« this time it's personal | Main | musical stroll down memory lane »

The U.N: murderers by proxy

Spoons put a hiatus on his hiatus to blog a story, giving the best headline of the week:


[T]here were unexplained incidents at the U.N.'s Baghdad compound when two men -- one carrying three knives, the other a notebook and shouting "Save me!" -- tried to enter the base.

Both men were apprehended and turned over to Iraqi authorities, U.N. officials reported. It was unclear whether the two incidents were related.

On the two incidents, U.N. officials said that one man approached the hotel's security gate with a metal instrument, before Iraqi guards wrestled him to the ground. He was later found to have three knives, the U.N. said.

About 40 minutes later, another Iraqi man stopped a U.N. vehicle outside the headquarters pleading "Save me! Save me!" in Arabic, according to the U.N. The man, apparently unarmed, forced his way into the driver's seat of the stopped vehicle, as an Iraqi guard struggled to pull him out, while an unfazed U.N. inspector watched from the passenger seat.

Unexplained incidents? I think we can be pretty much explained thusly:

"Help me! Saddam is threatening my life and the lives of my family. He is going to to torture me to death because I know things. See this notebook? It holds the smoking gun you are all supposed to be looking for. Let me in!"

And though we will never know, we can pretty much surmise after the confused U.N. inspectors - apparently given the wrong instructions and told they were working for Saddam - effectively slammed the door in the faces of these men crying for help and in turn, had them killed.

There's a couple of possible scenarios:

They were hung over a vat of acid and lowered slowly into the vat, prolonging both death and agony.

They were skinned alive.

They were tortured with devices so twisted and sadistic that it would make even the most S&M savvy U.N. inspector cringe.

Oh, the possibilities are endless. But rest assured, those scoundrels who wanted to expose their corrupt leader to the world and possibly save their own lives in the process are now dead, and their families - wives, children, parents - have all been systematically removed from their homes, probably without heads.

So, who is the U.N. working for? I thought they were all about human rights and world peace and protecting the innocents.

And for this, Saddam scores a B on his report card for "plays well with others."

Let's get this show on the road, already.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The U.N: murderers by proxy:

» Blix's boys: friends to dictators everywhere from Chris Lawrence's weblog
Ya know, if you're Hans Blix and you're trying to convince people that you're not just playing Quisling for the... [Read More]


I thought this interesting when I read about it. Bill Clitons Administration really went too far with this PC garbage. Because of them you have to get permission to go to war with your enemies.....Sometimes I wonder if the Liberals have forgotten that Iraq lit Kuwaits oil wells afire and dumped billions of gallons more into the Gulf. Isnt that the type of stuf that usually makes Liberals cry? Or is it just ok when a muderous dictator does it and threatens to do it again?

This is just sick. The UNdies have lost any credibility they may have once claimed:

1) Iraq will be a temporary chair of the UN Disarmament Conference coming up soon.

2) The Libyan candidate elected head of the UN Human Rights Commission 33-3.

3) A former UN weapons inspector relating how French members of the team attempted to give advice to the Iraqis on how to hide their weapons program.

I'm with Michele: Enough with the "root causes," the Mr. Magoo-like Blix, and A.N.S.W.E.R. idiotarians and "allies" that hinder us from doing what's necessary. Let's roll.


the Mr. Magoo-like Blix
Oh, that's good. Although I think he also kind of favors Elmer Fudd. "Be vewwy quiet; I'm hunting wawheads. Heh heh heh heheh!"

Now, with more hair and a mustache, I could see him as Inspector Clouseau, hunting for the Pink Anthrax.

I forget who it was, but someone recently noted that what we call the "United Nations" is really the "United Governments," and governments of any stripe are not noted for their fidelity to any virtue, be it truth, justice, or compassion.

If America has a characteristic virtue, it's that we have an ingrained distrust of governments. We forget it now and then -- usually to our detriment -- but it's always there, and it more than half explains why we can't abide the UN. All those governments concentrated in one place! YUCK!

Oh man am I going to be raked over the coals for this. But has anyone ever noticed that the Bush Administration is TOTALLY WRONG in trying to start a war with Iraq. Sure Iraq lit Kuwait's oil wells on fire, and I bet there are plenty of human rights violations, I mean hell, they don't even have protests in Iraq because they fear their government so much. But if this whole thing is about human rights and doing the right thing rather than making profits off the Iraq oil, then why doesn't Bush start a war with China because of how they treat the Tibetans? China is by far the worst country for violating human rights. And they're "communists". I put that in quotes because a truly communist society has no government, it's based on equality. But that's a whole other debate. So now that I've veered so far off course, let me wander back to what I was saying. The only reason Bush wants to go to war with Iraq is for the almighty dollar! Plain and simple. How come the U.S. government won't come forth with their so called proof of the Iraqi biological and nuclear wepons? The entire thing is a joke. Maybe President George Dubya should be worry about North Korea and their nuclear bombs, rather than Saddam Hussein and his tired regime.

