK – it's in the cause of freedom. I guess the Iraqi village had to be destroyed in order to save it. The only justification (and I mean credible not believable) for the invasion made by its cheerleaders was that Saddam was a tyrant who tortured his people. Now we find out that we also gave the green light for the basement torturers to work their magic. Thank you, Tony and George. The Argentinian generals would be proud of you. And just as an aside, where are you now David Aaronovitch and Christopher Hitchens when we need you to justify this latest little indiscretion? It's not just the US occupation authorities who should stand in the dock after this. These noxious cheerleaders for the invasion, with their vaporous and corrosive criticism of anyone who disagreed with their boneheaded ends-means logic, should have to explain themselves too.
Jon Moran
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
•?There seems to be a misrepresent–ation of the role of WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange and the overall hacking movement. If we focus on what the newspapers are reporting, we would have to believe that there is an individual out there who is a genius in organisation and direction, solely responsible for what WikiLeaks is achieving, a man the Pentagon has learned to fear. On the contrary, Assange is part of a much larger movement. WikiLeaks is a project in which hundreds of anonymous hackers participate; not surprisingly, the many documents they have are stored in many different locations of the blogosphere. If anything were to happen to Assange, the movement will remain very active indeed – after all, the whole project is characterised by the co-operative labour of many people. Despite the "personality cult" the media promote, the reality is very different: there are many Julian Assanges in this world.
David J Lobina
London
No comments:
Post a Comment