I was only following orders

[quade 4]

Unfortunately, some of the things that were done were against international law. So, sleep deprivation -- no problem. Naked human pyramid -- grey area. Hooded with electrodes on nuts -- uh oh, we've crossed the line. sodomy with a glo-stick -- over the line. Beating and a prisoner dies -- whoops, we're -way- over the line.

So, the whole concept of idiots vs. policy becomes pretty freekin' important here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

See, there's the thing, I have no issue with humilation, sleep deprivation, etc before interrogation. That's how you get the information you need.

If it was a bunch of whackjobs being stupid, court martial them and get on with it. If it they wre directed to do it, then let's just tell the public that, say 'this is what we do in war, and if you don't like it screw off.' If it was policy, then the only reason I think head should roll is because they are hanging the guard out to dry. If they were being stupid and unproductive (aka F-ing sickos) then toss em in Leavenworth.

No, that won't wash. The US President made the case for invading a sovereign nation (one that had not threatened the US and presented no actual threat) in a sanctimonious, self righteous address to the nation on 1/20/03 et seq. The President and his apologists publicly ridiculed other nations for not joining his crusade.

Consequently the US has to be "whiter than white" in its behavior in Iraq or look like the biggest international hypocrite of all time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

[quade 4]

Interesting and surreal -- especially the commercial intros.

Actually, Kerry sounds pretty reasonable in that face-tp-face and O'Neil kinda comes off like can't separate metaphor from reality -- kinda like a lot of folks actually so I guess it's understandable.

I think the real issue was and continues to be that Kerry said some unfortunate things, pissed off some folks because they took it -very- personally and they focused like a laser beam on his -exact- words rather than seeing a somewhat broader view. It seems to -me- like Kerry's words were an indictment of the Administration's policies rather than the soldiers, but that a majority of them couldn't see it.

Much like today.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,107]

>If it they wre directed to do it, then let's just tell the public that, >say 'this is what we do in war, and if you don't like it screw off.'

Raping children is OK with you?

[Tonto 1]

Quote

Raping children is OK with you?

No. That's not OK - but I don't think that's been done in Iraq. In Japan, plenty though.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Interesting and surreal -- especially the commercial intros.

Actually, Kerry sounds pretty reasonable in that face-tp-face and O'Neil kinda comes off like can't separate metaphor from reality -- kinda like a lot of folks actually so I guess it's understandable.

I think the real issue was and continues to be that Kerry said some unfortunate things, pissed off some folks because they took it -very- personally and they focused like a laser beam on his -exact- words rather than seeing a somewhat broader view. It seems to -me- like Kerry's words were an indictment of the Administration's policies rather than the soldiers, but that a majority of them couldn't see it.

Much like today.

When you get a chance, read the "Busted by Historians" link.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Think about it . . . why a naken prisoner being lead on a leash by a woman guard? Isn't that just about the -most- humiliating thing for an Arab man?

Just a tangent here - it's pretty clear by the phrasing here that a leash being held by a 'woman' is agreed to be much more humiliating than being held by a man - to an 'Arab man'.

So we all agree that the culture is extremely sexist by anyone elses standards, and that statements like that in a US college newspaper would get any faculty advisor fired from his cushy position.... So in our PC world, all Arab men should resign or be fired from any job they hold now.

so in 'firing' Saddam from his last job, we were just supporting women's right and that platform of the DFL.

Come on people, the war is a great big conspiracy from the left, in conjunction with Halliburton and the National Organization of Women.

ok, that was a tangent - my apologies. The serious point here is that we go out of our way to 'empathize' with someone's cultural values even though they are completely in conflict with ours. Right or wrong, the double standard is confusing.

Nope, that's a tangent also.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Kennedy 0]

I was under the impression we were discussing the idiots in the photographs. If you are talking about all alledged abuses, then no, obviously I don't support all of them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[livendive 8]

Quote

See, there's the thing, I have no issue with humilation, sleep deprivation, etc before interrogation. That's how you get the information you need.

Well, that's how you get the information you need if you're not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

3rd Convention
Article 17
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

Remember now, it's: Name, Rank, Serial Number. That's it.

If we want to go beyond that, we can disengage ourselves from the Conventions, as long as we understand that removes the protections our troops enjoy as well.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,107]

>No. That's not OK - but I don't think that's been done in Iraq.

From MSNBC:

"Rumsfeld did not describe the photos, but U.S. military officials told NBC News that the unreleased images showed U.S. soldiers severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi female prisoner and "acting inappropriately with a dead body." The officials said there was also a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys."

[vmsfreaky1 0]

The "i was following orders.." excuse did not work for the germans at nuremburg, why should it work for these U.S serviceman?

[billvon 3,107]

>The "i was following orders.." excuse did not work for the germans at
>nuremburg, why should it work for these U.S serviceman?

