The truth is coming out - Rumsfeld OK'd Abuses

[BostonTigger]

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but considering what terrorists did to the U.S.....who cares. I don't. I say give them more.

 

[Saffron]

Why do people seem to make a link between Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghrab, or Iraqis in general, to 9/11? ?

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by disneydad2
Kinda like arresting somebody for jaywalking as he runs across the street in persuit of a criminal.

And before the comment gets made, obviously I am in no way comparing jaywalking with the 'actual' abuses at the prison. But RELATIVELY speaking...........

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Saffron
Why do people seem to link Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib and al-Qaida /terrorists who behead others?

I don't see that anyone is linking the two groups, but rather comparing the reactions to the treatment given to one group v. the reactions to the treatment the other group gives its enemies.

When statements like "We've sunk to the level of our enemies" are made, I'll step up every time and yell "No, we haven't - when we start beheading people THEN we'll have sunk to the level of our enemies".

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by Saffron
Why do people seem to make a link between Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghrab, or Iraqis in general, to 9/11? ?

In the original article it said "The documents were handed out at the White House in an effort to blunt allegations that the administration had authorized torture against al Qaeda prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq." I assume these are the methods being used on al-Qaeda prisoners, no matter where they are located.

 

[workinggal]

An old saying comes to mind here:

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.



Just because what they're doing is wrong, doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level. I hope that we, as a country, are better than that.

 

[Saffron]

I must have been writing up my question when you posted, Brenda. I view al-Qaida/terrorist cells as the enemy, not the Iraqi people as the enemy. With that definition of the enemy, what happened in Abu Ghraid is not the same.

I don't view the detainees in Abu Ghraib/Iraqi people as our enemy. That's why I can't see how one can be compared to the other. I can't compare the beheadings with the torture at Abu Ghraib. They are two different subjects to me. It seems to me that some people are painting the people in Iraq/the detainees in Abu Ghraib with the same brush they use to paint al-Qaida/terrorists. I can't make that connection.

Edited to add: I'm not saying that you are making that comparison, but I've seen it on this thread and most of the other threads like this one.

 

[Van Helsing]

When CNN starts broadcasting the beheading of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, then we will have stooped to their level. To compare what U.S. troops did, while wrong, to what the enemy is doing is ludicrous.

You seem to have forgot this - An image of the plastic-wrapped body of the Iraqi prisoner, was among photos which generated outrage around the world.

Again to show the Bush team at their best at humanitarian law. Only today the The international Red Cross is pressing the U.S. authorities to release three letters sent by Saddam Hussein in detention to his family.

Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, told The Associated Press Tuesday the letters were given to U.S. authorities for inspection, as per the Geneva Conventions.

She said that "there has been a lot of delay" in releasing the letters, but she did not have the dates they were written.

"We have repeatedly raised the issue with the detaining authority and urged it to speed up the process," Doumani said.

One of Saddam's daughters, Raghad Saddam Hussein (search), told an Arab women's magazine earlier this month that the Red Cross had delivered one letter from her father, who has been held by U.S. forces since his Dec. 13 capture. She said three lines of a six-line letter were deleted by censors.

Anyone who engages in combat without a uniform is afforded no protection whatsoever under international law.

Where does it say that ??

Article 4 Geneva Convention /

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

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.

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:

(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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

I think you'll find your wrong jrydberg.

As for Serbians being tried by the ICC, yes, I think that's a farce.

Why do you think that ?

They're being tried as War Criminals - sounds fine to me - find them try them, sentenced them. Why is the U.S so afraid to sign up to the ICC ( they're doing a good job )

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by workinggal
Just because what they're doing is wrong, doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level. I hope that we, as a country, are better than that.

Please enlighten me on the exact number of people the coalition forces have taken as hostages, the demands the coalition forces have made for the release of said hostages and how many of those hostages the coalition forces have brutally beheaded?

When this number becomes greater than ZERO, then and only then can you talk about "us" stooping to their level. Until then, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Lanshark]

I'll step up every time and yell "No, we haven't - when we start beheading people THEN we'll have sunk to the level of our enemies".

I agree. There has been more coverage and outrage at the prisoner abuses, which were horrible, then there have been at the beheading of 3 innocent civilians. Why?

 

[MJames41]

Van Helsing,

I'm reading your post regarding that they should be under the Geneva Convention and I am not seeing it for Al Queda.

1. They are not members of a party of an armed war, they are a terrorist group.

2. This doesn't work because it fails the test under part b, c, and d. Hiding behind a mask covering their face while being photoed doesn't follow customary acts of war.

3. Nope

4. Nope

Granted, the point you are making that not all people who are without uniform and not protected by the Geneva Convention is valid, but not in this case. They don't meet the prerequisties.

 

[Van Helsing]

Are the prisoners in Iraqi prisons Al Queda members MJames41 ??

Check Article 5 as well


Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

 

[disneydad2]

Originally posted by Lanshark
I agree. There has been more coverage and outrage at the prisoner abuses, which were horrible, then there have been at the beheading of 3 innocent civilians. Why?

Possibly because the one is surprising, the other isn't. Different sets of standards.

 

[jrydberg]

(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.

Fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (i.e. uniform), carrying arms openly (not trying to blend in with the civilian population) and conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They clearly do not meet most of these conditions (with the *possible* exception of a). Therefore, they clearly do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions. How is it again that I'm wrong?

 

[Nebsky]

How is it again that I'm wrong?

By JJ/VH logic, he is always right and never wrong, therefore you must be wrong and just dont know. You must not have gotten the memo or PM on it...

BTW, I agree with you jrydberg.

 

[Doug123]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Mmmmmmmmm.........

Stress positions (standing, for up to four hours)
Removing prisoners' clothes
Intimidation with dogs
Interrogation for 20 hours at a time
Forcing to wear hoods during interrogations & transportation
Shaving heads and beards
Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking

Or being beheaded?

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Please enlighten me on the exact number of people the coalition forces have taken as hostages, the demands the coalition forces have made for the release of said hostages and how many of those hostages the coalition forces have brutally beheaded?

When this number becomes greater than ZERO, then and only then can you talk about "us" stooping to their level. Until then, you don't know what you are talking about.

Are these the only two options of how to treat a fellow human being? These people may be criminals (however you define the term), but does that mean we're allowed to torture them?

Originally posted by disneydad2
I'm thinking to continually tie one's hands with those rules is a sure way to lose the war. As ugly as it sounds, maybe sometimes the end does justify the means.

Originally posted by Tuffcookie
The terrorists are beheading on an almost weekly basis and we're arguing about the human treatment of prisoners? Why am I not sympathetic????TC

Originally posted by jrydberg
According to the "rules of war" these people are entitled to nothing. We could cut their heads off with a rusty spoon and it wouldn't violate any international law or convention. Anyone who engages in combat without a uniform is afforded no protection whatsoever under international law.

Originally posted by BostonTigger
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but considering what terrorists did to the U.S.....who cares. I don't. I say give them more.

Is this the example you want to set for the world? For your kids? Do any of you people hypocritically call yourselves Christians?

Look, some of these people are bad people (though a large percentage in the prisons, it's turning out, are being released). Does that mean we torture them? Throwing the Geneva Convention question out, what's the "right thing" to do?

Another thing, what do you think the consequenses are for American prisoners for the next hundred years of conflicts we encounter? You don't think anyone holding American prisoners from any kind of military action will say they can do anything to them since International rules do not apply because of ________?

Originally posted by Lanshark
I agree. There has been more coverage and outrage at the prisoner abuses, which were horrible, then there have been at the beheading of 3 innocent civilians. Why?

This isn't true. As one poster pointed out, these are two different (though related) stories. We, as America, are supposed to set the higher standard. Stories of us torturing prisoners is simply sick and wrong.

The world is horrified by the beheadings. It is certainly getting media play throughout the world.

 

[jrydberg]

Is this the example you want to set for the world? For your kids? Do any of you people hypocritically call yourselves Christians?

If you had read my posts, you'd have seen that I don't advocate treating such prisoners inhumanely. But the simple fact is that according to international law and the Geneva Conventions, they are not entitled to anything. The US has afforded them much more in the way of treatment than international law stipulates.

Yes, I do consider myself a Christian and not hypocritically so. I don't appreciate your attitude. While I vehemently disagree with VH's position, I can respect his stance on it. Can you not do the same?

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Are the prisoners in Iraqi prisons Al Queda members MJames41 ??

Check Article 5 as well


Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

In answer to your question, no I don't think they are, but I was responding to whether Al Queda should be allowed the Geneva Conventions as you and others have said before. Perhaps it was this that caused me to misread your post here.

As for Article 5, that would only apply if they were established under Article 4 or if there was any question as to their status. To me, there is no question they do not qualify under Article 4 so Article 5 does not apply.

Doug123, I also don't think that we should torture prisoners no matter who they are. However, the definition of torture depends on the person making the definition. Some people would say it was torture no matter what we do to them. Remember the outcry because they were blindfolded while transporting them? Or the fact they were handcuffed at the ankles and hands?

I don't think what went on at the Iraqi prisons was correct, and I am glad to see it being addressed. However, it does not compare to someone being beheaded in any way at all.

And, I don't buy your point about "You don't think anyone holding American prisoners from any kind of military action will say they can do anything to them since International rules do not apply because of ________?". They are already doing that. How about the American prisoners on September 11th who were taken and killed because of what flight they were on? If your point was to hold up, then Al Queda would have had to stick to their word. They said with the first hostage that they would treat him the same as the prisoners in Iraq and at Quatanamo. I don't recall any beheadings having taken place at either site.

They will treat us as they wish no matter what we do. By that reasoning there was no reason for them to take the South Korean citizen captive - but they did.

 

[Saffron]

I agree. There has been more coverage and outrage at the prisoner abuses, which were horrible, then there have been at the beheading of 3 innocent civilians. Why?

This is not true in the Philadelphia, PA area. Since Nick Berg and Paul Johnson were both originally from this area and both still have family ties in the area, we have had daily, most of the time opening, news stories about the beheading, the men, the efforts to find Johnson's body, the aftermath on the families and the community because of the beheadings, etc. etc. And as of yesterday we started to see stories about the Korean man that was beheaded. Some days, not every day, but some days, there may be one story about the prison abuse in Abu Ghraib.

The public outcry has been overwhelmingly so against the beheadings. I haven't heard one person make light of, try to brush off the beheadings as if were no big deal or try to justify them. I can't say the same about the Abu Ghraib prison abuse.

 

[faithinkarma]

Can we please stop comparing apples to oranges? If your child gets caught stealing, will you say " so what, the other kid murdered?" To aspire only to be better than the lowest of the low, leaves much to be desired.

We ARE better than that. We need to act like it.

Please, please, please, stop defending the indefensible. A mistake was made....let us move along, turn the page, and do better...stop justifying it. Every time you do, you tarnish what Americans are fighting for.