If you haven't seen enough human depravity in the destruction of a city of 300,000, undisciplined fire control by American troops, suicide bombings, sectarian executions, and destruction of sacred buildings; consider the following. (Police Kill 14 Year Old for being an Homosexual).



And the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other clerics appear to be behind these kinds of summary executions.





Does the US have a responsibility to control this kind of murder?

If your answer was yes, what could and should the US do?

How do these murders compare to the attempt to execute the converted Christian in Afghanistan?

If this horror had taken place in an independent nation which had not been invaded by the United States, the only possible response would be to try to use diplomatic and economic methods, with international co-operation, to persuade the government to stop abusing its own people. This is what is normally done with repressive governments. (There is rarely much success, of course.)

Things are much more complex, since the current government of Iraq (if it deserves that name) is, in some sense, the creation of the United States. Because of that, the USA has some responsibility to see that its creation does not become a Frankenstein monster.

It's hard to determine the exact method by which this heavy responsibility can be carried out. Should Iraq remain a sort of puppet state? This burdens the United States for decades to come, and makes it hard to defend the claim that the goal of the USA is to bring democracy to the region. Should the United States remain in the region until a government which is at least reasonably secular and representative is in power? This might be the least of all possible evils, with some international help.

This evil action compares with the equally wicked action in Afghanistan in a way which reinforces the premise that it is not enough to have voting; the only way to have a halfway sane society anywhere is to create a liberal*, secular, representative government. When it comes to government, one or two out of three is bad.


(Allow me to point out that I am using the word "liberal" in its broadest possible sense, and not in the sense used when discussing domestic politics.)

I doubt this administration would bother threatening any country with sanctions on account of gays. A nuclear Iran may be a threat to Israel, but goddamn it, Iran has the right to discriminate against gays at the United Nations. Besides, it's not like countries don't execute gays already. Maybe I'm especially cynical today but I can’t see the U.S. using its leverage at the U.N. to stop human rights violations unless as a result of those violations conflict spills into other countries and the death toll is alarming. No, we must use that leverage to serve economic interests.

Does the US have a responsibility to control this kind of murder?
No, unless you also want to pin the blame for sectarian violence on the U.S. What we are responsible for is the catastrophic failure to anticipate the infiltration of Iraqi security forces by groups with divergently sectarian and hostile agendas.

How do these murders compare to the attempt to execute the converted Christian in Afghanistan?
They’re not Christian, let alone “moral.” Perhaps there is no comparison at all.

The secret American Army kills Iraqis randomly.
Every Iraqi can tell you about the secret American gangs army, which consists of some Iraqi American members, Persians, and some of the 100,000 thieves and killers that Saddam released days before the American occupation.

Of course it is a real joke to every intelegent Iraqi that the man who killed this Iraqi journalist was shouting "ALLHU AKBAR".

Also releasing the video about this murder is very similar to the American psycological war against Iraqis. This is in line with the systematic Abu Ghirab prison photos release.

The Americans are heavily involved in many types of attacks against the Iraqi people and women and children, and that news below is the most evident proof.

Every person who fights for humanity should raise his voice against the secret American army in Iraq which attacks civilians in their homes and in cities streets except in Kurdistan (Because Americans want to give kind of independence to that portion).

So killing a gay or whatever is just another label. The secret American Army in Iraq is fighting and killing civilians randomly.

S1000+



The Sunday Times - World


The Sunday Times May 07, 2006


Part of me died when I saw this cruel killing

HALA JABER EVEN by the stupefying standards of Iraq’s unspeakable violence, the murder of Atwar Bahjat, one of the country’s top television journalists, was an act of exceptional cruelty.

Nobody but her killers knew just how much she had suffered until a film showing her death on February 22 at the hands of two musclebound men in military uniforms emerged last week. Her family’s worst fears of what might have happened have been far exceeded by the reality.