Because the alternative - to go up the chain of command - is politically inexpedient.

[quade 4]

Quote

The "i was following orders.." excuse did not work for the germans at nuremburg, why should it work for these U.S serviceman?

I'm not suggesting it should. However, there -do- seem to be two sides to this story: a few rogue solderiers or a few soldiers following illegal orders. The consequences of the first would lay solely with a small group soldiers, the consequences of the second broadens the number of people we need to punish.

In either case, it's a shameful episode for the U.S.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

See, there's the thing, I have no issue with humilation, sleep deprivation, etc before interrogation. That's how you get the information you need.

Well, that's how you get the information you need if you're not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

3rd Convention, Article 17
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion..."

Remember now, it's: Name, Rank, Serial Number. That's it.

If we want to go beyond that, we can disengage ourselves from the Conventions, as long as we understand that removes the protections our troops enjoy as well.

How many of these assholes were wearing uniforms with unit insignia? Don't call every captured asshat a prisoner of war. Not all of them qualify.

ps - I'm still waiting for those protections to be given to our troops by any enemy.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

How many of these assholes were wearing uniforms with unit insignia? Don't call every captured asshat a prisoner of war. Not all of them qualify.

ps - I'm still waiting for those protections to be given to our troops by any enemy.

Apparently some of these "asshats" weren't guilty of anything at all. Hundreds have now been released without any charges being brought.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Tonto 1]

Quote

>No. That's not OK - but I don't think that's been done in Iraq.

From MSNBC:

"Rumsfeld did not describe the photos, but U.S. military officials told NBC News that the unreleased images showed U.S. soldiers severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi female prisoner and "acting inappropriately with a dead body." The officials said there was also a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys."

I'm sorry. I had no idea that was going on.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

See, there's the thing, I have no issue with humilation, sleep deprivation, etc before interrogation. That's how you get the information you need.

Well, that's how you get the information you need if you're not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

3rd Convention, Article 17
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion..."

Remember now, it's: Name, Rank, Serial Number. That's it.

If we want to go beyond that, we can disengage ourselves from the Conventions, as long as we understand that removes the protections our troops enjoy as well.

How many of these assholes were wearing uniforms with unit insignia? Don't call every captured asshat a prisoner of war. Not all of them qualify.

ps - I'm still waiting for those protections to be given to our troops by any enemy.

First of all, understand that just because this story is coming out now does not mean it happened recently. The ICRC started complaining about our treatment of "detainees" in March of last year, when I suspect the vast majority of them were in fact in uniform.

Secondly, I believe one might be able to make the case that an organized, armed militia defending or trying to take a specific building or area can be reasonably considered to be POWs by virtue of "1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." Note the lack any requirement for an insignia by this definition. This is the section that would have covered any Northern Alliance POWs taken in Afghanistan. Of course this would not include those who are trying to suicide bomb us etc, but those who are fighting by means of conventional weaponry (mortars, RPGs, automatic weapons, etc) would be covered.

Thirdly, if we assume that nations became signatories to the Geneva Conventions because they represent moral, humane standards for treating prisoners, it stands to reason that exploiting a loophole to circumvent the standards is both immoral and inhumane.

Fourthly, ALL detainees (not just POWs) are protected from "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" per Article 3 of the third convention. You might be surprised by the level of care we owe them, things like an allowance, a canteen (with tobacco available), daily showers with sufficient soap, etc. If you're bored, you might skim it here.

Fifthly, the ICRC has reported that 70-90 percent of detainees have been arrested by mistake. Art. 33 of the fourth convention states "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

First of all, understand that just because this story is coming out now does not mean it happened recently. The ICRC started complaining about our treatment of "detainees" in March of last year, when I suspect the vast majority of them were in fact in uniform.

Your suspicions don't mean squat. If they were in uniform (republican guard, etc), then it's name rank serial number and hands off.

Quote

Secondly, I believe one might be able to make the case that an organized, armed militia defending or trying to take a specific building or area can be reasonably considered to be POWs by virtue of "1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."

You are incorrect. Read Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. For organized armed militias there are four requirements.

Quote

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They don't qualify as POWs. Period. Unless you really want to argue for Article 4 Section A Paragraph 6, that is. I think you'd get laughed off the board for that one though.

Quote

Thirdly, if we assume that nations became signatories to the Geneva Conventions because they represent moral, humane standards for treating prisoners, it stands to reason that exploiting a loophole to circumvent the standards is both immoral and inhumane.

What is it with people lately, that every section of law that doesn't agree with you becomes a loophole. How about showing a little respect to the people who wrote the law (in this case Convention) were actually capable of writing what they meant.

