|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2003 : 12:13:49
|
Just how clean are the hands of America and its allies when it comes to human rights? Here is an article that I think you will find interesting. I would very much like to have your opinions and comments on this one, as I really hate to believe that our operatives could or would behave in such a manner. So I'm hoping that someone out there will provide something to refute this article's information.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2003 : 12:28:05 [Permalink]
|
I read a similar article and have to admit it raises some very good points. If Bush wants POW's to be treated well he should start with the ones he is responsible for! This doesn't make what Iraq did OK but Bush's words ring hollow indeed when he criticizes the Iraqi government for things he himself is guilty of.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 13:10:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by walt fristoe
Just how clean are the hands of America and its allies when it comes to human rights? Here is an article that I think you will find interesting. I would very much like to have your opinions and comments on this one, as I really hate to believe that our operatives could or would behave in such a manner. So I'm hoping that someone out there will provide something to refute this article's information.
Whenever I am presented with information of a particularly inflammatory nature, I tend to be skeptical. I have been looking at the events at Camp X-Ray and the Afghanistan situation. It is rather important to note that the attrocities are mostly attributed to Afghani troops. These same troops then claim that US special forces did some things. While it is possible that the accounts of US special forces are true, the source is suspect. More like a "well this is bad, but they did it, too" sort of thing.
As for Camp X-ray, that is a lot trickier. There has been quite a bit of hemming and hawing about what constitutes a militia/military and what constitutes a terrorist organization. I would say that those individuals who fought under the Taliban would qualify as a militia/military. Those who were solely members of Al Queda are members of a criminal organization. In any case, the POW rules apply to the Taliban and the Geneva convention on civilian treatment during wartime applies to Al Queda. There are probably quite a few violations of the Geneva Convention going on at Camp X-Ray. Something alluded to in Kofi Annan's warning to both sides of the Iraqi conflict to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I cannot see the military as a policy seriously violating the Geneva Convention at the behest of the President. I fully expect that this administration would readily violate the Geneva Convention when it became convienient. Much like Ashcroft and the rest of the Hitler Youth trampling the first, fourth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution when it suits him. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 15:09:14 [Permalink]
|
If you click on the English authors name a list of articles he has written attacking the United States appears. But nothing on any other subject. It does answer the question "did Tokyo Rose have any kids."
I believe that bad mouthing the US and their own govt. is a cottage industry with Merry Old's press |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 15:24:46 [Permalink]
|
Slater, regardless of what the author like to write about one thing is clear. The USA is violating the Geneva convention no matter how many angles you look at it. Another thing, do you expect to get any criticism from the likes of Fox News? Why don't you discuss the issue rather than attack the author's credentials? Camp X-Ray is an embarrassment we all know about. Why is it right for us to be barbaric just by some half-witted label change from POW to illegal combatant? It's bullshit and no one outside the USA recognizes it. So if Iraq declares their prisoners illegal combatants because of an illegal war does that mean they can legally execute them? If Americans really think about it and are fair...yes they can. This is the dangerous game Bush has gotten us into.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 16:46:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Those who were solely members of Al Queda are members of a criminal organization.
I have to disagree. Despite the tragic and destructive acts they have perpetrated they are no more a terrorist group then early American revolutionaries. Our founding fathers strung up, tar and feathered quite a few British aristocrats and businessmen. To label one group a terrorists would require us to label our own revolutionary heroes as such.
Remember that the terrorists in the eye of one is the hero in the eye of the other.
Yes they do violate numerous war crimes, but so do we. So if they are a criminal organization and not a valid army then so are our troops (you would be hard pressed to find any army that does not violate international laws). Our army and our government has terrorized numerous civilizations and killed numerous civilians either directly or indirectly. If we say that Al Queida are criminals not worthy of protection under the Geneva Convention then are own troops should logically fall in the same boat.
