Well, Monty, the problem with the “unlawful combatant” term is that it is not recognized by anyone but the US. The term with the meaning you refer to was just made up by the US as a workaround of the Geneva Convention.
The problem is that Iraq could (and have from what i read above) deemed US/UK POWs “unlawful combatants” since the war was never sanctioned by the Security Counsel. And as i understand it they can do so with more legitimacy than the US, since, at least they have a prejudicate to refer to!
Snopes hardly counts as a great source for matters like this. It’s a website run by two people whose primary goal is to debunk urban legends and internet glurge, not to comment on the conditions of P.O.W.s held by the US government.
Oh, I see. It’s OK to do whatever we like the P.O.W.s as long as it’s better than what Iraq would do? America has obligations to captured soldiers that are entirely independent of Iraq. Asking “What Would Iraq do” (WWID - get brcelets!) is the wrong question.
I haven’t finished reading this thread, but I felt this really needed a response, since it’s a typical twisting of an argument to fit ones agenda.
As far as I understand, the issue people have with prisoners at G-Bay is that we must adhere to the same standards we expect from others. That’s a big (and valid argument IMO). It’s similar to the opposition to the admin’s argument that we must stop Hussein from ignoring the UN, and we’re willing to ignore the UN to make that point. We must lead by example, or our stance will appear (and, IMO, is) unjustified.
That said, some other responses to what I’ve seen here include:
a) The US assertion that government change is a valid reason for war is also against Geneva Convention rules.
b) Are we sure these soldiers were executed or were Iraqi soldiers fighting back against an occupying force? Also, do we know that the injuries these soldiers sustained were the result of torture, and not from the “heat of battle?” We do not know yet.
c) I support our troops and hope for their safety, but the reality is that the US government has put them in harms way, not the Iraqi’s. I hope no more of them die for this misguided action. Whatever the atrocities Hussein may perpetrate against his people, no Iraqi army was prepared to invade the US or any of its satellite installations, at least as far as we know now.
d) <summation> We don’t yet have the imformation to jump to conclusions. Why not wait as see what develops? Then, if your argument is justified, it will be evident to most. I’m open to the possiblilty, are you?</summation>
[ul][li]Prisoners in Gitmo get medical care and prayer mats.[/li][li]Prisoners in Iraq get bullets through the forehead.[/li][/ul]
I don’t see how who holds the moral high ground is even in question.
Indeed, but there are some folks out there who’re convinced that whatever the US does is evil. (Since the US doesn’t restrict their right to voice their opinions on the matter, I suppose that’s evil as well, too. Wonder how they reconcile that?)
If you’re talking about me, I can assure that I believe there are plenty of things that the US does that are not evil. For instance, north-west indie rock, the movie About Schmidt, hip-hop, the first amendment, the civil rights movement, the protesters in San Francisco and other places, Michael Moore, New York City, the novel On The Road, The Simpsons, all those cool Universities, the commitment to innovation and development - particularly on behalf of the business community - all these and more are great things.
However, what is not great is that you’re holding a man from my country without trial, and you are not treating him as International law states that he should be treated. In my mind, that is (if such a crude word must be used) evil.
I suspect your hand-wringing about a group of America-haters is nothing more than a strawman.
Bottom line, in the Guantanamo affair U.S.A violated the Geneva Convention. Irak just did the same. I hope all dopers can see the difference. One nation is ruled by an evil maniac the other… well the other claims it is not ruled by an evil maniac. It’s too confusing I am goin to take a nap
Been away for the weekend so unable to post, but I would just like to say that the sight of Donald Rumsfeld insisting that the GC be upheld was a wondeful event! Just Google for his and Ashcroft’s wriggling around the GC a year ago.
As I said, what goes around comes around.
Almost as astonishing was Tony Blair’s performance- decrying the Iraqis for 'parading US servicemen" when he hasn’t had the common decency to make any substantive comment about the eight Britons held at Camp Delta against international law. Hypocrite, what!
You probably find this statement from the International Red Cross (via abcnews.com) to be “wonderfully” amusing also:
“International Committee of the Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said the showing of the (American) prisoners on TV violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity.”
Could you also comment regarding this statement:
"Iraq’s minister of information threatened yesterday to treat any U.S. prisoners of war as “war criminals”.
“I tell the American soldiers” said the minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, “it is better for you to surrender. We will cut off all your heads.”
Any reaction, Pjen, aside from “what goes around comes around”?
Could it be considered hypocritical to express outrage over treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo (including leaping to embrace false rumors, as you did in your original thread on this subject) while totally ignoring abuse of POWs and threatened murder by the Iraqis?
Tough to see any point to your threads on this subject aside from expression of a puerile, gloating anti-Americanism.
Who’s wringing their hands? It just disgusts me to see people who seize on everything the US does and twist it around so that they can screech, “The US is evil!” as if there’s some other nation out there that is somehow perfect. Every nation on Earth does something vile, some are more vile than others. The questions one needs to ask are: Does the evil this nation does outweigh the good the nation does? And are there any nations out there who are better overall than this one? IAC, screeching about it in inflammitory terms isn’t going to change things, rational debate, along with appropriate action will change things.
Finally, just because someone isn’t being held according to international law, doesn’t mean that they are being treated inhumanely.
I’m sure they are being treated humanely. America has a pretty good record in that department. But there is still a citizen of my country being detained, who isn’t charged of any crime. I am ashamed that my country hasn’t protested this, and I’m angry at America’s government for doing this. It’s the extended unlawful detention, not the treatment, that worries me. When are they going to be charged with a crime ? When are they going to be given a trial ?
Seriously, how long have they been there ? A year ? Two years ? Just because they are being treated well, doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad thing that they are being imprisoned with no reason given, no way to legally fight the charges because there aren’t any charges. By what right, moral or legal, does the American government think they can imprison people without reason ? I find that very scary. If you were being imprisoned for the same length of time, with no charges laid, wouldn’t you be a little angry about it, even if people kept pointing out that your treatment was good ? So as long as he gets decent food and shelter, the American government can hold anyone for as long as they like and answer to nobody for it ?
BBC news at ten o clock tonight (5PM EST) had an article about failure of the Iraqis to uphold the GC rules by ‘parading’ prisoners, but immediately pointed out in rebuttal that the US had done the same and worse at Guantanamo.
This from the primary news source of the main US ally.
Another point for you to ignore, Pjen - do you expect the US freeing some of the detainees at Gitmo will influence the Iraqis to treat American and UK POWs with something resembling decency? Or is their time-viewer out of whack again, and they can only see the future?