Quote

Fourthly, ALL detainees (not just POWs) are protected from "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" per Article 3 of the third convention. You might be surprised by the level of care we owe them, things like an allowance, a canteen (with tobacco available), daily showers with sufficient soap, etc. If you're bored, you might skim it here.

How about if you mention Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, you actually read it first. Article three applies to

Quote

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
I'm quoting the UN supplied text of the Third Geneva Convention.

The Fourth convention, the one you were talking about on the Red Cross page, applies to

Quote

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

So again, that doesn't apply. Face it, most of the men in Abu Ghraib are afforded nothing by the Geneva Conventions.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

So again, that doesn't apply. Face it, most of the men in Abu Ghraib are afforded nothing by the Geneva Conventions.

Even in the unlikely event that you are correct, the US is also signatory to the UN declaration of human rights, which, by ratification, is US law.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

First of all, understand that just because this story is coming out now does not mean it happened recently. The ICRC started complaining about our treatment of "detainees" in March of last year, when I suspect the vast majority of them were in fact in uniform.

Your suspicions don't mean squat. If they were in uniform (republican guard, etc), then it's name rank serial number and hands off.

We agree on that point. I happen to believe that at the start of hostilities, most of the prisoners we took were surrendering soldiers, even though that's not the case now. I don't know whether you agree with that or not.

Quote

Quote

Secondly, I believe one might be able to make the case that an organized, armed militia defending or trying to take a specific building or area can be reasonably considered to be POWs by virtue of "1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces."

You are incorrect. Read Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. For organized armed militias there are four requirements.

Quote

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Did you even read that while you were quoting it? Did you notice the "1." in my quote? There are 6 ways to qualify as a POW. I listed the first way (1.). You've listed the 2nd (in part), which starts "2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: " followed by the four conditions you've listed. Note those conditions apply only to the second way of qualifying as a POW, not the first. In addition, there are 4 other ways to qualify, including paragraph 6 which you mention below.

Quote

They don't qualify as POWs. Period. Unless you really want to argue for Article 4 Section A Paragraph 6, that is. I think you'd get laughed off the board for that one though.

Quote

Thirdly, if we assume that nations became signatories to the Geneva Conventions because they represent moral, humane standards for treating prisoners, it stands to reason that exploiting a loophole to circumvent the standards is both immoral and inhumane.

What is it with people lately, that every section of law that doesn't agree with you becomes a loophole. How about showing a little respect to the people who wrote the law (in this case Convention) were actually capable of writing what they meant.

OK, don't call it a loophole. It doesn't change the fact that there are standards for how to treat people who were fighting against you and have since laid down their arms and are now under your care. If you want to argue that treating some of them less humanely than others is both moral and humane, be my guest.

Quote

Quote

Fourthly, ALL detainees (not just POWs) are protected from "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" per Article 3 of the third convention. You might be surprised by the level of care we owe them, things like an allowance, a canteen (with tobacco available), daily showers with sufficient soap, etc. If you're bored, you might skim it here.

How about if you mention Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, you actually read it first. Article three applies to

Quote

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
I'm quoting the UN supplied text of the Third Geneva Convention.

The Fourth convention, the one you were talking about on the Red Cross page, applies to

Quote

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

I did read it. I made a type-o, and meant article 3 of the fourth convention, not the third convention. However can you please point out the difference between the two quotes you've made above (i.e. applicability of each convention)? I don't see the difference. What I DO see, is that the fourth convention does apply to persons who are taking no active part in hostilities. Are you arguing that the prisoners are still taking an active part in hostilities? I assume you understand the phrase "hors de combat by...detention"?

Quote

So again, that doesn't apply. Face it, most of the men in Abu Ghraib are afforded nothing by the Geneva Conventions.

Well that would be the case if they were still taking an active part in hostilities. I think you'll have a tough row to hoe making that case though.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,107]

>If they were in uniform (republican guard, etc), then it's name rank
>serial number and hands off.

What if they are not in uniform? What requirements apply then?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>If they were in uniform (republican guard, etc), then it's name rank
>serial number and hands off.

What if they are not in uniform? What requirements apply then?

Honestly, that's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

I don't know what treaties, if any, apply to that. Maybe it's still legal to hang spies, traitors, and guerillas.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Maybe it's still legal to hang spies, traitors, and guerillas.

So, anyone in not in uniform is a spy even though they are on their own territory in a sovereign nation? That doesn't sould like it would fly.

Traitorous to whom? Those that didn't fight against us were traitors to SH.

[Kennedy 0]

They are acting as armed militia but not according to the requirements set forth in the conventions, so the protections don't apply.

I never said everyone in the prison was one of those three, or that all three were in that prison. I listed them because the US constitution actually only has one crime built into it: beign a traitor. I listed spies because we have hung them in the past, and had ours hung.

"I regret that I have but one life to give for my country."

I listed guerillas because I couldn't think of a better word for the militias.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*