They are the darkest, loneliest, most hopeless places on earth – hellholes that, during the past two decades, have swallowed up the lives of more than 200,000 souls. Wails of human misery still echo in their dank corridors, the unheard cries of men, women, and children destined to die in grief and anonymity – their whereabouts unknown to their loved ones who, in many cases, have not heard from them in years.



These are the secret prisons of Iraq, of which there are roughly six dozen according to Amnesty International estimates. Amnesty spokesman Neil Durkin states that tens of thousands of people – many of them academic and social figures deemed unfriendly to Saddam – remain held indefinitely in these jails, without charge or trial. Anyone suspected of disloyalty to the regime, even on the flimsiest of evidence, is likely to live out the last months or years of his life in such a place.

All over Iraq, legions of government informants are ever on alert for suspicious activities or conversations. Bugging is widespread. The regime rewards citizens who report anyone that has uttered even a single word critical of Saddam; children are publicly rewarded for reporting the "impure sentiments" of their own parents. Because no one knows for certain who might betray them to the government, no public or private conversation is truly safe. As veteran BBC correspondent John Sweeney says, "I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else’s migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could almost eat it. No one talks." Two years ago it was decreed that criticizing Saddam in any way – even saying that his clothes did not match – would be punished by cutting out the offender’s tongue. But such offenders actually consider themselves fortunate if they can somehow avoid being sentenced to a prison term of endless torture.

Once prisoners are incarcerated for disloyalty to the regime, their suffering is so great it can scarcely be described. Many are placed in solitary confinement on starvation diets. Confessions are forced from them by the most gruesome methods imaginable: They are struck with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; they receive electric shocks to their genitalia; scorching metal rods are forced into their body orifices; their toes are crushed and their toenails pulled out; they have their limbs literally burned off; they are slowly lowered into large vats of acid until they confess or die. Many are poisoned with thallium, which causes its victims enormous agony before they die. When these prisons periodically get overcrowded, they are "cleaned out" by means of summary executions.

Frequently, confessions are extracted by torturing not only the prisoner, but his family members as well. His wife and daughters are raped, and sometimes beheaded, as he watches. His children or grandchildren – in many cases mere toddlers – are burned with cigarette butts; their eyes are gouged out; all the bones in their feet are crushed; their ears and limbs are amputated, one at a time. If no confession is forthcoming, the youngsters are slaughtered. Moreover, some of these prisons actually house the children of suspected dissidents – children younger than twelve who are packed into cells and left to rot amid pools of their own excrement, blood, and tears.

All these barbarities occur under the watchful eye of the very dictator who publicly laments the deaths of so many Iraqi children allegedly attributable to the UN sanctions of the past decade. All these abominations are carried out under orders from the very tyrant who skillfully treats the Western press to images of hungry, diseased Iraqi youngsters purportedly suffering because of American malevolence, rather than his own lust for omnipotence.

In addition to the aforementioned prisoners, hundreds of thousands of others have been taken into temporary custody, where they were tortured and then released – rendered physically and emotionally mangled for the rest of their lives. Indeed torture is not a last resort in Saddam’s regime, but is often a first resort – to drive home the message that no dissent will be tolerated. Max Van der Stoel, former UN special reporter for human rights in Iraq, states plainly that the brutality of Saddam’s regime is "of an exceptionally grave character – so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War."

The American "peace movement," however, maintains that a US invasion of Iraq – as a pre-emptive strike against a regime that is illegally stockpiling weapons of mass death – would constitute an immoral interference with another nation’s right to "pick its own leaders." As activist Medea Benjamin says, the US has no right to "unilaterally [dictate] to other people – be they Palestinian, Iraqi or Venezuelan – who their leaders should be. This is for the people themselves to decide." Implicit is this statement is the laughable notion that Saddam’s recent electoral victory, in which he captured every ballot cast, was in some way legitimate. Or as Louis Farrakhan puts it, this type of solidarity proves that the Iraqi people "love their man."