Bahjat was abducted after making three live broadcasts from the edge of her native city of Samarra on the day its golden-domed Shi’ite mosque was blown up, allegedly by Sunni terrorists.

OK, I'll bite against my better judgement. What proof exactly is there of some "secret American Army" operating in Iraq. The article you posted certainly made no such claim and provided no insight as to your claims.

"Secret" American Army huh? They didn't do real good job at keeping their presence a secret!

Does the US have a responsibility to control this kind of murder?

If your answer was yes, what could and should the US do?

How do these murders compare to the attempt to execute the converted Christian in Afghanistan?

My question to you is are you upset that this occurred in a country where the American Army resides or that it happened in a Islamic country? They are two very distinct lines of thinking. In one breath you cannot say that the US should stay out of Iraqi policy and in the next breath say we should prevent them from doing things that are in line with their culture. This is a display of their culture whether we like it or not. I'm not saying its right by any stretch of the imagination but I thought we were supposed to be "tolerant" of other cultures different than our own.

Its time for the Iraqis to take control of their own government and their own politics. We are not going to like nor should we like every single thing that they do but its the general idea that once democratic ideals are rooted in the country for a period of time that such things would no longer occur. But of course this is hypothetical...who knows.

In March, Amy Goodman did a piece on the issue of homosexual persecution in Iraq, and a transcript and audio file is available here.

My feeling is that the US and other UN member countries have a responsibility to react to any type of sytematic, government persecution whether it be in Iraq or anywhere else, but as VictoriaSilverwolf stated, Iraq is a bit more complicated since the United States is so intricately involved in the creation of the government there.

I'm honestly not certain what the best policy would be in Iraq, but I would like to see Iraq develop into a more secular state. As it stands right now, the religious sectarian violence isn't an improvement over the presence of Sadaam Hussein. I fear that Victoria Silverwolf is correct when she says that the least of all possible evils is probably to remain in Iraq until the government is more stable and representative.

Unfortunately, in the transcript that I posted, Ali Hili claims that the U.S. military doesn't take the issue seriously either. I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but it seems that people who are are systematically persecuted in Iraq should be offered some sort of protection if they are specifically requesting it.

Edited to fix spelling...

Your claim is not entirely foreign to some of the things I have heard and read in the past. You might be interested in this article reprinted on the ufppc.org website in June of 2005.



You might also want to see this earlier article.

Nevertheless, I took the killing of the young boy to have different origins, particularly in light of Grand Ayatollah Sistani's fatwah. I could be mistaken.

I have always regarded Sistani as one of the most stabilizing influences in Iraq. The whole incident is just another indication of how fundamentally different our values are and why the continued presence of our troops is destructive of both societies. It also shows how the law of unintended consequences can operate in an invasion of choice, not that our intended consequences were all that positive either.

Edited to add:

I just read the Democracy Now interview Cyan linked. I think this excerpt shows how shallow our military's commitment is to basic human rights.

(Democracy Now Interview).

I just got a tad confused for a moment and I'd appreciate it if the author could explain this to me. Grand Ayatollah (almost sounds like the KKK) Sistani is the boss over the policemen the US have trained to take over security (won't happen in our lifetime) in Iraq? What's the procedure here? The Grand Ayatollah sits behind the desk at the Iraqi police headquarters and makes a decree which the policemen of Iraq all abide by? That they take their orders from the Grand Ayatollah? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think any Grand Ayatollah is giving orders to the US-controlled Iraqi police department.

You haven't followed events in Iraq if you think the police are controlled by the US. The police are under the Iraqi Interior Department and are composed largely of militia elements from Shiia parties. The largest group consists of recruits from the Badr Organization. Unlike the Iraqi military, the police aren't directed by the US. Here is a short middle of the road article on the Iraqi police.

Sistani has no political position but has overwhelming influence among the Shiia. He forced the US to hold elections before they wanted to by giving his support to massive non violent demonstrations by the Shiia. A religious decree on his website saying that homosexuals should be killed will be taken seriously by many Shiia. Unless the US effectively resists the arbitrary killing of gays we will have another crime against humanity to add to a growing list.

