Freedom and democracy US style

I think everyone is aware that Iraq is a dangerous place to be right now, but supposedly the US is trying to "win hearts and minds." Theoretically, that is an excellent idea. If people trust you then they are less likely to kill you, or support those who do. Occupation becomes collaborative support. The whole idea behind "regime change" in Iraq on the poltical level was to purportedly "free" the people of Iraq, and let them experience the wonders of democracy. While I don't think that these stated reasons reflect the truth, for purposes of argument, let us say that they do. How then is the US demostrating that it is different that the regime of Saddam Hussein? Well, my guess is that it is a bit difficult for many to see the difference.

Let's look at the news shall we?

Iraq Police Chief Says U.S. Army Gunned Down Family (Pomeroy, Reuters, 1/05/04). Apparently the family was gunned down in their car by US troops outside Tikrit. A man who survived the attack says that they were fired on by a US convoy. While the story is being officially denied by the military, a spokeswoman for the military said that "somebody" could have been in the area - most likely not US troops. If it was US troops, they have not yet reported the incident.

Three US soldiers discharged for abusing Iraq POWs (Reuters, 1/05/04). These three soldiers have been sent back to the US after investigations into prisoner abuse that occured while the "war" was on. The soldiers have been separated from the military, but no criminal proceedings will take place.

"The charges stem from an incident last year when prisoners were being moved. Master Sergeant Girman, who was the senior person and in charge, was charged with physical abuse of Iraqi detainees," Harris said.

In Atlanta, U.S. Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Julian said Girman was found guilty of knocking a prisoner to the ground, repeatedly kicking him in the groin, abdomen and head and encouraging her subordinate soldiers to do the same.

He said McKenzie was found guilty of dragging a prisoner by his armpits across the ground, holding his legs apart and encouraging others to kick him in the groin while other U.S. soldiers kicked him in the abdomen and head, and throwing the prisoner to the ground and stepping on his injured arm.

Canjar was found guilty of maltreatment of a prisoner by holding his legs apart while others kicked him in the groin and violently twisting his already injured arm, Julian said."

This is not the only instance of prisoner abuse, and the UK has had some problems as well.

Secret police force to be set up in Iraq (Coman, The Age/AU, 1/05/04). According to the article, the US has designated $3 billion to establish an Iraqi Secret Police. This is only nine months after the end of Hussein's Secret Police. Like Hussein's force it is expected to be "ruthless." The estimated size of the force will be 10,000 officers. Heck, that's more than they have in the army.

But then democracy isn't fairing so well in the US either. The article Quarantining Dissent: How the Secret Service Protects Bush from Free Speech (Bovard, SF Chronicle, 1/04/04) states that the Secret Service tells local police forces to set up zones (well away from the President) for those who disagree with Bush's policies. Thos who are por-Bush are allowed into the same area as the President. I am sure that this is only for "security" purposes, though it is pretty dumb. If someone wanted to cause harm, all they would have to do is grab an "I (heart) you George" sign, don a smile, a join the pro-Bush rally.

"When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. "

And later in the article (Emphases are mine):

"On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report. "

Of course, protest isn't tolerated well in Iraq either given the number of times troops have fired into crowds of protesters - even when they are running away. I am sure that the justification is similar - "avoiding possible criminal acts." However, under the US you cannot detain, or even follow someone around, just because you suspect they might commit a criminal act. But I guess that is changing as well.

It seems to me that the "new" Iraq is shaping up to look like the "old" Iraq, and the US is starting to look like the "old" Iraq as well. Maybe this is the Bush vision of "democracy."

Posted by rowan at January 5, 2004 2:50 PM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |