turtlespeed 226
Recommended Posts
QuoteSo -- are the civilian contractors hired by the US military in Iraq being briefed in Iraqi law? And do they consider themselves to be ruled by it?
What Iraqi law? While there is no government, there is no law. Those guys have an interesting position: They're not really covered by Iraqi law, the UCMJ, or US law (or their home country's law in the case of foreign contractors).
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
Tonto 1
QuoteThey're not really covered by Iraqi law, the UCMJ, or US law (or their home country's law in the case of foreign contractors).
Isn't that called "being a law unto one's self?"
t
It's the year of the Pig.
wmw999 2,589
Does that mean, then, that there are no laws which pertain to Iraqis either? If so, are murders being punished etc? Only crimes against Americans & other coalition forces?
I'd hate to think that we hired a bunch of people and sent them over without any control but what they exert over themselves (well, that and the threat of either being sent home early without pay, or being left behind). Somehow I don't think that only the bestest, brightest, and most self-controlled are working there as civilian contractors.
Wendy W.
I'd hate to think that we hired a bunch of people and sent them over without any control but what they exert over themselves (well, that and the threat of either being sent home early without pay, or being left behind). Somehow I don't think that only the bestest, brightest, and most self-controlled are working there as civilian contractors.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
quade 4
News is protected.
If CBS (BTW, it was CBS 60 Minutes that aired the photos to begin with) had been present at the prison -while- the photos were being taken, then an argument might be made that they were a part of a conspiracy, but the act of airing the photos, in and of itself, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
If CBS (BTW, it was CBS 60 Minutes that aired the photos to begin with) had been present at the prison -while- the photos were being taken, then an argument might be made that they were a part of a conspiracy, but the act of airing the photos, in and of itself, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
turtlespeed 226
So, what you are saying is that the press can commit crimes that people and soldiers can commit and be exempt from it.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>ABC putting those pictures of those prisoners on national TV or any
> other media outlet committed a clear violation - they should be held
> responsible and accountable - any reparations should be shared by
> them as well.
Nonsense. If ABC hadn't aired those pictures, people like yourself would be claiming it's all a left wing lie. Publication of those pictures helped put an end to some very serious abuses of innocent men, women and children. The Iraqis are better off as a result. We may not be, but that's our fault - and if our goal there is really to help the Iraqis, making sure they are better off should be our #1 priority.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to US companies that are not actors in the conflict - and the US has a very clear policy about allowing a free press, even when the press might act in ways contrary to the interest of a political party, a government official, or a war effort.
> other media outlet committed a clear violation - they should be held
> responsible and accountable - any reparations should be shared by
> them as well.
Nonsense. If ABC hadn't aired those pictures, people like yourself would be claiming it's all a left wing lie. Publication of those pictures helped put an end to some very serious abuses of innocent men, women and children. The Iraqis are better off as a result. We may not be, but that's our fault - and if our goal there is really to help the Iraqis, making sure they are better off should be our #1 priority.
The Geneva Convention does not apply to US companies that are not actors in the conflict - and the US has a very clear policy about allowing a free press, even when the press might act in ways contrary to the interest of a political party, a government official, or a war effort.
the press committed no crime by airing the pictures.
IF the photos were a violation of the prisoners' rights (and that has yet to be determined... does the wording of the Geneva Convention apply to photographic material, or strictly to people who are physically there, observing? I'd have to research the legal precedent, and I don't have time right now), the violator is the military who released the photos, not the news broadcasting agency. The news agency, under the first amendment, can print/broadcast what it chooses (barring other restrictions on libel/slander, etc)
IF the photos were a violation of the prisoners' rights (and that has yet to be determined... does the wording of the Geneva Convention apply to photographic material, or strictly to people who are physically there, observing? I'd have to research the legal precedent, and I don't have time right now), the violator is the military who released the photos, not the news broadcasting agency. The news agency, under the first amendment, can print/broadcast what it chooses (barring other restrictions on libel/slander, etc)
Skyrad 0
They should be proscecuted under international law.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
OK, this post isn't in response to your question, but I couldn't see starting another thread entitled "Geneva Convention" immediately above this one.
I was just checking into what laws are currently applicable in Iraq. Part of that included skimming the Fouth Geneva Convention (to which both the US and Iraq are signatories) and I found this:
Now "Protected Persons" are defined as:
My question is what am I missing. Something leads me to believe the US was within it's rights to hunt for and arrest/kill the folks in that deck of cards, but this suggests otherwise. Anyone know how we got around this?
FYI - That's also where I read this:
Also, in the Third Convention, there was this:
Anyhow, I thought these were interesting. I was listening to Glenn Beck on my way to work this morning and he was trying to rationalize some of the treatment as "not torture." As signatories to the Convention, forget torture, we're not allowed to expose them to "unpleasant or disadvantageous" treatment of any sort as a method of soliciting information. Unless of course, I'm wrong.
Blues,
Dave
I was just checking into what laws are currently applicable in Iraq. Part of that included skimming the Fouth Geneva Convention (to which both the US and Iraq are signatories) and I found this:
QuoteArt. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of breaches of the laws and customs of war.
Now "Protected Persons" are defined as:
QuoteArt. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."
My question is what am I missing. Something leads me to believe the US was within it's rights to hunt for and arrest/kill the folks in that deck of cards, but this suggests otherwise. Anyone know how we got around this?
FYI - That's also where I read this:
Quote(1) 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.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Also, in the Third Convention, there was this:
QuoteArticle 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
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.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.
Anyhow, I thought these were interesting. I was listening to Glenn Beck on my way to work this morning and he was trying to rationalize some of the treatment as "not torture." As signatories to the Convention, forget torture, we're not allowed to expose them to "unpleasant or disadvantageous" treatment of any sort as a method of soliciting information. Unless of course, I'm wrong.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
turtlespeed 226
Quote
The Geneva Convention does not apply to US companies that are not actors in the conflict - and the US has a very clear policy about allowing a free press, even when the press might act in ways contrary to the interest of a political party, a government official, or a war effort.
None of the reporters or camera men or anyone else employed by ABC had weapons and would not defend themselves with one?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,120
>None of the reporters or camera men or anyone else employed by
>ABC had weapons and would not defend themselves with one?
Who knows? They are certainly not part of the military effort. I assume you would scream in rigtheous indignation if anyone tried to remove their weapons before they entered into a war zone, so I suspect some had them.
But then again, a lot of people here have weapons, and some have been to Iraq; some have even posted pictures. Should they be prohibited from posting?
>ABC had weapons and would not defend themselves with one?
Who knows? They are certainly not part of the military effort. I assume you would scream in rigtheous indignation if anyone tried to remove their weapons before they entered into a war zone, so I suspect some had them.
But then again, a lot of people here have weapons, and some have been to Iraq; some have even posted pictures. Should they be prohibited from posting?
turtlespeed 226
If the photos happen to be of active prisoners - then yes - they should, and be held accountable as well.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
AndyMan 7
Quote
Since the US do not recognise the World Court in The Hauge, it's essencial that their military police themselves.
I had to point this out: Even among the countries that Do recognize the World Court, they too have the responsability to police the actions of their troups.
It's only when the country does not police their own troups, does the country itself get pulled into The Hague.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
quade 4
Quote
So, what you are saying is that the press can commit crimes that people and soldiers can commit and be exempt from it.
No. What I's saying is that unless the press is specifically in cahoots with the government (a pure propaganda tool), then airing the footage is not a crime.
Tokyo Rose, for instance, was convicted of war crimes because she worked for the government.
Edward R Murrow wasn't a war criminal because he worked for CBS -- not the government.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Don't get me wrong - I am not condoning anything that the "guards" did. However - ABC _DOES_ have a responibility to abide by the rules of the geneva convention. Just because they are not "in the military" does not exeonerate them any more than civilian status exonerates treason.
ABC putting those pictures of those prisoners on national TV or any other media outlet committed a clear violation - they should be held responsible and accountable - any reparations should be shared by them as well.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites