Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (72838)	9/23/2004 12:56:09 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

Thanks M~...I'm going to post that article. It certainly does show differences between the groups who don't believe there is any world terror problem, and those who do...I'm surprised that there isn't a chant from the Left worldwide to let Saddam go too.... Poisonous battle for Dr Germ’s release ALISON ROWAT, Foreign Editor September 23 2004 Analysis WHOSE prisoner is it anyway? America and Iraq engaged in a grisly, and very public, improvisation session yesterday over the release of Dr Rihab Taha, nicknamed Dr Germ, one of two women held in US custody. First on stage was Malik al Hassan, Iraqi interim government justice minister, who said Dr Taha would be released immediately as part of a general review of prisoners that had been going on for some time. The US embassy in Baghdad was not long in enlightening him as to the true state of play. "The two women are in legal and physical custody of the multinational forces in Iraq and neither will be released imminently," said an official. After several more hours of frantic telephone calls, an Iraqi national security adviser began making vague mutterings about the need for prisoners to undergo medical checks and "security measures". Finally, Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, stepped in. Although his government had begun reviewing the status of its detainees, no release of prisoners was imminent. "We have not been negotiating and we will not negotiate with terrorists on the release of hostages," he said. How could so much confusion reign over such an apparently straightforward matter as who holds the keys to a prison cell? The answer, in part, is that there is little straightforward about prisoners in Iraq. During the tortuous negotiations at the UN in the run-up to the handover in June, the international community was obsessed with the need to set out which body – the interim government or US-led multinational force – had the upper hand when it came to authorising military force. The US, it was felt, had to be reined in. The prisoner issue was raised briefly, only to be fudged then forgotten. Yet it is this matter that has ended up exposing who really holds sway in supposedly sovereign Iraq. That, of course, may have been among the kidnappers' aims all along. At the time of the handover, Mr Allawi said all detainees would be transferred to Iraqi authorities within two weeks. Some 1400 were handed over, but the US held on to between 4000 and 5000. In large part it was able to do so by virtue of letters of agreement exchanged between Mr Allawi and Colin Powell, US secretary of state, which were attached to the UN resolution. Both the resolution and letters were meant to spell out who did what in the new Iraq, who could exercise power and when. In reality they were a masterclass in obfuscation. Under the resolution, the US-led multinational force has the authority to take "all necessary measures" to maintain security. Included in these measures, according to the letters of agreement, is the power to intern those considered a threat to security. Human rights groups have long complained that this gives the coalition forces carte blanche to detain people without charge and without limit of time. But in any case, as has been shown in the case of Guantanamo Bay, the US writes its own rules when it comes to the detention of those it considers a threat to its national security. Dr Taha did not feature on the list of the 55 most-wanted members of Saddam's regime but she is none the less a "high value detainee". As part of the team that allegedly worked on the biological weapons programme, her evidence might have fed into the case against Saddam Hussein, the highest value detainee of all. As far as Washington is concerned, releasing her would appear to be rewarding the kidnappers for having murdered two US citizens. Both the White House and Downing Street were at one yesterday in saying they would not negotiate with terrorists. As Jack Straw, foreign secretary, put it yesterday, Britain could not get into a situation "where we start bargaining with terrorists and kidnappers". But what makes brutal sense in Washington and London merely seems brutal to a family waiting at home in Liverpool, praying for the best but fearing the worst. theherald.co.uk