The Iraq thread 3

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]It isn't quite that simple billybob. It isn't just rebuilding period. It is the question of the type of rebuilding and the American influence on the outcome. As it is now America is writing the future of Iraq both politically and economically. There are people that don't approve of that and don't feel that they should give up their liberty for a little temporary freedom.

The resistance is fighting for a cause. The US is in the way of their idea of how the future of Iraq should be shaped.

One word: elections. Also, American thingy is completely different from Iraq thingy.

Quote[/b] ]

You`ve outdone yourself MLF.So you think that starting a war against a country that posed no threat to other countries, had no weapons of mas destruction,no ties with Al-Queda and where there was no immidiate threat of a humanitarian disaster(as there was in other countries at the current time), killing tens of thousands of civillians,ruining it`s infrastructure,making zero progress in one whole year in terms of security was in a sick way justified because you didn`t eject Saddam in the `90?!

God Bless You, Quckie! Iraqi govt. was just a innocent little govt.....Furthermore, you should blame the whole western world (and the middle east) for not taken care of Saddam in the 90's. Also, Iraq had a modern infrastructure?

Quote[/b] ]Well if Zarqawi can travell from the Pakistani border with Afghanistan to Fallujah with his bands for foreign fighters in less then one week in one leg I might add this should be a piece of cake(note:the leg grew back just in time to murder Berg,so don`t question CIA they can`t be wrong).

Could be fake leg, Mr. Spock. Also, foregin fighters are being killed in Iraq.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]God Bless You, Quckie! Iraqi govt. was just a innocent little govt

Typical answer that shouldn`t even get an answer but let`s take if step by step.First where have I said that Iraqi govt was just an innocent little gouverment?

Next

-It has been prooven that Iraq govt had no ties with Al-Queda

-It has been prooven that there was no threat of an immidiate humanitarian desaster in Iraq

-I has been prooven that tens of thousands of civillians were killed in this war.

-I have been prooven extensive damage to the infrastracture

occoured.

What do you have except toilet paper words to show where I went wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Also, Iraq had a modern infrastructure?

Who said modern and Iraq was nothing of the sort of a third war country,so yes it had an infrastructure.

Quote[/b] ]Fake leg, Mr. Spock.

LMAO!I guess you haven`t seen the ungraphic video and his legs positions and flexibility(he kneels on both of them and stands up after)

Fake leg,teleportation anything is possible but never TBA spouting lies.Guess you are sure the WMD labs will be soon found,right?

Quote[/b] ]Also, foregin fighters are being killed in Iraq.

In extremly small numbers and at the same time thousands of Iraqi "hostages" are celebrating alongside with resistance fighters in Fallujah victory.

Just to check,you didn`t mean US soldiers in which case you are right as they are foreign fighters.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Typical Billy`,typical,let`s take if step by step.First where have I said that Iraqi govt was just an innocent little gouverment?

Next

-It has been prooven that Iraq govt had no ties with Al-Queda

-It has been prooven that there was no IMMIDIATE threat of an immidiate humanitarian desaster in Iraq

-I has been prooven that tens of thousands of civillians were killed in this war.

-I have been prooven extensive damage to the infrastracture

occoured.

What do you have except toilet paper words to proove where I went wrong.

Sounds like a poor, helpless, and "why is everybody pick on me"  country (govt.).

Quote[/b] ]Who said modern and Iraq was nothing of the sort of a third war country,so yes it had an infrastructure.

Just asking a question. The coalition contractors are trying to improve it from a third world type to a better.

Quote[/b] ]

Fake leg,teleportation anything is possible but never TBA spouting lies.Guess you are sure the WMD labs will be soon found,right?

..................there are prosthetic legs that can bent.......

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Iraqis doctors are not allowed to examine dead bodies of prisoners if the US delivers a death-certificate! (for the ones of you being able to understand german please look for a very interesting article on the Spiegel-site. (Gestorben mit einem Sandsack über dem Kopf) and click on the movie. You will stop trusting what you see and hear! Quite shocking.

[Bernadotte 0]

...

The insurgents ARE hindering major/fast progress in the rebuilding of Iraq.  No attacks=fast progress=coalition troops leave; attacks=slow progress=coalition troops stay a long time=more death.  Common sense, Mr. Spock.

Why is there an insurgency?

Why does it have increasing popular support?

What do the Iraqi people want most that the coalition are refusing to allow?

I'd really like to get your opinions on this, billybob2002.

[denoir 0]

One word: elections.

Elections that are very far away and arranged by the coalition.

Quote[/b] ]Also, American thingy is completely different from Iraq thingy.

Yeah, the American thingy required an act of treason against the British crown. The Iraqi resistance is more straight-forward. The US & co have occupied Iraq and want to impose their political system and there are certainly also economic questions involved (read: oil).

Your problem is that you assume that the US way of things is the best on an absolute scale. What you have to understand is that the Arabs don't share that point of view. What you would call a 'postive development' for Iraq, they would most likely not. As polls have shown they want a strong leader and islamic law. And that isn't quite compatible with what the coalition has planned.

Quote[/b] ]Also, Iraq had a modern infrastructure?

Relatively. It was one of the most modern Arab country. Two wars and sanctions ruined that, but one shouldn't forget that it was the Baathist that transformed the country from a third world nation to one of the leading Arab states.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Just asking a question. The coalition contractors are trying to improve it from a third world type to a better.

In case you didn't know, Iraq was actually one of the most well developed nation in the middle east - that is - it used to be before Desert Storm, the embargo and the following illegal bombings!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

In infrastructure and such like i agree, but the ethical development of the authorities was far from advanced. For instance in Saddams time two thousand people are reported to have died in Abu Ghraib in one day. That example is not intended as any cause or justification of any kind (let it not be portrayed as such) but simply an illustration of my point that the Iraqi state ethically was not developed by almost any westerners standard (or any human beings).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, the American thingy required an act of treason against the British crown. The Iraqi resistance is more straight-forward. The US & co have occupied Iraq and want to impose their political system and there are certainly also economic questions involved (read: oil).

Were is this oil going?   It is time to put my tin-fold hat on.

Quote[/b] ]I'd really like to get your opinions on this, billybob2002.

1. The insurgency existed since "day one".

2. Popular support? If that is the case then why the higher-ups have not called for a uprising?

[Bernadotte 0]

Bernadotte:  Why is there an insurgency?

billybob2002:  The insurgency existed since "day one".

Yeah?  And?  

Bernadotte:  Why does it have increasing popular support?

billybob2002:  Popular support? If that is the case then why the higher-ups have not called for a uprising?

Are you honestly claiming that popular Iraqi support for the insurgency has not increased?  

Bernadotte:  What do the Iraqi people want most that the coalition are refusing to allow?

No reply?  Doesn't it matter to you at all what the Iraqi people want?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bernadotte:  Why is there an insurgency?

billybob2002:  The insurgency existed since "day one".

Yeah?  And?  

No chance to really have good progress only very slow progress.

Quote[/b] ]

Bernadotte:  Why does it have increasing popular support?

billybob2002:  Popular support? If that is the case then why the higher-ups have not called for a uprising?

Are you honestly claiming that popular Iraqi support for the insurgency has not increased?

I'm honestly claming that it is not widespread support.

Quote[/b] ]

Bernadotte:  What do the Iraqi people want most that the coalition are refusing to allow?

No reply?  Doesn't it matter to you at all what the Iraqi people want?

I honestly do not know "want" is. What is the "want" you are talking about?

It looks like Sistani does not want to be the "big man".

[StupidRedneck 0]

but one shouldn't forget that it was the Baathist that transformed the country from a third world nation to one of the leading Arab states.

And they are the one's who led in killing their own people, gassing the kurds, and sponsoring terrorism.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

When dealing with practicalities and specifics it is irrelevant whether it was right to go to war in Iraq. The coalition -is- the current De Facto power and it is far from clear that Iraqis actually want their country immediatly and totally abandoned to the street gangs and regional factions. My hunch (nothing more) is that in reality they would grudgingly rather have the coalition stay, only until a government of the peoples choice is in place, when faced with the alternative.

In any case it would be wrong to leave at once without at least attempting to set into motion some apparatus of self government (though it is all too easy for the coalition to intrude excessively in its makeup), unless some credible and pre-formed acceptable governmental structure presented itself (as manifestly has not happened, the Iraqi National Congress being widely irrelevant).

I dont think British people (and probably not americans either) feel wildly enthusiastic about their forces remaining indefinitely, in fact pulling out now would be easiest, cheapest and safest (in the short term at least), but it would be wrong having invaded to pull out having insufficiently advanced (or attempted to advance) the state of Iraqs reconstruction.

Its possible the situation may be used for the opportunistic setting up of permanent military bases, a practice that would be wide open to criticism in my view (though quite understandable on the part of the US, having scrapped its bases in Saudi Arabia).

So whatever the war was about, the main issue now, should be, Iraq itself. For the future of Iraq, the legality of the invasion, and thus current coalition attempts at governance is scarcely valid. It exists in fact and must be succeeded by a stable Iraqi government. An insurgency movement without a non-divisive and clear Iraq wide strategy with some chance of success is almost inevitably at odds with the attempts at a collaborative transition. The Mehdi army is not a realistic attempt at an alternative form of government, yet a government must come into existence in order for power to be handed over, or else we might effectively say goodbye to the state of Iraq. Thus it appears that coalition troops must stay for now and must inevitably fight the violent insurgents.

Britain for instance had seemingly appropriate assemblies for

self-governance in just about all its colonies to transfer power and independence to in the de-colonisation period. In Iraq it seems this must be built up almost from scratch.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]

Just asking a question. The coalition contractors are trying to improve it from a third world type to a better.

In case you didn't know, Iraq was actually one of the most well developed nation in the middle east - that is - it used to be before Desert Storm, the embargo and the following illegal bombings!

Actually a few decades ago it used to be Afghanistan! Ironic, isnt it?

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Bernadotte:  What do the Iraqi people want most that the coalition are refusing to allow?

No reply?  Doesn't it matter to you at all what the Iraqi people want?

I honestly do not know "want" is. What is the "want" you are talking about?

In a word: elections.

For the past year, the Iraqi people have been asking the coalition to allow direct elections of their first sovereign government.  The coalition have refused, saying that direct elections will not be allowed for another year or two, at least.

The first recommendation made by the UN's recently appointed envoy to Iraq was that direct elections be held as soon as possible.  Why is it so much easier for non-Americans to comprehend this desire?  Could it be because all those American oil industry contracts might be torn up as soon as a democratically elected government gets the opportunity to express the will of the Iraqi people?

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]"indescimate shelling" tell me more on the story, where they shelling a field in the middle of the desert, or was it built up, they where shelling specific targets, not indesciminate shelling.

If you read the source I posted you´ll see that they shelled Basra city.

Quote[/b] ]no its my opinion and mine alone, i felt we should have finished off Iraq after Kuwait

That was no UN decision. It was the decision of Bush sr. to stop, not the UN´s decision.

Quote[/b] ]but as usual the U.N does t by 1/2 measures so instead we are in the position we are now.

Sorry ? Pls explain and post sources.

i was talking of indescriminate shelling, i did read the article it was asmall note from a reporter in the field IIRC so at the time it could be innacurate but it did state that they where shelling military and militia targets,

again IIRC the invasion of iraq to oust Saddam Hussein was not in the UN Mandate and thus because it was not we left saddam in charge, also we went into GW because of the invasion of Kuwait, just because oil was there made it more urgent but we would have done it in any other case around the world.

why do i need to post sources on what i feel about the U.N, they are the worlds toothless tiger.

quicksand, its my opinion, i feel that we should have gone further in GW1, thats not the main reason why i wanted to go to war, i never wanted to go to war, but tbh the U.N created a massive disaster in dealing with iraq and it needed cleaing up, US aint done a great job in cleaing it up but there trying, also Read:Oil erm yea so how come oil prices are going up if we have supposidly taken all the oil for ourselves.

If this post is incoherent then that is because im bloody knackered due to lots of hockey and it being damn hot all day.

PPS the elctions are being held nxt year, why cant YOU understand that governments are not built in a day and neither are the politics of a country. you cant just have an election straght after a war.

[Bernadotte 0]

PPS the elctions are being held nxt year, why cant YOU understand that governments are not built in a day and neither are the politics of a country. you cant just have an election straght after a war.

"Straight after the war"?  "A day later"?  LOL

Please pull your head out of <s>your ass</s> the sand long enough to notice that they're not even talking about having elections a year later.  And after 14 months, the coalition merely intends to give power to another group handpicked by, you guessed it, the coalition.

Furthermore, most of the basic political systems already existed.  They may have been run by a dictatorship, but they didn't need to be built from scratch as you seem to think.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

<Jesus, it is so hard to keep up with this thread. Everytime I want to contribute I got to read 3 pages PLUS all the linked articles. Like in a TV-series there should be a short summary "what happened so far".

[denoir 0]

Were is this oil going??

Nowhere right now as the situation is messed up. In principle however it's US companies that are building up the pipelines to increase output. With a 'friendly' government in Iraq, you can geuss who will get buddy prices on oil. I posted a BBC article some pages ago where they outlined how the plan included breaking the OPEC monopoly. The idea was to increase the Iraqi production by a factor of five, running over Saudi Arabia. In one single move the US would no longer be dependant on Saudi oil, the regulated monopoly of OPEC would be broken and Bush oil industry friends would become even richer.

MLF:

Quote[/b] ]also Read:Oil erm yea so how come oil prices are going up if we have supposidly taken all the oil for ourselves

If you havn't noticed you've been doing a terrible job. And that is an understatement. The rebuilding is going nowhere and the output of Iraq's oil is still far below pre-war levels.  According to the plan they should have superceeded pre-war levels last September.

Not that Bush's oily friends are suffering too much. Rice's Cheveron-Texaco is doing quite well. Oil companies arn't exactly hurt by high oil prices.

Quote[/b] ] i feel that we should have gone further in GW1,

Why? Don't worry we saved the oil and we saved the Saudis. Why further?

Quote[/b] ]but tbh the U.N created a massive disaster in dealing with iraq and it needed cleaing up

Yes, a disaster through the sanctions that were so loved by the same countries that started the war. Both you and your American friends were very much involved in creating the "massive disaster.

This should have been solved through the UN. The inspectors should havee been allowed to complete their inspections. The the world would pat Saddam on the head saying that he has been a good boy (about as we do with Libya now) and lift the sanctions. International relations would be restored. Human rights would be improved through condition loans: "be a good boy and we'll lend you money". Without firing one shot, you could have transformed Iraq to a responsible world member and a positive influence in the middle east. Not to mention that Iraq would have become a valuable partner in the "War on terror" instead of a giant recruiting base for terrorists as it is now.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why? Don't worry we saved the oil and we saved the Saudis. Why further?

We would have saved several thousand Shi'ite and Kurdish lives- of course, those lives would'nt have been lost if we hadn't encouraged them to revolt...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nowhere right now as the situation is messed up.

I thought that 1.5 millions barrels a day were being produced until that basra thingy happened.

Quote[/b] ]

This should have been solved through the UN. The inspectors should havee been allowed to complete their inspections. The the world would pat Saddam on the head saying that he has been a good boy (about as we do with Libya now) and lift the sanctions. International relations would be restored. Human rights would be improved through condition loans: "be a good boy and we'll lend you money". Without firing one shot, you could have transformed Iraq to a responsible world member and a positive influence in the middle east. Not to mention that Iraq would have become a valuable partner in the "War on terror" instead of a giant recruiting base for terrorists as it is now.

You talking about a guy who ordered the killing of a ex-president? Big speculation...

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nowhere right now as the situation is messed up.

I thought that 1.5 millions barrels a day were being produced until that basra thingy happened.

2.8 million barrels a day was the pre-war level. Not surprisingy though the exported oil difference is smaller. It's the Iraqis who have gas shortages, not us.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

This should have been solved through the UN. The inspectors should havee been allowed to complete their inspections. The the world would pat Saddam on the head saying that he has been a good boy (about as we do with Libya now) and lift the sanctions. International relations would be restored. Human rights would be improved through condition loans: "be a good boy and we'll lend you money". Without firing one shot, you could have transformed Iraq to a responsible world member and a positive influence in the middle east. Not to mention that Iraq would have become a valuable partner in the "War on terror" instead of a giant recruiting base for terrorists as it is now.

You talking about a guy who ordered the killing of a ex-president? Big speculation...

Much lesser than starting a war. It would have been the method most likely suceed. And had it not, invasion always could remain as an alternative.

Anyway, so you're saying that you don't support of for instance letting Gaddafi out of the dog house as we have done now? You know, your beloved leader was a big supporter of that. And while Saddam was a ruthless operator, Gaddafi is a certifiable nutcase - potentially much more difficult to control.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/19/iraq.abuse.uk/index.html

Quote[/b] ]LONDON, England (CNN) -- At least one British soldier has been arrested in a probe of faked photos showing alleged abuses of Iraqi prisoners by UK forces, the Ministry of Defence said.

It is the first arrest over the hoax photos which were published in Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper on May 1.

The soldier was arrested on Tuesday by the MoD's investigative branch and has not been charged. The MoD press office stressed the arrest was part of a routine investigation.

It is not clear whether the soldier was based in Iraq or Britain or whether the soldier was detained overnight.

The Daily Mirror issued a humbling four-page apology on Saturday after an inquiry by military police deemed the photographs were faked.

The paper also announced its editor Piers Morgan had resigned.

The Mirror says all the money it made by syndicating the photos to worldwide media outlets would be donated to charity.

One of the photos was published on the paper's frontpage and depicted a British soldier allegedly urinating on an Iraqi prisoner in a military truck.

they got too much time on their hands.

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]but tbh the U.N created a massive disaster in dealing with iraq and it needed cleaing up

Yes, a disaster through the sanctions that were so loved by the same countries that started the war.  Both you and your American friends were very much involved in creating the "massive disaster.

This should have been solved through the UN. The inspectors should havee been allowed to complete their inspections. The the world would pat Saddam on the head saying that he has been a good boy (about as we do with Libya now) and lift the sanctions. International relations would be restored. Human rights would be improved through condition loans: "be a good boy and we'll lend you money". Without firing one shot, you could have transformed Iraq to a responsible world member and a positive influence in the middle east. Not to mention that Iraq would have become a valuable partner in the "War on terror" instead of a giant recruiting base for terrorists as it is now.

You meen saddam (who started the war) loved the sanctions?

erm yea we where doing that for 10 years plus and it got us nowhere, saddam woul never have come into the fold like Libya.

[Balschoiw 0]

Being journalist in Iraq. A poo job.

Soldiers accused of abusing journalists

Quote[/b] ]The top US general in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, was last night facing serious embarrassment after exonerating soldiers who apparently abused and sexually humiliated three staff working for the international news agency Reuters.

In a letter written before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the general said there was no evidence that the three, who were arrested earlier this year after going to report on a helicopter crash, had been mistreated.

Yesterday, however, following the denials, the news agency took the unprecedented step of making public for the first time details of the torture and abuse suffered by its staff.

During their detention at a military camp near Falluja in January, two of the journalists were forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it.

They were made to put their shoes in their mouths, deprived of sleep, kicked and forced to remain in stress positions for long periods. The US soldiers laughed, taunted them and told them they would be taken to Guantánamo Bay.

Despite signed affidavits from the three journalists - Baghdad-based cameraman Salem Ureibi, Falluja-based freelance television journalist Ahmad Mohammad Hussein al-Badrani, and driver Sattar Jabar al-Badrani - the US military said there was no evidence they had been tortured or abused.

In a letter received by Reuters on Monday, but written on March 5, Lt Gen Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, said he was confident that the investigation had been "thorough and objective". Its findings were sound, he added.

US military investigators said they had questioned the soldiers involved in the incident and none had admitted taking part in abuse. The investigators refused to interview the three victims.

The episode suggests that before the prisoner abuse scandal broke senior commanders were happy to brush off complaints of abuse from former Iraqi detainees, despite overwhelming evidence.

"When I saw the Abu Ghraib photographs, I wept," Mr Ureibi said yesterday. "I saw they had suffered like we had."

The Pentagon has yet to respond to a request by Reuters global managing editor David Schlesinger to review the military's findings about the incident.

and for the "not-ordered" torture in Iraq:

Army 'Covering Up Serial Prisoner Abuse' Says US Soldier

Quote[/b] ]The US Army is trying to “cover up†widespread abuse of prisoners at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail, a witness in the investigation claimed today.

Sgt Samuel Provance made his damaging claims hours before the first of the courts martial against seven accused US prison guards was due to begin.

Sgt Provance claimed that dozens of soldiers were involved in mistreating Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, despite claims by top Bush administration officials that it was perpetrated by a group of rogue soldiers.

“There’s definitely a cover-up. People are either telling themselves or being told to be quiet,†Sgt Provance told ABC News.

Sgt Provance, 30, was part of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion stationed at Abu Ghraib last September.

Speaking despite receiving orders not to, he said: “What I was surprised at was the silence. The collective silence by so many people that had to be involved, that had to have seen something or heard something.â€

Sgt Provance, now stationed in Germany, operated the top-secret computer network used by military intelligence at the prison.

He said he did not see incidents of abuse taking place himself, but said interrogators admitted mistreating prisoners.

“One interrogator told me about how commonly the detainees were stripped naked, and in some occasions, wearing women’s underwear,†he said.

“If it’s your job to strip people naked, yell at them, scream at them, humiliate them, it’s not going to be too hard to move from that to another level.â€

Some of the abuse included US soldiers “striking

prisoners] on the neck area somewhere and the person being knocked outâ€, Sgt Provance said.

In one incident two drunken interrogators took a female Iraqi prisoner from her cell in the middle of the night and stripped her naked to the waist.

The pair had to be restrained by a prison guard, he said.

Sgt Provance said anything the guards did “legally or otherwise, they were to take those commands from the interrogatorsâ€.

Nearly all the military guards who have been charged with abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad, claim that they were simply following orders.

The exception is Specialist Jeremy Sivits, 24, who faces a special court martial in Baghdad later today.

He is understood to have told interrogators it was a case of renegade soldiers attacking prisoners for their own amusement.

A further three former guards were appearing before court martial in Iraq today. It is not believed that they will be asked to enter a plea but Army Sgt Javal Davis, Spc Charles Graner and Staff Sgt Ivan Fredericks are expected plead not guilty at later hearings.

Sgt Provance said he felt that his evidence to military investigators was not taken seriously.

“It was almost as if I actually felt if all my statements were shredded and I said, like most everybody else, ’I didn’t hear anything, I didn’t see anything, I don’t know what you’re talking about,’ then my life would be just fine right now.â€

He added: “I would say many people are probably hiding and wishing to God that this storm passes without them having to be investigated

or] personally looked at.â€

Act´s of a few...

And here comes another smart idea from the US. Keep in mind that the coaltion forces are especially famous for their torture cases right now in the Arab world.

Well that doesn´t seem to matter much as:

US bans human rights monitors

Quote[/b] ]Washington - Human rights monitors complained on Tuesday that they will not be allowed to observe, in Baghdad, the first court-martial of a US soldier accused of abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.

"Barring human rights monitors from the court-martial is a bad decision in its own right," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division.

"It also sends a terrible signal to Iraqis and others deeply concerned about what transpired in Abu Ghraib."

The New York-based rights watchdog said other, Iraq-based groups were also denied access.

"It's positive that US military authorities are allowing the media to attend tomorrow's hearing," said Whitson.

"But it is unreasonable to exclude Human Rights Watch and other rights monitors who have expertise in the abuses at the heart of the court-martial."

Jeremy Sivits, 24, faces the court-martial on Wednesday on accusations he took the now notorious photographs of naked Iraqi detainees forced to form a human pyramid.

A single judge, who has not yet been named, will preside over Wednesday's main hearing, to be held in a stark, modern courtroom on the first floor of the convention centre inside the compound headquarters of the US-led coalition.

Surprised ?

You know the deal. Either you´re with us or...