|
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2003 : 07:04:48
|
So Donald Rumsfeld has assured us that Saddam Hussein will be afforded human rights according to the Geneva Convention even though the US is in violation of Article 13 of the said convention by broadcasting pictures of a humiliated Saddam.
Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay?
Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".
He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.
This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.
His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).
They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.
The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light.
You would hesitate to describe these prisoners as lucky, unless you knew what had happened to some of the other men captured by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. On November 21 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander, General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Many of them have never been seen again.
As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27. The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.
The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."
Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites".
It should not be necessary to point out that hospitality of this kind also contravenes the third Geneva convention, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", as well as extra-judicial execution. Donald Rumsfeld's department, assisted by a pliant media, has done all it can to suppress Jamie Doran's film, while General Dostum has begun to assassinate his witnesses.
It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 07:36:20 [Permalink]
|
Hi and welcome. The message I'm getting is that yes, these people are criminals, as most U.S. presidents have been, and that's okay because they're only killing foreigners by the thousands and not U.S. citizens. Yet.
It's okay to lock people up because that means that they're guilty of something, otherwise we wouldn't have locked them up. Get it? |
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
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 12/22/2003 07:37:18 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 08:15:43 [Permalink]
|
The Gitmo Gulag is an obscenity. Those who concieved it should be sentenced to it. The unprovoked attack upon Iraq; same deal.
I am currently living for the day when this rat-bastard of an administration leaves office in disgrace. I'm afraid that's the best we can hope for. Me, I'd like to see every one of the illegitiment, pussy chickenhawks hauled before the law and sentenced accordingly. Not likely to happen, though.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 20:32:29 [Permalink]
|
I have great reservations as to the US having captured the real McCoy(Saddam). Before anybody brings up the subject of DNA, please be mindful of the fact that the US government, throughout history, have lied not only to their people but the rest of the world. One such example of this is that great event of the century "Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon".
Nonetheless the alleged capture of Saddam (or his look alike) is great publicity for an upcoming election.    
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 20:41:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Julie_Bris
I have great reservations as to the US having captured the real McCoy(Saddam). Before anybody brings up the subject of DNA, please be mindful of the fact that the US government, throughout history, have lied not only to their people but the rest of the world. One such example of this is that great event of the century "Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon".
Nonetheless the alleged capture of Saddam (or his look alike) is great publicity for an upcoming election.
As much as they have bullshitted to us, I reckon they've got him. After all the negatives that have come from this adventure, a positive has to eventually come. Even if it isn't him, let the world think it is, for the worlds own sake.
Guantanamo, well in this political climate, it seems to be legitimate for our governments to detain people indefinitely without charge. In Australia there is a guy in one of our detention centres just about to spend his sixth x-mas behind razor wire.
His crime was to seek asylum.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 21:07:18 [Permalink]
|
I take no comfort in the sense of "false security" that is being offered just for the sake of votes.
The only time that I would truly feel safe is when dictators such as Bush, Blair, Howard, Hussein, Geddafi, Mugabi, Pinoche and alike all join Hitler and rot in hell.
Hopefully the guy spending his 6th Christmas in the detention centre will have better success now that Amanda Vanstone has replaced Philip Ruddock.
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 21:14:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hopefully the guy spending his 6th Christmas in the detention centre will have better success now that Amanda Vanstone has replaced Philip Ruddock.
Johnny is pulling the strings......along with public opinion. Johnny, as much as I dislike him, is a good politician. He had read the mood of the electorate and with the right marketing of fear has made border protection one of the main national issues. Joe Bloggs in the street pretty much agrees with what they are told by the government and their mouth-piece the media. |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
| Edited by - gezzam on 12/22/2003 21:15:10 |
|
|
|
Julie_Bris
New Member
Australia
24 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2003 : 21:28:15 [Permalink]
|
God forbid should one day your average Joe Bloggs learns to think for himself rather than just feed off the crap that is offered by our politicians and the media.
|
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, racism and arrogance. |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2003 : 00:36:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Julie_Bris
I have great reservations as to the US having captured the real McCoy(Saddam). Before anybody brings up the subject of DNA, please be mindful of the fact that the US government, throughout history, have lied not only to their people but the rest of the world. One such example of this is that great event of the century "Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon".
Umm, what exactly do you think is a lie about Apollo 11, and what is your basis for thinking so?
Could the fact that Fox's "documentary" about the "Moon Hoax" was broadcast in Australia recently have anything to do with this belief?
If so, you might find Moon Base Clavius to be a rewarding read. All the common Hoax Believer arguments, including those in the Fox program, are dissected and analyzed by someone genuinely knowledgeable about the technical issues involved, an attribute rarely if ever found among the promoters of Moon Hoax books, videos and Web sites.
Bad Astronomy is also a useful resource. Phil maintains a set of pages on this subject and there's an area dedicated to it in the discussion forum.
The article referenced in the Explains overconfidence of the incompetent thread over in General discussion offers some insight into how Hoax Believers can be so completely wrong about things like photo analysis and radiation issues and yet not recognize that they're very far outside any area of competence which they possess.
The fact that our highest offices can harbor thieves, crooks and liars doesn't mean that all "official" history is a lie, nor that claims that a specific part of the historical record is false gain any support thereby. The BOP is on the claimant, and in the case of the "Moon Hoax", the evidence is that the Hoax Believers ahve failed to meet it.
Apologies for the thread hijack, but Moon Hoax claims are the proverbial red rag to a bull to me.  |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
| Edited by - ktesibios on 12/24/2003 00:39:55 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2003 : 01:05:47 [Permalink]
|
It was a black day indeed, when men walked upon the moon. It was the day I got married. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2003 : 01:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Julie_Bris wrote:quote:
God forbid should one day your average Joe Bloggs learns to think for himself rather than just feed off the crap that is offered by our politicians and the media.
Much the same can be said for any public controversy. Obviously, there exists a wide range of politicians and media sources. Which ones are the "correct" ones, especially since, given the Internet, the term "media" can be broadened to include just about anyone who publicly offers an opinion? Unless you've done original research, it is unlikely that you'll read an opinion which hasn't been "spun" to some extent or another.
For example, if ktesibios has read you correctly, then unless you personally worked to help NASA with the Moon landings, your ideas about their reality (whichever way they go) are based upon someone else's interpretation of the raw data. Whether that source (or sources) is a wanna-be media outlet, or an aspiring politician, doesn't much matter: the lament, "when will Jane Doe start thinking for herself?" applies to you, too.
Much like the often-posted "you should be more open minded," the "thinking for yourself" cliche is applicable to both sides of an argument, and should probably be avoided unless rock-solid proof exists that your opponents are brainwashed, and that you are not. If you cannot provide a convincing argument that your position is based on nothing but original thought and/or data, then when you suggest that someone else think for themselves, you lose credibility in regards to having a "strong" argument.
In other words, how can you be so sure that you are thinking for yourself, and "your average Joe Bloggs" is not?
My apologies, also, for this particular hijack, but I find this sort of intellectual supremacy very interesting, indeed, for a number of reasons. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