I would perfer that we offer such protections to all, since the "all" in this case is the grunt following orders in most cases. Save the rest for international courts. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 17:02:34 [Permalink]
|
Slater, regardless of what the author like to write about one thing is clear. The USA is violating the Geneva convention no matter how many angles you look at it. Another thing, do you expect to get any criticism from the likes of Fox News? Why don't you discuss the issue rather than attack the author's credentials?
Like you just attacked Fox for not carrying this story because they didn't think it was legitimate?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the propaganda from both sides that is so thick these days you could stand a spoon in it. I didn't realize you were still on the "America can do no right" kick.
Wake me when you're finished.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 18:10:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't realize you were still on the "America can do no right" kick.
Nice exaggeration but you have yet to address the issue in any way except try to tear down messengers. I never was on an America can do no right thing and you would know it if you bothered reading my posts. But this one issue is one of America's great shames. And it's ludicrous to expect anyone else to follow rules we don't. Don't know why I bothered mentioning facts again since you'll skip right past them with your blind eye...
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 18:41:36 [Permalink]
|
But I am dealing with the issue. This is not a news article this is an Opinion piece (and labeled as such in the by line) by George Monbiot who is noted for holding such opinions.
It is a piece of propaganda. The Iraqis just made a faux pas breaking the Geneva convention with their treatment of our prisoners. It really wasn't a big deal but we played it up to be one. I'm sure that some well meaning Iraqi underling is getting hell for it from his superiors as we speak. This article is just a counter piece of their propaganda. The Iraqis are trying to save face.
This morning the British released a news piece that the Iraqi Guard had turned their guns on their own civilians in Basra. Pretty unbelievable stuff but you can be sure that some Iraqi suburbanites will fall for it. You can also be sure they will come up with a counter story about our dolphins eating Iraqi newborns, or some such thing. It's a war of words, happens with every shooting war that breaks out
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 02:41:37 [Permalink]
|
| This idea of the "Blame America First Crowd" and similar phrases is one of those priceless ideas based on nothing like "The Liberal Media" that some extreme right wing speechwriter came up with that people keep repeating mindlessly as though it meant something and that something was important and true. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 08:03:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
Those who were solely members of Al Queda are members of a criminal organization.
I have to disagree. Despite the tragic and destructive acts they have perpetrated they are no more a terrorist group then early American revolutionaries. Our founding fathers strung up, tar and feathered quite a few British aristocrats and businessmen. To label one group a terrorists would require us to label our own revolutionary heroes as such.
Remember that the terrorists in the eye of one is the hero in the eye of the other.
Yes they do violate numerous war crimes, but so do we. So if they are a criminal organization and not a valid army then so are our troops (you would be hard pressed to find any army that does not violate international laws). Our army and our government has terrorized numerous civilizations and killed numerous civilians either directly or indirectly. If we say that Al Queida are criminals not worthy of protection under the Geneva Convention then are own troops should logically fall in the same boat.
I would perfer that we offer such protections to all, since the "all" in this case is the grunt following orders in most cases. Save the rest for international courts.
Would you place the same term of militia to the Mafia?
The members of a criminal organization have protection under the Geneva Convention as it pertains to citizens.
Under those provisions, Camp X-Ray violates the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 3, section 1(c).
I still maintain that Al Queda is not a militia/military and is a criminal organization. One does not need to be a member of the military/militia to have rights under the Geneva Convention. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 09:14:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Would you place the same term of militia to the Mafia?
Only if they were fighting for a political cause. Generally I think of the mafia as a group of criminals trying to make monetary gains not fighting for a political cause.
quote:
Under those provisions, Camp X-Ray violates the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 3, section 1(c).
Then you are saying that Al Queda should be treated as civilians and not militants?
quote:
I still maintain that Al Queda is not a militia/military and is a criminal organization.
Then how are you differentiating between them and any other group that fights for a political cause. Why do you do so and not the Taliban? Why do you call them a criminal organization and not U.S. troops when they violate international law?
You can maintain your position but you can you give your reasons? And if so are your reasons logically applied to all groups in the same fashion?
Here is my reasoning:
1. Militias or militaries fight and wage wars for political reasons whether they violate international laws or not (almost all such groups violate international laws including our own troops).
