Iraqi War Crimes Tally

[ceo_esq]

I thought it might be interesting to keep a running tally of war crimes arguably committed by the Iraqis since the beginning of the campaign, as and when evidence emerges. Perhaps someone might even want to start a similar thread regarding suspected offenses by coalition forces; it could be an interesting counterpoint.

Citations below are to relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions and the protocols thereto.

Civilian shields
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.” (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)
A number of reports from journalists embedded with coalition forces (alluded to here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/23/cnna.irq.rumsfeld/index.html ) in the CNN interview with Donald Rumsfeld) suggest that the Iraqis are employing human shields.

Perfidy (including feigning of non-combatant status and feigning of intent to surrender)
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1)
This news report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81921,00.html) suggests that Iraqi forces have resorted to perfidy by discarding their uniforms without laying down arms and by preparing ambushes under cover of a white flag of surrender.

Exposure of POWs to public curiosity
[P]risoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13)
It has been alleged that the Iraqis violated the Geneva Convention by broadcasting interviews of captured POWs. This is a difficult determination, particularly as I have not viewed those broadcasts first-hand.

The photographing or recording of POWs per se is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. First of all, the capture of POWs is a newsworthy event and, as such, may permissibly be recorded by the media. In addition, there are recognized potential benefits to the dissemination of a POW’s image (identity verification; confirmation of the detaining power’s obligation to treat the detainee as a POW; intelligence as to the POW’s well-being; proof of uniformed status in case of a later accusation of espionage).

However, the line between permissible dissemination of POW images and subjection of POWs to public curiosity is a fine one, which is why the United States military has stricter internal regulations dealing with such matters than the Geneva Conventions technically require. It is widely considered that the public airing of interviews with POWs renders the POWs objects of public curiosity and violates the Geneva Conventions. In my view, the Iraqi tapes crossed the line, whereas the footage of Iraqi POWs in the hands of coalition forces (which documented the newsworthy circumstances of their surrender and transport, and which did not appear to single out or identify individual prisoners, or show interviews) are pretty clearly on the safe side of international law.

Extrajudicial executions of POWs
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions are forbidden unless all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people have been met and a regularly constituted court has pronounced a judgment. (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1d)
Reportedly, the Iraqi tapes of dead coalition servicemembers reveal that several of the bodies bear gunshot wounds to the forehead. Obviously, this suggests that at least some of the dead soldiers did not succumb to combat injuries but were summarily executed by their captors. If true, this is a grave war crime.

[EDITED TO ADD]
Misuse of emblems and protected status of medical services
It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. (Protocol 1, Art. 38)

The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.(Convention I, Art. 21)
As reported in this article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.nasiriya.hospital/index.html), Iraqi soldiers used a hospital facility marked with a red crescent emblem (which had been emptied of civilians) in order to stage military operations against coalition forces.

[EDITED TO ADD]
Child combatants
The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. (Protocol 1, Art. 77, Sec. 2)
According to this report (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82312,00.html), Iraqi troops have forced children to participate in hostilities as combatants.

American hypocrisy tally :

1) Parading iraqi prisoners of war
1a) Whining hypocrisy when Iraq does the same

2) Ignoring the will of the UN and starting an illegal pre-emptive war
2a) Whining hypocrisy because Iraq does the same

3) Holding prisoners in wire cages without trial for a year, in breach of the geneva convention.
3a) Whining hypocrisy when Iraq mistreats US prisoners

4) Torturing Al-Qaeda members
4a) Whining hypocrisy when US soldiers are tortured.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
American hypocrisy tally :

1) Parading iraqi prisoners of war
1a) Whining hypocrisy when Iraq does the same
Not mere hypocrisy, but "whining" hypocrisy. Might you have said, "sniveling, whining, gutless hypocrisy"?

You weaken your argument when you demonstrate that you have a lot of personal feeling against the U.S. People will assume you're taking your position, not based upon principle, but based upon old animosity you've stored up.

Might you have said, "sniveling, whining, gutless hypocrisy"?