Francis makes a good point: the UN doesn't represent the people of the world; it represents the governments of the world. Did anyone notice that the vote which put Libya in charge of the human rights commission was a secret ballot? Why on earth should any UN votes, except possibly those concerned with certain military issues, be secret? Don't people have a right to know how their governments are voting "in their names?"

What stupid, puking drivel! The war-to-come is not about rights; human, oil or otherwise. Ist is about security, global and American.

You frigging moron, you think it was bad when we had to go into Kuwait and Saddam started lobbing Scuds over that area?

Wait till he finally develops a WMD and forwards it to a terrorist organization... which, as efficiently as FedEx, drops the sumbitch in your living room!

You guys seem to think that his threat can't reach us... duh! Didn't 9/11 teach you anything?

I voted for Bush because I wanted a president who would be bold when it was required, not just sign somebody to a treaty that should be written on Charmin.

It is much better to kill the crook and find his un-fired weapon than to wait for a f**king "smoking gun"!

Chip, Chip, Chip

I don't think anyone will rake you over the coals. Its not sporting to eviserate small children, puppies or morons.

Log off and go study for your freshman poli-sci exam or whatever and then make up a few more "kill Kurds, not Mumia" posters before you put your crayons away.

China is not an eminent threat.

Blood for oil or oil for blood - I forget which one it is its for frigging stupid. Saddam has said more than once he'd sell us more if we wanted to buy it. So we conquer Iraq, increase oil output, per barrel price falls, big oil cos lose money - hey, wait a minute

You have no logic, no arguments, no alternatives (but can bitch and whine with the best of the libs). Go home and check the mail to see if Daddy's check has come in yet.

I was thinking that Sodamn put these guys up to it. They are actually working for him.

If the UN took them in he would have another reason for calling the inspections tainted. And gaining more time with an off topic subject.

But maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight.

I agree the UN goons have murdered these guys as sure as anything. Turning them over to Iraq was nothing short of murder. They knew that when they did it and they did it anyway.
The Iraqies have bribed and bought off at least some of these fools, no doubt about it.

Chip, one problem at a time. And as to why Iraq, allow me to explain:

When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for our People to unloose our restraint and engage in destructive War, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind require that they should declare the causes which impel them.

Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and threats, pursuing invariably the same Object evences a design to reduce them to absolute Appeasement, it is the right our People, it is their duty, to throw off such Government. The history of the present Leader of Iraq is a history of repeated injuries and usuprations, all having in direct object the establishment of a clear and present Danger over this Nation. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necssary for the public good.

He has engaged in destructive warfare against his neighbors.

He has, since seizing the reigns of power, continued to acquire, or attempted to acquire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

He has engaged in the torture and executuion of his citizens.

He has depopulated whole towns of the last man, woman, and child, using both conventional and chemical weapons.

He has engaged in wholesale environmental devastation of the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, and southern Iraq in the course of his pursuit of power.

In the course of invading Kuwait, his armed forces murdered citizens of our ally, stole its property, and thereafter did not cooperate in informing it of the whereabouts of either its persons or property.

He has kidnapped foreign civilians and held them as hostages.

He has failed to produce or assist in producing the living or dead person of Lieutenant Commander Michael S. Speicher, United States Navy, known to be Missing in Action for 12 years.

He has given orders, which his armed forces have carried out many times, to fire at the aircraft of the United States and our allies since 1991, violating the terms of the 1991 ceasefire.

He has failed to comply with numerous United Nations resolutions.

He has failed to provide evidence of the destruction of the physical elements of his program of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons development, such elements previously known to be in Iraq.

He has enriched himself from the sale of oil authorized by the Unitd Nations, rather than benefiting the intended beneficiaries, Iraq's citizens.

In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms; our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A head of state whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, presents a clear and present danger to any free People.

We must therefore, acqueisece in the necessity which denounces our hostilities, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in PEace Friends,

We, therefore, the People of the United States, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions , do in the Name and by the Authority of the good People of these several States, solemnly publish and declare, That Saddam Hussein is a clear threat to us and to all free peoples, and that Iraq's continued actions are and ought to be stopped by any means short of weapons of mass destruction. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

(Sorry about the long response, but I thought the response would make more sense in the context of a familiar document.)


What I wish would come out in the media after the State of the Union Address.

1) We are going after Saddam because he is a bad man, the world would be better off without him.

2) After Iraq we are going to go after other governments that use fear and thuggery to maintain their grip on power.

3) This isn't about WMD (that was just to try and get some help from others, but since they aint helping much, lets just drop the whole UN Resolution fiasco thingy), its about doing what's right.

4) I've talked to the commanders of the armed forces and although we agree that the threat from Saddam to the US is currently managable, all agree that it is an affront to human rights and dignity to have governments like this exist, and these commanders have assured me that they believe military action, and the possibility of American casualties is worth this action, for the fight is for freedom ... maybe not our freedom, but freedom none the less, and that is what American soldiers have sacrificed their lives for since the inception of the country ... that freedom shall prevail.