P.S.
The 2 articles I referenced for Sumarian100 were from the period when the US was focussed entirely upon the insurgent Sunnis and was little concerned about Shiia sectarianism. There was some evidence that US was organizing death squads to kill insurgents, sympathizers, and likely sympathizers in terror campaigns like those conducted in El Salvador and Nicaragua when Negroponte was manipulating events from his position as ambassador to Honduras. How much of this that was actually carried out in Iraq and whether it played any role in the current sectarian violence are still open questions.

TM,

The way I understand it is that the Muslim religion does not have a hierarchy, such as the Roman Catholic Church. So you have all these Ayatollahs running around with their own ideas on things, and one is not any more influential than the other. I've heard this from analysts of the ME when trying to explain why things seem so chaotic over there.

So a Sistani issues a fat wah (sounds like an electric guitar effect peddle), and those who want to kill gays get the okay, I suppose. Those who don't just ignore the cry baby. There's no authority other than what the individual gives the Ayatollah, so it's kinda like the libertarian version of religious leadership. Or mayber the street preacher's version? The strip mall church, where anyone can thump a Bible and yammer about things they know nothing about?

Oh, it's like freedom of religious wah-wahs. Chaotic cacophony.

Does the US have a responsibility to control this kind of murder?

No. From the moment the Iraqi people voted for their government, then all responsibility towards the criminal activity of Iraqi people in Iraq passed from the US military to the Iraqi government.


How do these murders compare to the attempt to execute the converted Christian in Afghanistan?

I don't understand what your asking. Both are murders of people for something we in the west do not consider a crime. Thus, to us, these people were innocent.

In an Islamic society however, such a thing as conversion or homosexuality is considered a crime.


A fatwah is when a member of the public asks an imam for guidance on any subject with regards to Islamic law.

Thus, some member of the public asked Al Sistani (who is the highest ranking shi'a cleric in Iraq) whether or not homosexuality is allowed in Islam and Al Sistani replied by issuing a fatwah to reply. No. It is a mortal sin, punishable by death.

(Al Sistani is commonly refered to as being a moderate Muslim)

Once a fatwah has been issued, it is considered by the faithful to be law. Much like when a US court makes a ruling, all subsequent courts of law must take the said ruling into account, or overturn it.

Since Al Sistani is the highest ranking shi'a cleric in Iraq, indeed I think he is actually even higher up in the holy stakes than any of the Sunni's, this means that for any religious shi'a policemen (and the shi'a make up the bulk of Iraq's police and militia forces), he does in fact out rank even the government. In effect then, even though he is said to be a recluse for most of the time, most police do indeed take orders from Al Sistani.


edited for spelling

Does the US have a responsibility to control this kind of murder?

I would agree with Victoria on this - without her proviso. The only possible response is to try to use diplomatic and economic methods, with international co-operation, to persuade the government to stop abusing its own people. Of course, if this whole "independent Iraq" thing is a sham and we want their government to be nothing more than a US puppet friendly to American business and an American military presence in perpetuity, then it would be a different story. We should ensure that human rights are as protected there as they are here (which, frankly, isn't saying that much any more). But of course that's not the case, right?

How do these murders compare to the attempt to execute the converted Christian in Afghanistan?

And I would agree with moif on this one. Both are murders of people for something we in the west do not consider a crime. Similarly, there may be countries in the world that feel that the US shouldn't be illegally invading sovereign nations or illegally wiretapping our own citizens or illegally employing torture against alleged enemy combatants. To civilized countries, such acts may be seen as immoral, unethical crimes against humanity. But who the hell are they? All criminal activity perpetrated by the US government should be addressed by, um, the US government - though I would, of course, welcome the use of diplomatic and economic methods, with international co-operation, to persuade our government to stop abusing its own people and violating international law. But, as Vicki said, such actions rarely have much success...