1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Human Rights Watch - Iraqi war justification doesn't wash

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Woofer, Jan 26, 2004.

  1. Woofer

    Woofer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    Haven't these guys heard of 9/11...

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../20040126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rights_report_iraq_2

    Iraq War Not Humanitarian, Group Says
    Mon Jan 26,11:53 AM ET

    By MICHAEL McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer

    LONDON - The war in Iraq (news - web sites) cannot be justified as an intervention in defense of human rights even though it ended a brutal regime, Human Rights Watch said Monday, dismissing one of the Bush administration's main arguments for the invasion.

    While Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had an atrocious human rights record and life has improved for Iraqis since his ouster, his worst actions occurred long before the war, the advocacy group said in its annual report. It said there was no ongoing or imminent mass killing in Iraq when the conflict began.


    President Bush (news - web sites) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) cited the threat from Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction as their main reason for attacking Iraq. But as coalition forces have failed to find evidence of such weapons, both leaders have also highlighted the brutality of the regime when justifying military intervention.


    Human Rights Watch, however, rejected such claims.


    "The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair," executive director Kenneth Roth said.


    Atrocities such as Saddam's 1988 mass killing of Kurds would have justified humanitarian intervention, Roth said.


    "But such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter," he added. "They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."


    The 407-page Human Rights Watch World Report 2004 also said the U.S. government was applying "war rules" to the struggle against global terrorism and denying terror suspects their rights. It suggested that "police rules" of law enforcement should be applied in such cases instead.
    .
    .
    .

    Main essay:
    http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm#_Toc58744952
     
    #1 Woofer, Jan 26, 2004
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2004
  2. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    That's old news.

    The first time they reported their same conclusion, they made it clear that there was probably some human rights benefit, but since that was not what Bush based his decision on, it should be ignored.

    :rolleyes:

    I don't need HRW to assess my President's actions. If they want to discuss the impact on human rights, that's fine. They showed their colors the first time round and now have no credibility IMO.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now