ByteMe

I didn't really report it. You think I'm stoopid?

Falstaff

for IRAQI refugees and displaced persons, in an effort to prevent the subsequent abuse and torture of the people during the conflict and afterward, specifically those that are ethnically different or in opposition to the Ba-ath party...Even after the Coalition has finished securing the existing boundries of Iiberated IRAQ...we see human rightts abuses and military action, but when the troops are gone, and the population is left to a budding security force, it is certain that tribal rivalries will emerge again, and a civil war may result...

__________________

Falstaff

Open Letter To European Justice and Home Affairs Ministers and Commissioner Vitorino Regarding Protection Of Iraqi Refugees and Displaced Persons

(Brussels, March 25, 2003)

Your Excellency,
Human Rights Watch respectfully presents your government with the enclosed briefing paper: 'Iraqi Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Displaced Persons: Current Conditions and Concerns in the Event of War' (February 13, 2003). Human Rights Watch does not take a position on the legal justifiability of war, including possible U.S.-led military action in Iraq. Our work in conflict situations focuses on the potential harm to civilians. In this vein, we prepared this paper at this critical juncture, to brief the media and public, and to remind relevant governments of their duties to protect and assist Iraqi refugees and displaced persons. Now is the time when humanitarian planning to minimize the harm of a possible armed conflict in Iraq can and should be undertaken. Such planning should include full respect for the human rights of all Iraqis - including those already seeking or enjoying asylum in Europe.

In particular, we would like to draw your attention to the recommendations addressed to "governments outside the region" and to "donor governments and intergovernmental humanitarian agencies." In this letter, we summarize these recommendations and comment on additional information received since the issuance of the enclosed briefing paper. We invite your government to share with Human Rights Watch any information or comments relating to these recommendations or to other steps you may currently be taking to prepare for a possible refugee crisis in the Middle East.

Barriers to entry in Europe and treatment of Iraqi asylum seekers
If widespread forced displacement occurs as a result of conflict in Iraq, then barriers preventing asylum seekers from reaching western Europe - where individual refugees may, for example, have family members - should be lifted as far as possible. Interdicted boats carrying Iraqi migrants in the Mediterranean, for example, should not be returned to their point of embarkation but received into Europe. We also urge all European governments to ensure that Iraqi asylum seekers arriving by air, sea or land are not detained, except in exceptional circumstances and in accordance with international standards. Nor should they be excluded from refugee status except in accordance with the specific and limited provisions of the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention).

Iraqi asylum seekers in your territory should have their claims processed as normal, as long as practicably possible. At present, there are no grounds for suspension of asylum processing, or for delaying the issuance of Iraqi asylum decisions. We would be grateful to receive your assurances that such suspension or deliberate delay is not in fact occurring.

Temporary protection and increased resettlement
Human Rights Watch urges the European Union Council of Ministers to activate its Directive on temporary protection only when there is an imminent or actual threat of European asylum systems being overwhelmed by new Iraqi applicants. It would be helpful at this time if your government could clarify its interpretation of what might constitute an "imminent" refugee influx in the context of a possible conflict in Iraq.

With or without activation of the E.U. Directive, each European government should now be preparing to offer possible emergency evacuation/resettlement places, additional to any annual quotas, which may be required either to meet the protection needs of particularly vulnerable Iraqis or if protection in any part of the region should prove ineffective. We believe that positive political leadership on the part of your government - explaining to your constituents the possible humanitarian necessity for such resettlement and urging them to welcome Iraqi refugees and asylum seekers with generosity and respect, rather than fear - would play a decisive role in the success of such a resettlement program.

Suspension of returns to Iraq
In addition, any returns of Iraqis to their region, on "safe third country" or similar grounds, should be suspended as a matter of both principle and pragmatism. We are deeply concerned about the implications of proposals made by the U.K. government to return all asylum seekers to "regional protection centers," in, among other countries, Turkey. These proposals would shift the responsibility of refugee protection to the countries in Europe least well suited to shouldering the burden. They are particularly alarming against the backdrop of a potentially large-scale humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

If armed conflict should occur, Human Rights Watch recommends that any policy permitting return of rejected asylum seekers to northern Iraq or to any other part of the country should be suspended for at least the duration of the conflict, and that subsidiary status should be granted to persons in need of protection but falling outside the scope of the U.N. Refugee Convention. In the event that your government decides to suspend processing of all Iraqi claims during the conflict, we would urge you to make every effort to grant those asylum seekers an adequate level of rights, including freedom of movement, during their wait in your country.

