Comments on: IMPORTANT: Time to do the right thing by our Iraqi friends

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:47:06 +0000

AI press release provides the context...

By: Mark Johnston

Mark Johnston — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:59:31 +0000

Abb1, I think you are a bit naive about the potential for a truly sound case-by-case assessment of appropriate asylum in a refugee crisis of the scale of one in Iraq. However, I think their is a very important plank to you position: getting the people out who worked with the coalition would only begin to capture the vast class of people who have been placed at grave risk by the war. That class may be the majority of the Iraqi population. Now, I don’t think that a refugee program that accommodates the majority of Iraqis is even remotely possible, but I have a crazy hope that there might be a very large program pulling hundreds of thousands out of the grinder over the next few years, like there was after the war in Vietnam. A successful campaign to remind the public and the coalition governments of the most basic obligations to refugees might be a way towards a more broad tolerance of such a large scale program. Whatever you might think of it, the point about looking after people who have worked with you, especially if that work has been at their increased risk, is a point that most people relate to instinctively and it might be a way to get people to think positively about refugees and break down their fear of Iraqis in general. And fear is surely the biggest obstacle to popular acceptance of a large scale refugee program.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:30:41 +0000

Now, that’s gross misrepresentation; where did I do any of that? All I argued was that people should be given asylum based on necessity as determined on the case-by-case basis, as opposed to whether they used to fry hamburgers for British or Baathist mess-hall.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:05:54 +0000

I see this as “collaborators=snitches, scabs, stool-pigeons and bloodhounds” i.e. people betraying their friends and neighbors.

So like Abb1, you’re plucking charges out of thin air and then concluding that a death sentence without trial is appropriate? Be serious.

By: minneapolitan

minneapolitan — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:56:12 +0000

In thinking this over, I’ve realized that perhaps my first comment focused too heavily on citizenship, which was then taken up as one of the main questions, when in fact, it’s immaterial to me. I’m not operating under the rubric “collaborators=traitors”, frankly, I couldn’t care less if people “betray” “their” country. I see this as “collaborators=snitches, scabs, stool-pigeons and bloodhounds” i.e. people betraying their friends and neighbors.

Also, the various references to “suspected collaborators” betray a breathtaking level of intellectual dishonesty. There’s no “suspected” in this situation. Or is the argument that anyone in Iraq who’s been “bad-jacketed” deserves expatriation?

By: Pickled Politics » Help save some Iraqis

Pickled Politics » Help save some Iraqis — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:43:37 +0000

[...] blog campaign started by Dan Hardie, and supported by: Crooked Timber, Harry’s Place, Rachel North, Chickyog, Davide, Rosie Bell, Europhobia, Blairwatch and [...]

By: Joshua W. Burton

Joshua W. Burton — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:33:38 +0000

This isn’t hard, people. You take them in, give them citizenship, and a relocation package, at the very least. If Arik bloody Sharon could see the plain moral obligation (in the wake of a withdrawal authored, managed and botched by his political foe, at that), does the UK dare do less?

(Former UK citizens in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC should probably not reply, or at least not with traceable email addresses.)

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:28:35 +0000

Well, when one is presented with soap opera Loyal Helpless Servants Betrayed And Left To Die, it’s only natural that responses will follow the genre. We all appreciate good melodrama.

On the other hand, this morning I feel that I got carried away again here. After all, this is a good impulse, even if (imho) somewhat misguided. I apologize.

By: roy belmont

roy belmont — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:41:51 +0000

Firstly, I think anyone trying hard to help anyone else, and especially and specifically in the context from which this plea emerged, deserves praise, financial assistance, and some good beer at the end of the day.
This – “…trying to pretend that Saddam Hussein represented the legitimate government…(which is the only way that you can get to the conclusion that the Iraqis in question are “collaborators”…”, however, no.
You can have more than one asshole in a fight, in fact they can all be wrong, bad, whatever; one being a certified asshole doesn’t get the other one off that particular hook.
Saddam – bad; U.S. (at least its semi-visible policy-shaping hands) – also bad.
Collaborators aren’t legitimated by the moral flaws of what got replaced by the thing they’re collaborating with.
Again, helping get your boys out is fine and good, not weak, not wrong – worth doing and quick.
It’s incomplete ethically though, I think, to a degree that coupled with the urgency of the moment makes that worth pointing out.
The images of families who were and are neither “insurgents” nor “collaborationnistes” yet are bombed and broken by the same force you’re urging responsibility on, or for, makes it a harder question for me.

By: Unschooled » Blog Archive » Do the right thing

Unschooled » Blog Archive » Do the right thing — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:06:46 +0000

[...] the British perspective from Daniel Davies at Crooked Timber: Iraqi interpreters used by the British Army and CPA South [...]

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:44:26 +0000

so dsquared, if those collaborators in latin america were facing the prospect of retributory death squads you would want to get them out?

Yes. I don’t know why you would think that this is anything other than an unbelievably cut and dried case. International law is not exactly ambiguous on this subject. Lots of commenters here seem to want (or pretend to want, I think is just as likely) a version of international law that makes invasions of countries illegal, but then packs up and fucks off home again. These people are refugees, they are in the most imminent danger of any class of refugees, ergo they deserve immediate asylum. They have an obvious connection to the UK, so they deserve asylum in the UK.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:40:53 +0000

Probably a lot of money, considering. And also probably some significant powers come with it: to settle old scores, for example, to protect some, to harass others.

Abb1, you are just making these fucking charges up out of thin air, and using them as a moral argument in favour of abandoning entire families to death squads. Screw your head back on.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:16:32 +0000

I don’t understand it. You hire an interpreter. You don’t conscript him, you offer him a job. It’s a dangerous job. For money. Probably a lot of money, considering. And also probably some significant powers come with it: to settle old scores, for example, to protect some, to harass others. Pluses and minuses, pros and contras. It’s the choice he makes, not you. I say: you pay the money and you don’t owe anything else. He is not a child, he is not your friend, he probably hates you and waits for the opportunity to cut your throat, for all you know.

Also, I hope it’s not too stupid and nasty, but I have to question the premise. I understand that the Iraqi employees don’t live on the base, they live with the general population where they don’t have any special protection. So, it’s not obvious to me that the Brits leaving increases the risk. I may be wrong about this; if I am, don’t judge me too harshly please.

By: lemuel pitkin

lemuel pitkin — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:31:57 +0000

Abb1, this is precisely the issue I was trying to get at in my first point. There is the moral question of which Iraqis are most deserving of asylum (based on innocence and immediate danger or whatever). There is a separate, but also legitimate question, of which Iraqis we owe the most immediate duty to.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:28:05 +0000

Look, this is a humanitarian emergency. Over the decades international organizations developed procedures and protocols just for a situation like this. They interview the applicants, they verify their responses, they have lawyers, professionals, their job is to find out the truth in each individual case, reject or accept and assign priorities.

Do you have special circumstances that make you fear for your life more than the next guy? Yes? Why, is it true? OK, but are you a combatant? Are you a criminal? No? But is it true? Let’s check with the database. OK, fine – go into that line there.

See, this way you don’t have to classify large groups of people as ‘evil’ or ‘our friends’; you assess every individual case. Isn’t it a better way, seriously?