I might, but I didn't think of it. :)


You weaken your argument when you demonstrate that you have a lot of personal feeling against the U.S. People will assume you're taking your position, not based upon principle, but based upon old animosity you've stored up.


Me and about 3 billion other people condemned to share the same planet as America. I'm not a politician. You are right - maybe more people would listen to me if I was less emotional. But I am afraid that I find it quite hard to hide the utter contempt I feel for much of what appears to be mainstream opinion in America. It isn't just hypocrisy. It really is snivelling, gutless, whining hypocrisy. The same people who believe it is OK to detain innocent people, without charge, FOR A YEAR, IN CAGES, and then release them because they weren't Al-Qaeda members anyway, IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, these people are "shocked" because the Iraqis stick a few prisoners on TV and interview them.

Snivelling, whining, gutless hypocrisy.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

The same people who believe it is OK to detain innocent people, without charge, FOR A YEAR, [b]IN CAGES[/b


My god, who are these people? The last time I heard of people being kept in a real cage was during the vietnam conflict. I assume you meant a real cage since I assume you want to have a real discussion and not one-way demagoguery.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

The same people who believe it is OK to detain innocent people, without charge, FOR A YEAR, IN CAGES, and then release them because they weren't Al-Qaeda members anyway, IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, these people are "shocked" because the Iraqis stick a few prisoners on TV and interview them.

Just in case you're referring to Gitmo in Cuba, you should know that the Geneva convention does not apply to all of the prisoners there.

In order for the Geneva convention to apply, the captured prisoners have to belong to an army with a few rules (they have to have a clear command structure, wear a uniform, did not target civilians, etc.)

There are 2 types of prisoners at Gitmo... I believe Bush has said that former Taliban soldiers are considered prisoners of war (in which case they can be held until all resistance in Afghanistan is cleared up and a working government is in place). In a way this is a generous classification, since they probably weren't an army that most people would recognize (did they even have uniforms?)

The other type of prisoner are the al Quaeda operatives. They do not qualify as prisoners of war under Geneva, for many reasons (like, no uniforms, etc.) So, in a sense they are in legal limbo. They aren't (and in my opinion should not) be classified as POWs because that argument would imply anyone who commits any crime is a POW. Nor are they criminals, because their activities are global in scope (and, in a way, they've renounced there home country).

It should be noted that the prisoners at Guatanimo are checked on by the Red Cross. They are well fed, have access to religious materials if they want, and in many cases their treatment is better than it would have been had they been left in Afghanistan where they were captured.

As for keeping them in 'cages', all jails are cages. When somebody does something wrong, you put them behind bars. You do this because letting them loose would allow them to continue possibly legal activities.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx



My god, who are these people? The last time I heard of people being kept in a real cage was during the vietnam conflict. I assume you meant a real cage since I assume you want to have a real discussion and not one-way demagoguery.
Actually Corplinx, they are real cages They contain real people, two of which are Australian citizens.
They are being held indefinitely without trial, America refuses to call them pow, America refuses to charge them with a crime. Do you support this suspension of thier human rights?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

Actually Corplinx, they are real cages

Can you please try to have a serious conversation.

Originally posted by corplinx


Can you please try to have a serious conversation.

Elaborate your opinion please? When they were being built and shown on TV, they certainly looked like cages, and were described as such.

Originally posted by corplinx



My god, who are these people? The last time I heard of people being kept in a real cage was during the vietnam conflict. I assume you meant a real cage since I assume you want to have a real discussion and not one-way demagoguery.

They looked like cages to me. :(

[corplinx]

Originally posted by sundog


Elaborate your opinion please? When they were being built and shown on TV, they certainly looked like cages, and were described as such.

Well, the camp xray open-air cells are what I guess you are referring to. They are no longer used. Due to the impromptu nature of the camp, the open air cells were a good stopgap. "Cages" makes it sound like they had no roof or floor, just metal fencing. The proper term is an "open-air cell".

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, the camp xray open-air cells are what I guess you are referring to. They are no longer used. Due to the impromptu nature of the camp, the open air cells were a good stopgap. "Cages" makes it sound like they had no roof or floor, just metal fencing. The proper term is an "open-air cell".
Cool, I must tell my Parrots that they all now live in an "open-air cell".

open your eyes...this is a concentration camp. It doesn't need gas chambes to qualify for that title.

America is holding 2 Australian citizens, America says they are not pows they are not criminals (no charges)...what are they? They are abductees, kidnap victims, political prisoners...take your pick, I'm happy with any of these descriptions.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

open your eyes...this is a concentration camp. It doesn't need gas chambes to qualify for that title.


Don't diminish the holocaust. Don't you dare. The gypsies, homosexuals, jews, and others who died in those camps don't deserve to have you make light of camps where people:
were starved
given no medical care
physically tortured
forced into labor (sometimes to dig their own graves)
and to boot they had done nothing wrong

With a few exceptions, the people who _were_ in camp xray's open-air cells were enemy combatants we couldn't very well send back to Afghanistan to join the taliban remnants. The people there now are in 3 camps and no longer in the cells that used fencing for walls.

Why don't you open your eyes for a change.

[subgenius]

"With a few exceptions..."
A-OK unless its me, or maybe you.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
"With a few exceptions..."
A-OK unless its me, or maybe you.

Sadly, war is rarely clean-cut. I doubt I would be caught in a firefight with US troops and detained in a war though. I would be curious to know how the ones who were "cleared" were captured and what they were doing at the time.

Obviously if they truly were not combatants, we need to look at coming up with rules for detaining combatants to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen. This sort of non-POW detention is new to us after all.

If we detained a truly innocent person then we owe it to them to make sure it does not happen again.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by corplinx

The proper term is an "open-air cell".

Right. And dead civilians are "collateral damage".

Welcome to 1984.

[Troll]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Right. And dead civilians are "collateral damage".

Welcome to 1984.

Unless you actually target them or anything else for that matter, then any damage done aside from the damage to the intended target is collateral.

Welcome to the dictionary

[corplinx]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Welcome to 1984.


Ohhhhhhh. You have to go and pull out a 1984 reference. I guess that means you must be right. Perhaps the real 1984 part is that these cells were called cages to begin with and people like you bought it?

[Troll]

The open air cells were a temporary holding at Gitmo because they didn't have the facilities for that many people at the time. Even as people were shouting about alleged mistreatment due to the living conditions, they were building a more permanent structure for the prisoners.

Now I may be incorrect in assuming that these buildings are down now and the prisoners moved into them, but I've also not seen any proof provided here that things have not changed.

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, the camp xray open-air cells are what I guess you are referring to. They are no longer used. Due to the impromptu nature of the camp, the open air cells were a good stopgap. "Cages" makes it sound like they had no roof or floor, just metal fencing. The proper term is an "open-air cell".

They were cages. Americans put people in cages. Without trial. Without charge. Without human rights. UNCIVILISED W**K*RS. It was done to humiliate them. They were deliberately treated as sub-human, in public.

The US seems to believe that because 9/11 was so shocking that they have the right to stomp around the planet taking out their revenge on whoever and whatever they feel like, even though the true perpertators are either already dead or impossible to locate. So they take out their anger on innocent Afghans and Iraqis who have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It is pathetic, infantile, illegal and counter-productive.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


They were cages. Americans put people in cages. Without trial. Without charge. Without human rights. UNCIVILISED W**K*RS. It was done to humiliate them. They were deliberately treated as sub-human, in public.

The US seems to believe that because 9/11 was so shocking that they have the right to stomp around the planet taking out their revenge on whoever and whatever they feel like, even though the true perpertators are either already dead or impossible to locate. So they take out their anger on innocent Afghans and Iraqis who have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It is pathetic, infantile, illegal and counter-productive.

Careful. Last time you got emotional about those evil Americans you made some comments about the WTC that you had to spend a lot of time apologizing for.

You say cages, we say temporary open aired cells while building them better housing. Also you may want to use the phrase "Americans had put........" unless you can show where this is still happening. Unless of course you think the cells we use for our own homegrown criminals are cages.

Originally posted by Troll

You say cages, we say temporary open aired cells


They are CAGES

I don't give a t*ss what YOU call them.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


They are CAGES

I don't give a t*ss what YOU call them.

What are we supposed to put them in? What laws could apply to them?
Would you feel differently if they were put in prision with American convicts?
What should be done?

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by LeFevre
What should be done?
Well, why not just torture (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604) them to death?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Well, why not just torture (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604) them to death?

have a serious thought on what should be done?





edited to add:

maybe you were being serious :confused:

Originally posted by LeFevre


What are we supposed to put them in? What laws could apply to them?
Would you feel differently if they were put in prision with American convicts?
What should be done?

They should be treated according to the Geneva Convention. America did to those people all the things not allowed under the GC, and tried to legitimize it by claiming they were neither prisoners of war, nor criminals. The US deliberately denied them their human rights. They did this as a public show of misplaced vengeance. If they cannot be dealt with under existing laws then they should be released. A good proportion of the people taken to Cuba just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The US can't just detain people in inhumane conditions, without charge, indefinately. That is simply not a way for civilised people to behave.

The problem is wider than a few hundred people in Cuba. They represent the tip of an enormous iceberg of people who pose a threat to America because they hate America more than they like their own lives. The only solution to this problem is for America to stop creating the problem. And major abuses of human rights is the exact opposite of how to stop creating the problem. Those images went all the way around the world. They just created new waves of people who despise America. You CANNOT lock up all the people who pose a threat to America. Not unless you plan to create a prison the size of a small continent.

It is dead simple. If America wishes to impose its military and economic will all over the planet, at the expense of others, then it is going to be loathed, despised and threatened by the people it victimises. If it believes the solution to this threat is to lock people up in cages and deny them their human rights, or to start illegal pre-emptive wars, then it is going to have some very hard lessons ahead of it, because these 'solutions' are simply creating an even bigger problem. There is no solution to the problem apart from America taking its international responsibilities seriously instead of behaving like the mother of all rogue states.

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Well, why not just torture (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604) them to death?

I wasn't aware of this.

F***** American NAZI *********. :mad:

You should be ASHAMED. ASHAMED OF YOUR COUNTRY.

Why do you defend it?

[armageddonman]

Calm down.

Can these accusations be confirmed?

[ceo_esq]

Someone who takes up arms against the United States – or any country, for that matter - in a foreign theater of war during active hostilities, regardless of his citizenship, may properly be designated and treated as an enemy combatant – in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, unlawful ones. Don’t forget as well that hostilities in the theater where these detainees were captured have not yet ended. American and allied troops are still on the ground in Afghanistan, dismantling the terrorist infrastructure.

These detainees are legitimately presumed to be unlawful belligerents or combatants; consequently they are ineligible for certain privileges and immunities granted to qualified enemy combatants. This has been judicially held to be a reasonable interpretation and application of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

As explained by one of the editors of The American Journal of International Law, First, Washington is warranted in considering Al Qaeda irregulars to be "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants who do not qualify as prisoners of war and hence do not enjoy the full privileges of the Third Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda has failed to fulfill four prerequisites of lawful belligerency. These require a responsible commander, a distinctive and visible insignia, the open bearing of arms, and general observance of the laws and customs of war. It is also open to question whether an international terrorist group that does not fight for a sovereign state (but, rather, if anything dominates the state) can ever qualify as a lawful belligerent. Thus, the specification of trial procedures in the Third Geneva Convention would not be applicable as such to Al Qaeda, except arguably for the customary norm reflected in common Article 3 calling for a "regularly constituted court" and the "judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The Taliban also fail to qualify as lawful combatants or prisoners of war, under the tests of the Third Geneva Convention. In particular, they have abetted Al Qaeda's flagrant violation of the laws of war, and this assistance was condemned by the Security Council in Resolution 1373. Any claim that the Taliban are a "regular army" exempted from these qualifying conditions stumbles on the explicit language of the precedent 1907 Hague Rules of Land Warfare and the 1874 Brussels Declaration. It would make little sense to exempt a supposed "army" from the requirement of distinguishing themselves from civilians and reciprocally obeying the laws of war. The Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention notes that these "material characteristics" are prerequisite to even qualifying as "armed forces" and "regular armed forces."