When - and if - the end of a possible conflict in Iraq may allow for return of rejected asylum seekers, and/or individuals with temporary protection, all Iraqis must have the right to lodge new asylum claims relating to any possible changed circumstances in Iraq, and they should be provided with full access to independent sources of information concerning human rights conditions in their home area when making such claims. No forced returns of refugees or persons who received temporary protection should be contemplated until conditions allow for voluntary return in true safety and dignity.

Assistance to countries neighboring Iraq, in particular Turkey and Iran
In addition, we ask European governments to provide countries neighboring Iraq, particularly Iran and Turkey, with every possible incentive to accept refugees who may arrive at their frontiers. Clear commitments of substantial material support should be made immediately, so that these countries will have the confidence to deliver protection from day one and for as long as it is necessary.

The Iranian government continues to express a strong preference for assisting displaced Iraqis on the Iraqi side of the border, and we are extremely concerned that Iranian border guards should not forcibly turn back people approaching the border with the likely wish to seek international protection. It is a welcome development, however, that Iran is also reportedly arranging for nineteen refugee camps to be established on Iranian territory. European governments should now be playing an active role in assisting with this important preparatory work. Through this assistance, they should try to ensure: that there are contingency plans in case the camp locations, within only a few kilometers of the Iraqi border, come under threat; that refugees' rights, including those of women and children, will be respected within the camps; and that Iran's longer-standing Iraqi refugee population, living mainly in urban centers, will not become subject to forced encampment or increased discrimination during any crisis.

We also urge your government to press Turkey to accept asylum seekers at its border with Iraq, today and in the event of war. The Turkish authorities say that they will keep their borders closed to refugees and will establish centers for receiving internally displaced persons in Northern Iraq, clearly as a pre-emptive alternative to refugee protection in Turkey. Human Rights Watch is concerned that border closures may exacerbate Turkey's egregious record of abusive treatment of asylum seekers and migrants at border crossings. In 2001, Turkish officials forcibly returned ninety-three asylum seekers and three recognized refugees to a place where they were unsafe. Between November 2001 and January 2002 at Turkish borders, at least four asylum seekers were shot and killed by Turkish border police, twenty-six froze to death in remote mountain crossings, and scores were drowned.

Moreover, since issuing the enclosed briefing paper, Human Rights Watch has received further disturbing reports from Turkey that five hundred village guards are being trained under the name of "Lightning Group" (Simsekler Grubu) for service in Northern Iraq, possibly at the centers for internally displaced persons/ would-be refugees. The Turkish parliamentary commissions on unsolved political killings and internal migration recommended the abolition of these guards, as has the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. The village guard system is allegedly implicated in a wide variety of crimes and human rights violations, including drug smuggling, abduction, extortion, rape, killings and "disappearances." In the past eight months alone, a period of relative calm, village guards have shot and killed three returning villagers in Nurettin village, Mus, in July 2002, and two returning villagers and one child in Ugrak, Diyarbakir, in September 2002. The Turkish government should not be allowed to use paramilitary forces such as village guards in Northern Iraq, and especially not in the management of refugee movements. Furthermore, no assistance offered to internally displaced persons should be used as justification for refoulement or closed borders, or to prevent displaced persons from seeking international protection.

In light of such information and the likelihood of other protection failures occurring in a volatile region, we urge your government to regard access to asylum in Europe as a vital component in the international response to a possible Iraqi crisis. We urge you to read the enclosed briefing paper and to act upon those recommendations relating to your own refugee and immigration policies.

We look forward to constructive dialogue with you and your colleagues on these issues as events in the Middle East unfold.

Yours sincerely,

s/
Elizabeth Andersen
Executive Director
Europe and Central Asia division

Falstaff

ah never mind

__________________

Oblivious

Two ways to see torture:

1. A person is a source of information. Plain and simple... you weigh the options and their consequences. e.g. Torture 1 individual and save many others. OK

or

2. According to christian moral codes (most religions will share this point of view): to torture harm or kill another human being is wrong. The choice is then whether or not it is right to torture even a single individual EVER.

It is possible to disregard either of these points of view. Rumsfeld acknowledges both- but is apparently concerned with saving lives (not that this is a bad thing). So i see where he is coming from.

I can even see how other governments, past and present, have justified torture.

BUT IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE FOR MY GOVERNMENT (e.g. the one that is supposed to be my protector and the representative of my will) TO CONDONE AND USE TORUTURE.

Killing is justifiable, I've accepted that. But, in my mind, the conditions necessary for torturing an individual will never be met. Not even if it would save all of New York, not for the World. That is my opinion.

Falstaff

Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf War, it may not happen on american soil, but it happens...this may be a philosophical argument, but is killing any more justified than torture, I can see the difference, but many nations can't...

__________________

merry

The pragmatical way, or Macchiavellic.

The moral way, Christian or else.

Torture may be efficient, but it can not be right.

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

Falstaff

Macchiavellian?, ha ha....just got the visual, very very good. I think the real issue is a standard assessment of human rights violations and how to punish them. and it does embrace many religious values all over the world. I know that rifle butts will come down on swollen fingers to determine where a cache of weapons is, or the location of an anti aircraft weapons site is, but recently, rewarding POW's with food and freedom has become more successful, I don't know how long this will last, we could be easily decieved, but I hope that incidents of torture are limited to battlefield, and not in basememnts of IRAQI buildings like they have for the last 26 years..

__________________

bluelight

Well....if your government takes a stand...(officially or not) to accept torture (they may call it light torture or whetever) then they are of course giving carte blanche for evryone else to do it.

Be it in wartime ot not.

So evrybody advocating torture to be used against "terrorists" or Iraq ì military or whatever is also ....advocating torture to be used against capture american soldiers.


Iraq was very fast to declare that they would consider all soldiers attackin Iraq as


"Illegal fighters"......and that no internatinal treaties would apply to the treatment of these "illegal fighters".




Now.....where in the world did they get the argument for this??





I know....where.

Your government gave then this argument.



Bluelight

Falstaff

even semantics fail here, it's all bad....

__________________

Optimummind

Man, I can't believe how hard you guys are trying to avoid answering my simple question. And why? Because you would answer "yes." What question, you say? Just go up a little and you'll see that I've asked the same question twice and nobody has answered. That's weak.

merry

This is the question?

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

merry

In the "straight" sense. Macchiavelly advocated a pragmatical approach to leadership, "cold thinking", although sometimes "macchiavellic" is used instead of "diabolic"

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

Optimummind

Merry, I am absolutely appalled by your extraordinary effort to sound witty. You know darn well what my question is and you still try to beat around the bush!

In case you try to sound witty again (Oh God no ), I have politely put the reference question in nice little quoty quotes so you can peruse at your own pace.

merry

You have it all wrong. It's not about persons in special situations, it's about governments approving torture. Specifically the American government - the "good guys", remember?. And it's not about "ideological crap", but principles, I don't know if it sounds witty to you, but you don't seem to see the difference.

__________________
There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn't.
~~Leonard Cohen

bluelight

No he doesnt see the difference.But if he signs a paper saying it is equally ok for all dictators...of the world to torture captured Americans...just as he wants it to be ok for Usa to torture prisoners....


Then there would be some....logic to what he is saying...


Bluelight

raid517

No. There is a difference between heat of the moment crimes of torture which are later exposed and then punished - and taking a guy down to a dark basement and strapping electrodes to his testicles and systematically torturing him for hours or days on end. This is what Nazis did, it is what Sddam Hussein is accused of doing - it is supposed to be one of the main reasons we are fighting against him. If the state legally sanctions these actions as Rumsfield and crew are contemplating, then what are you fighting for? National supremacy? Isn't that what hitler fought for too? The Gemans gave similar justifications for locking people up without charge in concentration camps and torturing them. Pretty soon, after this war is over Guantanamo Bay will be too small to house 'America's enemies.' Where I wonder will she look next to house them? Assasination, execution, torture, political prisoners, a disregard for international treaties and institutions... Is this really a model of 'freedom' you would like the rest of the world to aspire to? I think there should be a legal minimal standard of human rights that all civilised countries should adhere to. If you fall bellow this standard you should be considerd a rouge state. So far (at least since the election of this current administration) I see the US falling bellow this standard on many levels. I would think there would be much more resistance among ordinary Americans towards allowing their country to go down this path.

Q