Political: Is this really how you want to see our country ?

[wvrevy]

Is this really a story you want to see about the US ?
------------------------
Red Cross Fears U.S. Is Hiding Detainees

Tue Jul 13, 8:05 AM ET
By NAOMI KOPPEL, Associated Press Writer

GENEVA - The international Red Cross said Tuesday that it fears U.S. officials are holding terror suspects secretly in locations across the world.

The Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare require the United States to give the Red Cross access to prisoners of war and other detainees.

"We have access to people detained by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), but in our understanding there are people that are detained outside these places for which we haven't received notification or access," said Antonella Notari, a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The United States says it is cooperating with the organization and has allowed Red Cross delegates access to thousands of prisoners, including former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

But Notari told The Associated Press that some suspects reported as arrested by the FBI (news - web sites) on its Web site, or identified in media reports, are unaccounted for.

"Some of these people who have been reported to be arrested never showed up in any of the places of detention run by the U.S. where we visit," Notari said.

She said she had read media reports that some people are being held at Diego Garcia, a British-held island in the Indian Ocean used as a strategic military base by the United States, but the ICRC has not been notified of any prisoners there.

"We just simply have absolutely no confirmation of this in any formal way," she said.

The U.S. government has not officially responded to a Red Cross demand for notification of all detainees, including those held in undisclosed locations, she said.

That request was made by ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger in January during a visit to Washington that featured meetings with Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites).

"So far we haven't had a satisfactory reply," Notari said.

An Army report on the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison found that military police there "routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention."

On at least one occasion they moved these "ghost detainees" around the prison to hide them from a visiting Red Cross delegation, the report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said. He described the actions as "deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law."

In an interview in Tuesday's edition of the German business daily Handelsblatt, Kellenberger defended the Red Cross policy of refusing to comment publicly on the conditions that it finds in places of detention, preferring to negotiate directly with the authorities.

The international Red Cross came under criticism for not speaking out about the abuse at Abu Ghraib until it was revealed in the media.

"Certain people had the impression that our repeated, confidential approaches to the U.S. authorities were falling flat," Kellenberger said.

"But impressions can be wrong. When we visited Abu Ghraib in January 2004, we found improvements compared with October 2003, and when we visited in March it was better than in January."



The ICRC has, however, spoken out on its concerns over the continued detention without trial of prisoners at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba.

"I made it clear in January that we were not happy with the improvements," Kellenberger said.

"The most recent visit has just finished. We must now study the findings."

 

[faithinkarma]

I've been reading about such things in the world press. The fact that, so far, the American press has given it so little coverage disturbs me. I am hoping there will be no more horror stories revealed. But I am afraid. Once lost, the highground is really hard to regain.

 

[Laz]

Interesting article. A couple of thoughts.

Just the AP's side of the story. Not all of the facts are in.

This isn't the only time in the history of war that the US has done this. My Uncle was responsible for tracking down and holding Nazi spies during WWII He shuffled these spies to undisclosed locations all the time without Red Cross notivication I'm sure the Korean and Vietnam conflicts can reveal similar accounts.

Whether this is right or wrong is up to the individual

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Laz
Interesting article. A couple of thoughts.

Just the AP's side of the story. Not all of the facts are in.

This isn't the only time in the history of war that the US has done this. My Uncle was responsible for tracking down and holding Nazi spies during WWII He shuffled these spies to undisclosed locations all the time without Red Cross notivication I'm sure the Korean and Vietnam conflicts can reveal similar accounts.

Whether this is right or wrong is up to the individual

Simply put, no, it's not. Would you be perfectly ok with it if some other country was "shuffling around" American citizens and not giving the Red Cross access to them ?

And last time I checked, the Associated Press wasn't part of the great liberal media conspiracy...Did I miss a meeting or something ?

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Simply put, no, it's not. Would you be perfectly ok with it if some other country was "shuffling around" American citizens and not giving the Red Cross access to them ?
:

Oh yeah, that would go over real big ! When we talk about inalienable rights, I guess some people figure that's just for us!

 

[jrydberg]

Just to be clear, those who are spies or are engaged in combat outside the rules clearly set forth in the Geneva Conventions (specifically, in this case, not carrying weapons openly and not having a symbol to easily identify one as a combatant) are entitled to no protection whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions.

If there is little doubt that an enemy combatant/spy has engaged in activities outside the bounds of the Geneva Conventions, then the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

That said, I don't know enough about the specifics to say that's the case here. I'd certainly like the U.S. government to err on the side of extending rights under the Geneva Conventions if there is any doubt.

 

[vernon]

Just to be clear, those who are spies or are engaged in combat outside the rules clearly set forth in the Geneva Conventions (specifically, in this case, not carrying weapons openly and not having a symbol to easily identify one as a combatant) are entitled to no protection whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions

While the concept you put forward has some merits (for a limit time) , the US administration is REALLY stretching the definitions to hold many of the people it has in custody. In Afghanistan the people there are so poor they can't afford to have a uniform. They generally have to make do with one set of clothes. You're not dealing with an enemy that has equal assets to the US and therefore expecting them to have symbols or uniforms is unreasonable and unworkable. In desert situations it is usual for the soldiers ( or combatants if you wish) to try to protect their weapons from the dust and sand, therefore it's not suprising that in non combat situations they would have them protected under shawls,cloaks or other over garments. The US government still clings to it's story that even those they admit to holding ( in Guantanamo Bay) are all dangerous criminals and insurgents but even the US's strongest ally ( the British government) has said they think the majority of those held should be released as they are either "ordinary soldiers" or innocents caught up in the affair. I've got no problem with holding those we are sure are guilty, but I do not feel at all comfortable with the dubious way this situation is being handled. I think it's almost got to the stage that if Bush's government release those held now they fear it will be seen as an admission they were acting incorrectly all along.

I did find it interesting that this notion ( and there is a lot of evidence to back it up. I think the Taguba report pretty much openly acknowledged that it is going on, the only question is to the levels at which it is occuring)) even made it to a episode of CSI Miami, shown here in the UK last night.

 

[peachgirl]

I think it's very sad and embarrassing that the US is at odds with the Red Cross in this matter.

We should at least demand the same standards of ourselves that we do of others.

Just the AP's side of the story.

??

I don't believe the AP has an axe to grind, they're just reporting the news. What other "side" is there???

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by peachgirl
We should at least demand the same standards of ourselves that we do of others.

We do. The problem is that these people are engaged in combat with US forces outside the rules set forth by the Geneva Conventions. There may be legitimate reasons for doing so, as addressed somewhat in vernon's post, but technically the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners who don't fight a war by the rules of the Geneva Conventions (hence wartime spies being shot, etc).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't treat these prisoners humanely -- and most probably should be given prisoner of war status. But saying we're demanding different standards than we use ourselves isn't really accurate. Our soldiers adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of war. If they do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions, we don't expect them to be granted prisoner of war status.

 

[monkeyboy]

Good or bad
Right or wrong

It's still the best damned country in history

 

[caitycaity]

I've been reading about such things in the world press. The fact that, so far, the American press has given it so little coverage disturbs me. I am hoping there will be no more horror stories revealed. But I am afraid. Once lost, the highground is really hard to regain.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

No, I'd rather see the terrorists let go. It woould make us all safer. They're terrorists who want to kill you & me & anyone who is a non-militant muslim. They are not POW's, therefore not protected under the Geneva Convention. How do some people just not get it?

Oh well, yawn....more of the same, from the same.....

 

[Laz]

Wow! did I start a conversation or what? I am not the best opinion writer, but I will do my best to explain myself:

When I said AP's side of the story, it is because I believe that truth is a three edged sword: The AP's truth, The other sides truth, and the real truth which is buried somewhere amongst the stories. In some cases, I take what ALL media says with a grain of salt. The AP, along with most of the media, has an agenda. The AP et al will not print stories about the heroes of this conflict because they don't want people to feel good about our administrationor and what it is doing. Why don't they print stories about the people in this editorial I have linked below? Yes, it is one sided and distorted to their point of view. That is why I say that the individual must make the decision. Do not let what one person writes or says make up your mind for you. Make an informed decision this fall.






Where are the Heroes?

 

[tandrjohn]

IF the AP story is true then I am disgusted as to the methods that our country will use in order to achieve "safety" and "security". How far are we willing to go?

During the recent Afgan War weren't some of our special force soldiers operating behind enemy lines dressed in native garb without insignia?

Also how does this make the US look to others around the world? - our international status is already on shaky ground.

Rules and the Geneva convention exist for a reason. Someday we may find ourselves fighting an opponent a lot tougher that the Tailban or Iraq; WE may need to rely on the Geneva Convention; Let's think about that.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by monkeyboy
Good or bad
Right or wrong

It's still the best damned country in history

And I'd assume that's a status you'd like to hold onto.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by tandrjohn
IF the AP story is true then I am disgusted as to the methods that our country will use in order to achieve "safety" and "security". How far are we willing to go?

During the recent Afgan War weren't some of our special force soldiers operating behind enemy lines dressed in native garb without insignia?

Also how does this make the US look to others around the world? - our international status is already on shaky ground.

Rules and the Geneva convention exist for a reason. Someday we may find ourselves fighting an opponent a lot tougher that the Tailban or Iraq; WE may need to rely on the Geneva Convention; Let's think about that.

If they are combatants operating unambiguously outside of the Geneva Conventions, then why would you be disgusted? The Geneva Conventions do not exist in a vacuum. When one party as a rule refuses to abide by them, then their "soldiers" are not afforded the protections outlined therein.

Any of our soldiers operating outside of the Geneva Conventions would not be entitled to prisoner of war status. Period. The same goes for our enemies. Mind you, I'd say we should be very cautious about not extending that status -- we'd better be VERY sure. But not every detainee is entitled to prisoner of war status.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by tandrjohn

During the recent Afgan War weren't some of our special force soldiers operating behind enemy lines dressed in native garb without insignia?

Also how does this make the US look to others around the world? - our international status is already on shaky ground.

Question 1. It's called special ops. One of the greatest forces keeping our country free & as safe as possible

Question 2. Does it really matter? They hate us because they are (1) jealous (2) afraid that western ideas might empower women & others to demand their say in how they are governed. Peoples' natural instinct is to yearn for freedom. Totalitarian & socialist systems of government fear freedom (ie. most of europe, asia, & the middle east )

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
Totalitarian & socialist systems of government fear freedom (ie. most of europe, asia, & the middle east )

Most of Europe? Care to be more specific?

 

[tandrjohn]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
Question 1. It's called special ops.

I never would have figured that one out - thanks for enlightening me. My point is that we as a country expect a certain level of treatment for our soldiers no matter if our soldiers are operating via special ops or not or if the country we are at war with abides with the Geneva Convention or not.

How far are we willing to go to achieve "safety" and "security". I know, let's torture the wifes and children of the detainees then maybe they will spill the beans. I'm sure there is some clause in the Geneva Convention to allow us to do that also.

They hate us because they are (1) jealous (2) afraid that western ideas might empower women & others to demand their say in how they are governed. Peoples' natural instinct is to yearn for freedom. Totalitarian & socialist systems of government fear freedom (ie. most of europe, asia, & the middle east )

I think most of the world falls into one of your catagories. Are our NATO allies included in this list? Maybe it's the attitute itself that the world doesn't like...Without international support we are never going to win the peace in Iraq or the war on terrorism.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by auntpolly
Oh yeah, that would go over real big ! When we talk about inalienable rights, I guess some people figure that's just for us!

Unfortunately that is the impression the USA is giving right now to the world by refusing to grant the World Court in DEn Haag jurisdiction over American soldiers.