Rights group to Libya: Stop destroying town
TRIPOLI — An international rights group on Wednesday urged the Libyan government to halt the “systematic destruction” of a town whose residents backed ousted dictator Moammar Gadhafi during the country's civil war.
The town of Tawergha was used as a staging ground by Gadhafi's forces to orchestrate attacks on nearby Misrata, Libya's third largest city. After rebels broke the siege of Misrata and overran Tawergha, the town's 40,000 residents fled or were driven out by vengeful rebels. Scores were held in prisons under militias' command in Misrata and Tripoli, where rights groups recorded cases of torture and abuse.
Now the displaced residents live in harsh conditions in refugee camps in Tripoli and Benghazi, representing a challenge to the new Libyan government on achieving national reconciliation and justice.
Human Rights Watch based its report on recent satellite images that showed “arson and targeted demolitions” of Tawergha in an attempt to prevent the residents from coming back, the group said.
“The forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings are widespread, systematic and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity and should be condemned by the United Nations Security Council,” the group said in its report.
“Successive governments in Tripoli and local authorities in Misrata have failed to stop the ongoing persecution of an entire community,” said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.