The horrors of Saddam’s Iraq, of course, have not been limited to prison tortures and the quiet "disappearance" of political dissidents. In 1987-88, for instance, Air Force helicopters rained chemical weapons – including mustard gas, Sarin, and VX nerve gas – upon scores of Kurdish villages, causing tens of thousands of Kurds to die of suffocation and burning. Those inhabitants who managed to flee to makeshift refugee camps were summarily executed by Iraqi ground troops. Indeed the number of Kurds who were rounded up, gunned down and dumped into mass graves exceeded even the great number that were gassed to death. All told, between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds lost their lives in this extermination campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in Iraq – along with a centuries-old way of life – and displaced at least a million of the country’s Kurdish people. Of those who survived the Iraqi attacks, thousands were rendered blind, sterile, crippled, unable to breathe properly, or otherwise severely handicapped for the rest of their lives.

When a March 1991 uprising within Iraq challenged Saddam’s regime, government forces responded with their customary brutality, firing their weapons indiscriminately into residential areas, killing thousands of unarmed civilians. House-to-house searches resulted in thousands of additional deaths, as did the barbaric massacres of patients lying in hospital beds.

In 1992 Saddam initiated a project to exterminate the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq. Because the vast marshlands of that region had become a sanctuary for many army deserters and rebels, he ordered the construction of a massive canal system to divert the Euphrates River water that fed those marshes, and by late 1993 they were virtually dried up. Iraqi soldiers then burned the villages and poisoned whatever small quantities of water that remained – creating an ecological disaster and destroying a way of life for hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs who had lived there for a thousand years.

These horrors were orchestrated by the same man who now laments that any American-led attack on his regime would end up killing countless innocent civilians. If Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and all other Middle Eastern enemies of our country have anything in common with the anti-war Left, it is their readiness to blame America – and not Saddam – for the suffering of Iraq’s population. This is illustrated most vividly in their steadfast contention that the UN sanctions – and again, not Saddam – have already caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children.

When was the last time you heard any of these critics say a word about the wretched victims of Iraqi horrors discussed in this article? When did you last hear these victims eulogized by anti-American Islamists in the Mideast, or by the "anti-war peace activists" in our midst? When did you last hear America’s critics acknowledge that the UN sanctions have remained in place for one reason alone – Saddam’s utter refusal to abide by the pledges he made in the Gulf War peace settlement? And when did you last hear those critics condemn the fact that while the Iraqi people have seen their standard of living decline under the sanctions, Saddam’s personal wealth has soared to $6 billion? Have they ever complained that since the Gulf War’s end, this dictator has built himself no fewer than fifty new palaces – complete with artificial rivers, lakes, and waterfalls regulated by pumping equipment that could otherwise have been used to help rectify the country’s desperate water and sanitation problems?

Of course not. As always, where our enemies abroad and our "peace" advocates at home are concerned, everything is America’s fault.

america has more people locked up in prison than any other country in the world .. should america be invaded now too? Oh I forgot, it's "AMERICA" therefore it's justified. What about the U.S installing Sadam? How come responsibility is always avoided with the United States? Same thing with the Taliban. Same thing with the Shah in Iran. Same thing with Noregia in Panama. Same thing with the Shell Military Regime in Nigeria. When is your pro-american right-wing ass gunna take responsibility and say, "shit, that was actually my fault".

If the human rights violations that Sadam commits against his own people are so wrong, then it baffles me why you ignore america's, who is at the top of the list of human rights violations. Are you trying to say that it's wrong for Sadam to kill his own people, but it's perfectly fine if the U.S kills them? The U.S has already killed 1.5 million of them. I don't see you criticizing U.S Foreign Policy. I see you ignoring it.

Favoritism, elitism, and superiority are all deadly because they all breed fascism.

Both Sadam and the U.S are fucked up. But the target of this war are the innocent Iraqi civilians.

But I suppose your argument suggests that Sadam doesn't have a right to kill his own people. Only the U.S does.

one was cut and pasted, the other, original thought.

Great Post! So, I assume you're enlisting, or sending YOUR son to fight (& possibly die).

If not, you're just anothier lying hypocrite!!!

YOU WANT THIS WAR, YOU FIGHT IT!
OR SEND YOUR SON!

sign-up, or SHUT UP!

Some poor soul named "bush admirer" stated: "I'd be honored to go myself, or to send my son. Military service is an obligation that patriotic Americans should accept with a solemn dedication to their country."

Oh sure... bush admirer would sign up, but he's too busy watching MTV with a coke spoon up his piggish republican nose to get his fat behind to the local recruitement center. "Patriotic Americans" my arse... what a fat, lying, pathetic, wimp... he's big on talk but that's it folks. Let others do the fighting and dying, right jerk off? Let them shed their blood so you can have cheap gas for your brand new SUV. Get a life looser... or at least have the courage of your convictions. Why waste your time around here, clucking at anti-war types. Go to your nearest recruitement center and sign up. We know you won't... because you're just a big mouth COWARD

Wait a minute; someone is assuming that BA is not already in the
military, busy at the keyboard with his many compatriots typing furiously under orders, paid by our taxes. Look at the style and
“dialogue” of these campers in a circle jerk of mutual admiration.
It’s exceedingly transparent they work together as a regular job.
If they think we believe otherwise, they are dimmer than I already
suspect. Also the discontinuity between knowledge of comments
allegedly made by the same poster conveys to me the impression
that there may be more than a single person assuming the same
nick. Either that or the pathetic reality that senility has influenced
and affected their response to points brought up in many threads.

How come then, oh great and wise BA are we not in a state of permanent war?

What is the state of nations who are not fighting amongst eachother-gullible fools who are sitting ducks?

In drawing your statement to its logical conclusion, the state of humanity is permanent war.

But, despite the present war hysteria, there is a long history of peaceful cohabitation on this planet as well.

From neighbor getting along with neighbor to us state getting along with us state, to country getting along with country.

Am I a sitting duck for my neighbor upstairs who covets my stereo system? Are my door locks not enough? is the reality that if he fucks with my shit, and then I fuck with his shit resulting in a mess for the both of an illusion? Is the tacit treaty we have between us an illusion? While I'm typing this out, is he in the back of my house slowly but surely digging a hole so that he can sneak under my house, enter it through the plumbing and take my stereo?

Yeah, I must be on some sort of drug....

War is not the permanent state between people.

Neither is peace, but to assume that all disagreements throughout history have been settled by war is to ignore the unglorious history of cohabitition, tacit agreement, and even colaboration that has built up what we call society today.

Despite class conflict, roads are built. Despite intertribal warfare, watergets distributed in the middle east.

What the warcamp ignores is that language, the act of communication between two parties is actually in itself an agreement between two people. An agreement of civilization, that we can communicate.

Ugh, uga uga. Uh. ba ba.

caca doo do.

Me no like. Me bash.

(oh, sorry BA,it must be the LSD coursing through my veins )

I read with great interest the comparisons between the United States and third world Dictatorships.
Let’s see…
U.S.A.
A democracy
Leaders are elected
Free Press that can write what it wants with no repression
Freedom of expression to criticize the Government (i.e. this website)

Third world Dictatorship
Attains power by force or murder
Press will do as leader says or be imprisoned or die
Criticize Leader be beaten imprisoned or die

Remember one thing just because you choose not to participate in the political process it does not deletgetamise the elected officials. We hold elections every two years when you can vote for anyone you wish. Just because you can’t generate interest in your movement it is not the sign of a conspiracy. It is just that the American people are not buying what you are selling.

And as for Peace and war.

Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the victory of justice over tyranny

Traveler,
I agree with you that peace is not just the absense of war.
I applaud your idealism that in saying that peace is the victory over tyrany.

Now for some nuts and bolts questions.
I do agree with you that the US is (nominaly) a democracy and some of the third world countries aren't democracies.
But, why does a USdefined and imposed military "solution" mean the end of tyrany?

Tyranny (damn I can't spell) can be imposed from the outside as well. One country can be tyranical towards another.
And yes, occasionaly the US does good, and yes ocassionally the US does bad.

My contention is that more often then not, the realistic state of the world is a grey zone, a grey peace or a cold war. This seems to be much freindlier to survival on the planet then one country defining a peace.

To the Romans, Im sure that a Pax Romana was the end of tyrany.

Trust you, I am not arguing for a post modern "its all to site specific to talk about the world." But arguing against BA's black and white "War is the only way", I think its appropriate to bring up the idea of a cold peace .

And then to you, I ask you if you believe that a Democracy can on accasion act as tyrany to a country with a poorly functioning government?

Permapress

The nuts and bolts is what it always comes down to
First of all we should look at what the primary function of our Government is, and I believe that is to protect its citizens. The other things it does such as Education, Transportation, etc. Are important in varying degrees. So bearing that premise in mind you need to look at the threats that are in front of us Thy include but are not limited to

Iran
North Korea
China
Iraq

Iran Looks to be on the edge of a change the upcoming younger generation is dissatisfied with the fundamentalist restrictions so what you refer to a cold peace would be in order there for now.

North Korea This is another country that is on the edge its leadership does not seem to care about its citizens and could be on the edge of a popular uprising or military coup “cold peace” for now However we do have our troops on the border just in case.

China Iforgethowmany billion People Nuclear tipped missiles Repressive government all on the bad side on the plus side we do have trade with them some capitalism and free market practices are starting as they open their society I believe that the Chinese people will want more freedom this is a watch and wait situation. As far as China goes we are in a cold war as far as I am concerned

Iraq Brutal cold blooded murderer dictator Has and will invade his others is known to posses weapons of mass deduction wants nuclear weapons and has known ties to terrorist that want to destroy us Take him out

We do not need to get involved in all of conflicts in the world just the ones that directly effect our national security and we know we can win. I do not think we should have been involved in Somalia or Bosnia because there were no U.S. Interests involved. Bosnia should have been a European only affair

Im so happy to shed the ridiculous ideology that is so rampantly tossed around here.

Traveler, we have a disagreement. You say Iraq is in league with terrorists. I say "show me the money." According to everything I've read, no links are concrete.
I'll even give you that they do have links to terrorist groups, that seems a part of real-politique these days.
But none of these links are to Al Queda. Who exactly are they linked with? Our beloved president hasn't deemed it necisary to tell anyone of us.

And safety? There's that report Senetor Graham released that Saddam is more of a threat if we attack the cities, towns, homes, hospitals, missle silos, elementary schools, army baracks, etc... then if we just leave the damn guy alone.

As for him being a cold blooded dictator, as you said before there's a whole lot of them we don't touch or are best not touching through military power. Ditto for nuclear weapon.

Why does someone get an itching to destroy someone else? I do see that sort of thing happen, I will not deny that its a reality. But god, you'd think that there'd be some reason. Or is Sadam some sort of ur- evil figure who slaughters babies and tosses them out of hospitals for sport.

So many questions. Our administration isn't even allowing us to see its answers.

Yes we do have disagreement and a lot has to do with how we see our government. You seem to have little trust for them and want to resist them in any military action. I can understand your feeling that way, as I said earlier I completely disagree with the action in Somalia by G.W. Bush (My Party’s President) and in Bosnia by W.J. Clinton in this case I am giving G.H.W. Bush the benefit of the doubt I also hope that before the shooting starts that more of the information will be released

I have seen the letter that you linked to before and yes it is chilling however I feel it helps make the case to take him out. If he is willing to unleash destruction in the event of war and we know he has ties to terrorism (a point I know you disagree with) what will keep him from using this against us at anytime.

We live in a dangerous world in dangerous times. I am glad that I am not the one charged with these disisions, and I pray daily for those who do so that they will make the proper ones.

(I am a bleeding-heart liberal/fool by the way) I agree that we should go after Saddam not because of NBC weapons... but because of the human rights abuse and genocide being practiced. Haven't we learned enough from Milosovic? People can argue against a war of pride (i.e. the war against letting saddam maintain a nuclear arsenal), but a war to actually bring justice cannot be argued against. Its time to **** this Saddam guy up. The Iraqis actually do favour a US invasion EVEN THOUGH they know they themselves will get ******. Because an invasion (right or wrong) as they see it is the only way to they bring about an end to the sanctions. At the same time, Israel should also be held accountable for its Nazi/Apartheid policy towards the Palestinians. Haven't we learned enough from the Nazis with their supremacist ideology and from the catastrophic effects of racism in South Africa?Seriously people, as idealistic as I may sound, these things cannot be allowed to go on.