2. Criminal organizations perform illegal actions for the sole purpose of monetary gain although that might include violence and war like actions.
Al Queda fits definition 1 much better than 2. Notice that Osama and his merry men were once called freedom fighters during a different era when the targets of their actions were Soviets instead of America. Were they a criminal organization then or a milita? |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 10:53:29 [Permalink]
|
| The Bush regime says they are not "prisoners of war", but he himself labeled the fight against terrorism as a "war on terror". So which is it? Does he think he can have it both ways? Or does he feel justified in using "labels of convenience? |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
| Edited by - walt fristoe on 03/27/2003 10:54:14 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 11:20:09 [Permalink]
|
Since the USA has invaded Iraq illegally it follows that Iraq can label US soldiers as illegal combatants and just execute them if they see fit as the US does. As I said, it's Bush that started this re-labelling game and now our troops have to pay a price. As far as I am concerned it's just as right for Iraq to do it as it is for us to. Did I say us...I meant Bush. I wouldn't have resorted to a stupid move like that knowing it would mean anyone could do it.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 11:24:12 [Permalink]
|
| I think double standards are always unethical, no matter who applies them. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 12:45:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
quote:
Would you place the same term of militia to the Mafia?
Only if they were fighting for a political cause. Generally I think of the mafia as a group of criminals trying to make monetary gains not fighting for a political cause.
quote:
Under those provisions, Camp X-Ray violates the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 3, section 1(c).
Then you are saying that Al Queda should be treated as civilians and not militants?
quote:
I still maintain that Al Queda is not a militia/military and is a criminal organization.
Then how are you differentiating between them and any other group that fights for a political cause. Why do you do so and not the Taliban? Why do you call them a criminal organization and not U.S. troops when they violate international law?
You can maintain your position but you can you give your reasons? And if so are your reasons logically applied to all groups in the same fashion?
Here is my reasoning:
1. Militias or militaries fight and wage wars for political reasons whether they violate international laws or not (almost all such groups violate international laws including our own troops).
2. Criminal organizations perform illegal actions for the sole purpose of monetary gain although that might include violence and war like actions.
Al Queda fits definition 1 much better than 2. Notice that Osama and his merry men were once called freedom fighters during a different era when the targets of their actions were Soviets instead of America. Were they a criminal organization then or a milita?
They should be treated as criminal civilians. The difference between them and the Taliban is that the Taliban was indigenous to only one country and acted as the lawful military/governance of Afghanistan. Likewise, the US military is the lawful military indigenous to the US. While they have bases around the world, their primary influence is on US security and projecting the will of the US government. Same thing with the Taliban. Al Queda is a criminal organization that seeks influence over areas through violence and intimidation of the lawful authority in that area. All criminal organizations seek this kind of influence. The drug cartels and the Mafia have an economic motivation instead of a political one.
Military/militia stage attacks to cause an area to come exclusively under their control and they intend to supplant/support the lawful government of that area. Criminal organizations do not. Al Queda, drug cartels, and the Mafia stage attacks meant to intimidate the local governments into ignoring their criminal activity and adhere to their agendas both political and economic. They have no interest in governance as long as they are allowed to control illicit activities and their agendas are followed. In the case of the illicit activities, drugs. Al Queda uses drug sales as a way to finance its operations. The agenda of Al Queda is to make Islam the only way of life permissible. The drug cartels and Mafia agendas are to produce material wealth and power.
I consider Al Queda to be a criminal organization even when they were fighting alongside the Taliban during the Soviet/Afghanistan War. The US government backs assholes, but turns on them when they are no longer "our" assholes. This is not unique to Al Queda. There has been Saddam Hussein (Iran/Iraq War), Manuel Noriega (Panama), the Taliban (Soviet/Afghanistan), and the Contras.
One of the major criteria I have for a military/militia is that they must be interested in governance. The US military is an extention of the US government. While under your definition Al Queda is a militia, under mine it is not.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/27/2003 12:51:11 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