Yeah, that's what I wish ... bet it aint gonna happen though ... so as much as I want to believe that this is what this war is about ... I'll continue to have doubts about what our real motivation is ... at least we might be able to free Iraq ... even if it is by accident (crossing fingers Iraqi people actually end up with significant gains in freedoms after all is said and done)

Sorry, had to get that off my chest ... the UN inspector lacked moral courage, that's for sure. Yeah, he'd probably would have been kicked off the team if he'd have brought the guy in (unless the guy really had a smoking gun), and the UN would found some other lackey to turn the guy over to the Iraqi authorities ... but at least the guy would have been able to go home knowing he did the right thing ... rather than taking that lamest and foulest excuse their is ... "I was only following orders" ... pardon me while I puke ...

Dave, a minor correction, if I may...

"... (especially if the guy really had a smoking gun)..."

They are inspectors, not discoverers... "It's not my job..."

To Tony--Let me add my Button Gwynnet to your John Hancock

Great post Tony....but he probably isn't familiar with the document in question. Most aren't, which is a sad, sad thing.

Well, the original document is available online:here
The more I read it, the more impressed I am with its clarity and resolution.



Assumptions, assumptions.

1) Reports indicate that the notebook was empty. They let the guy into the car, looked at the notebook, and questioned him BEFORE they him over to the Iraqis.

2) The guy with 3 knives who broke into the the UN compound--probably not so friendly. Remember--one of Saddam's tricks is tell his people that the U.S. and everyone outside of the Arab world unjustly hates Iraq. Could have been a religious nut.

3) I assume the next time a U.S. delegation visits China, you will expect it to give succor, no questions asked, to anyone who asks to defect. That's a wonderful way to acheive nothing. As conservative realists at least recognize, diplomatic actors face bloody hard choices and can't help every individual who asks for it; doing so, at this moment in time, would be not so good for world stability. I'm sure all of you folks would be thrilled if Europeans started coming over here and liberating people on death row who they thought had been unjustly accused. I'm very anti-death penalty, but I'd never condone that. I completely accept that Saddam is evil and his regime is evil. But have a touch of pragmatism, people--we have no idea if that guy was a dissident or just a criminal...

Let's take these one by one:

Reports indicate that the notebook was empty.

A Washington Post story does so state, quoting a UN rep.

They let the guy into the car, looked at the notebook, and questioned him BEFORE they him over to the Iraqis.

The story does not so state:

Eventually, U.N. security guards escorted him out of the car and into the compound, where he was immediately handed over to Iraqi authorities after determining his notebook was empty. Ueki said the guards turned him over because the incident occurred outside the compound, where "the U.N. has no jurisdiction."

The UN says, in other words, that after the man was dragged away ("escorted" is a euphemism; I've seen a photo of the act, and I understand there is videotape as well), someone - who is left unstated - "determined" his notebook was empty. There are more than a few problems with this:

- Someone is lying about the "UN security guards" part, by omission. Iraqi army personnel were among the draggers.

- Who, exactly, looked in the notebook and determined what it contained? The security guards? That's not their job, and in any case when did they do it? The inspectors? They weren't nearby: this happened after the man was dragged away. The Iraqis? [long silence]

That sentence has a grammatical error that's unusual for a paper as careful as the Post. It looks to me like someone was trying a little too hard to avoid assigning a subject to "determining". If read literally, it says the man himself determined his own notebook was empty.

- The UN has authority under 1441 to interview anyone it wants to, at any time, anywhere. There are no limitations and if there is even a suspicion that the man might have had relevant information concerning weapons development, it's within their purview. They have all the jurisdiction they need.

- They didn't "let" him into the car; he broke in, this much is clear from the early stories. Iraqi soldiers tried to drag him out. The inspector sat in the driver's seat while this was going on, not so much looking at the man. No one interviewed him.

- The man continued clutching the notebook even as he was being dragged along the ground; the photo shows it still in his hands. WHO IN HELL carries an "empty" notebook around, tries to give it to the UN, and won't let go of it even while being dragged to his death?

No. Uh-uh. This stinks to heaven.

Oh, and the story on the other guy doesn't smell so good either:

The guy with 3 knives who broke into the the UN compound--probably not so friendly.

Three knives. Who says he has knives? Not the UN, they didn't search him. The Iraqis later found the knives, after he was out of sight.

Thank you for providing some extra insight into this matter. Although several people decided to respond to my comment with personal insults I will let those slide, I find that the majority of the people who would insult me for expressing my views are unaffected by reason. As far as the U.S. going to War with Iraq for any reasons what so ever, I am still against it. If the United Nations, a body composed of Governments, Governments who represent the People, thus a body of representatives of the People, decides that military action is necessary then I will suppor that decision. But I will never support ANY country going to war with another country without global support. And at this time the U.S. does NOT have global support. These are my opinions, that doesn't mean they are right, it is simply how I feel. I respect other people's opinions and I will refrain from calling them Morons, Children, or even Puppies. Maybe maturity and diplomacy will prevail somewhere in the world.

If the United Nations, a body composed of Governments, Governments who represent the People...

How many goverments represented in the UN actually represent their people, and how many are dictators, tyrants and kleptocrats?