. . .

The criticism by some European allies may stem from their own decision to ratify the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This Protocol dilutes the requirements for lawful belligerency and prisoner-of-war status. But neither Afghanistan nor the United States has ratified Protocol I, and it is implausible to suggest that this sharply contested instrument has become customary law in all its parts. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Protocol I itself apparently preserves the requirement that an armed group generally observe the laws of war in order to qualify as an "armed force."
Source: Ruth Wedgwood, “Al Qaeda, Terrorism, and Military Commissions”, 96 A.J.I.L. 328 (2002).

Next, even though the Guantanamo detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they are entitled to a certain minimum standard of due process and humanitarian treatment. As a matter of U.S. policy, the detainees have been granted a number of privileges that technically are not required under international law. I doubt too many countries besides the United States would take such pains.

Consider the U.S. government’s February 7, 2002 statement on the subject:
All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; water; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; foam sleeping pads and blankets; towels and washcloths; the opportunity to worship; correspondence materials, and the means to send mail; the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening.

The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

We are building facilities in Guantanamo more appropriate for housing the detainees on a long-term basis. The detainees now at Guantanamo are being housed in temporary open-air shelters until these more long-term facilities can be arranged. Their current shelters are reasonable in light of the serious security risk posed by these detainees and the mild climate of Cuba.

The detainees will receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the specific privileges afforded to POWs, including: access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco; a monthly advance of pay; the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts; the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments, or sports outfits.

Many detainees at Guantanamo pose a severe security risk to those responsible for guarding them and to each other. Some of these individuals demonstrated how dangerous they are in uprisings at Mazar-e-Sharif and in Pakistan. The United States must take into account the need for security in establishing the conditions for detention at Guantanamo.
Is the United States living up to this commitment? Yes -- according to most credible sources, including the eminent war crimes expert Kenneth Anderson:Notwithstanding the shrillness of the [largely European] criticism, there appears to be little if any substance to the complaints about treatment of the detainees. The detainees, according to all the accounts of journalists and visitors to the camp of which I am aware, including a U.S. congressional delegation, are receiving a quality of care, in the way of housing, food, medical attention, and religious requirements, that far exceeds the standard of the Third Geneva Convention, even assuming that it applied. As a British journalist who visited the Guantanamo facility has said, "There are 161 medical staff treating the [158] detainees. I have talked to surgeons who told me that hardened fighters suffering from shrapnel and bullet wounds had thanked them after being operated on."Source: Kenneth Anderson, “What to Do With Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Terrrorists: A Qualified Defense of Military Commissions and United States Policy on Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 591 (2002).

I don’t relish singling anyone out, but UndercoverElephant’s views on this matter appear to be premised on unfamiliarity with international law, some faulty factual information and a deep-seated (possibly justified, but certainly not for the reasons to which he alludes) animosity toward the United States. I hope he will reconsider his position.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


America taking its international responsibilities seriously instead of behaving like the mother of all rogue states.

Care to share some of the burden, evil imperialistic British Empire? :p

Yep we have caused alot of crap, I dont have a clue how to begin to fix it. I guess one "side" (whatever that is) needs to take some hits and not give any, watch your anger there UCE otherwise you may end up letting you contempt for the USA lead you to give a few hits.

Originally posted by armageddonman
Calm down.

Can these accusations be confirmed?

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4574257,00.html


Briton tells of ordeal in Bush's torture jail

Al-Qaeda suspect 'is starved of food and sleep' at army base where two have died

Paul Harris and Burhan Wazir
Sunday December 29, 2002
The Observer

The letter contained only hints of what Moazzam Begg's interrogators may have done to him. He wrote of hunger and being kept awake by bright lights. 'I still don't know what will happen with me,' he lamented to his wife back home in Birmingham.

Begg, 35, was writing from Bagram military base just outside Kabul. He is the only British prisoner inside a cluster of metal shipping containers at the heart of the United States army part of the base, which serves as a 'jail' for al-Qaeda suspects.

Now the camp is at the centre of a furious row over US behaviour in the war on terror. Evidence is growing that prisoners inside the containers are being tortured by American soldiers and CIA agents. Begg may have written of more damaging details of his own treatment, but many of his previous letters were never delivered.

It appears the US soldiers at Bagram have much to hide. Human rights groups are calling for an inquiry into the methods used by American interrogators at Bagram and other bases in Afghanistan.

US officials have admitted that suspects captured in the region are 'softened up' on their way to detention by brutal beatings from US military police and special forces soldiers. They are confined to tiny rooms, blindfolded and thrown into walls. They are tied up in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep by having lights shone on them all day and night. Sometimes they are forced to stand for long periods in black hoods or wearing goggles which have been spray-painted so as to render them blind.

The aim is to disorientate and confuse the suspects, as they face a barrage of questions about their activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It is believed that some, who had battle wounds when captured, are denied painkillers as a further way of coaxing information from them.

'Pain control is a very subjective thing,' one US official said, deadpan, to the Washington Post last week.

Those who do not crack, or perhaps have nothing to tell, are often handed over to foreign intelligence services such as those of Morocco or Saudi Arabia, where less sophisticated and bloodier torture techniques are regularly employed.

Critics point out that the US forces have picked up innocent men before. In October three Afghan men were released without charge after they had been held for a year at the American base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. They were given $500 compensation between them.

So far the US has admitted that two men held at Bagram have died in custody - one from a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism, or blood clot on the lung. A criminal investigation is now under way, but no reason has been given of what caused the men's injuries.

In the case of Begg, who grew up in the Moseley area of Birmingham, the Americans have been equally silent. Foreign Office officials admit that after 11 months of asking they have still not been able to see him to check on his health. 'We are still pressing the Americans, but as yet we have not been allowed access,' said a spokesman.

Begg has not seen a lawyer, a Red Cross official or any member of his family either since he was arrested in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad last February.

Just why the Briton was sought by the Americans is also a mystery. But they wanted him badly. When the US bombing began in November 2001, Begg closed down the school he had opened in Kabul and moved to Pakistan. It was there that he was arrested, bundled into a car and smuggled back over the border into Afghanistan, first to Kandahar and then to Bagram.

The last time his father, Azmat Begg, heard Moazzam's voice was in a call from a mobile phone as his son lay in the boot of his captors' vehicle. After a few panicky moments the call suddenly ended.

Despite being a devout Muslim, Moazzam Begg attended a Jewish primary school in the West Midlands. He studied law at a Birmingham college but dropped out in 1994 to join a charity delivering aid to Muslims in Bosnia.

His family portray him as a family man who worked as a translator and took his wife and three young children with him to Afghanistan.

'I am worried like a father who would worry about his son,' said Azmat Begg, 64. 'He is a lovely and bright boy and obedient. He never tells lies and always does the right thing. He told me he wanted to start a school in Afghanistan to improve the literacy rates there.'

Certainly his letter to his wife showed a man anguished about his family. 'The most difficult thing in my life is being away from you and the kids,' he wrote.

However, security sources point to raids on Begg's British home by anti-terrorist police. The first was several years ago and the second was carried out last summer, when a computer, five floppy disks and two CD-roms were taken. Neither raid resulted in any charges.

But human rights activists say suspects at Bagram - whether innocent or guilty - should not be tortured. This, they say, undermines the war on terror.

'How can the US descend to the level of using terror in the war on terror? What sort of victory is that? This is illegal and it is appalling,' said Jamie Felner, a US director of Human Rights Watch.

Amnesty International has also condemned the treatment of detainees such as Begg. 'The US must ensure that its actions in relation to those in custody comply with international law and standards,' said a spokesperson. 'This is crucial if justice is to be done.'





http://www.ananova.com/images/web/47040.jpg

Originally posted by LeFevre

Care to share some of the burden, evil imperialistic British Empire? :p


The British Empire was responsible for serious acts of evil. When they arrived in Australia they actually killed the aborigines "for their own good". Apparently they were so backward they were better off dead.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I wasn't aware of this.

F***** American NAZI *********. :mad:

You should be ASHAMED. ASHAMED OF YOUR COUNTRY.

Why do you defend it?

So from this all US citizens should turn their back on thier country? Can we not defend our country and condemn this?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The British Empire was responsible for serious acts of evil. When they arrived in Australia they actually killed the aborigines "for their own good". Apparently they were so backward they were better off dead.

I wasn't aware of this.

F***** BRITISH NAZI *********.

You should be ASHAMED. ASHAMED OF YOUR COUNTRY.

Why do you defend it?














:p

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I wasn't aware of this.

F***** American NAZI *********. :mad:

You should be ASHAMED. ASHAMED OF YOUR COUNTRY.

Why do you defend it?


Some american citizens are deeply ashamed of our country. Some of us agree with you totally and wish that Bush, Ashcroft, et. al. would get the hell out of the White House so we could hold another election and try to get someone who cares about people.

Unfortunately too many Americans are blinded by nationalism and pride. They assume that America can do no wrong. They are acting nievely

I do a part to talk to the people around me in Salt Lake, America but too many of them are unable to have real discussions. They can't think. Just like Wayne says.

:( :( :( :( :( :(

And it truly is true that 50% percent of the Americans think that Iraq was directly involved in the 11/9/01 attacks. If you deliberately mislead people then you are a lier. Bush is a lier, with many documents of proof found in just reading his speeches.

:(

And to think I voted for him.

:(

Originally posted by LeFevre

I wasn't aware of this.

F***** BRITISH NAZI *********.

You should be ASHAMED. ASHAMED OF YOUR COUNTRY.

Why do you defend it?


I don't defend the actions of a previous generation of Britons living in a different age. If the UK government had been known to have been torturing people to death I do not believe the British people would accept it or defend it as Americans are here today defending American crimes against humanity.













:p [/B][/QUOTE]

Rusty :

Your comments are noted and appreciated. I just hope your own countrymen are listening. :(

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I don't defend the actions of a previous generation of Britons living in a different age. If the UK government had been known to have been torturing people to death I do not believe the British people would accept it or defend it as Americans are here today defending American crimes against humanity.


All Americans? Some of the Americans that post here? What should we do? Revolt through violence? Start taking out politicians?

edited for fecked code

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by LeFevre

All Americans? Some of the Americans that post here? What should we do? Revolt through violence? Start taking out politicians?


I know it is hard to figure out what we should do.

Do you think we have a responsibility to do something if we disagree with the behaviour of our countrymen? Vote perhaps? Something more?

I do more, but all I do is discuss (but refuse to argue) about the hypocrisy and morality of certain actions. Sometimes I feel like I should do more, but what?

Certainly not revolt. Certainly not take out politicians. I write a weekly letter to President Bush and to my Congressman. I always get canned responses. It certainly doesn't make me feel any better either.

Originally posted by LeFevre


All Americans? Some of the Americans that post here? What should we do? Revolt through violence? Start taking out politicians?



No. All there needs to be is more people like Rusty willing to stand up and be counted. Too many intelligent Americans are more like Corplinx and try to defend the nationalistic right-wing propaganda coming out of the White House. Too many intelligent Americans listen to Michael Moore and treat him as if he was an idiot. Unfortunately, American politicians appear to reflect American public opinion. If 60% of Americans believe this war is justified because of supposed links between Saddam and AL-Qaeda then there is no hope for your nation. The rest of the world sees it as the transparent b*llsh*t it is. Why do 60% of Americans believe it? You tell me. I do not understand. Why are Americans incapable of thinking for themselves?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Why are Americans incapable of thinking for themselves?

Honestly UCE I think the vast majority of people dont think, and are very ignorant (and I think I have an idea of how ignorant I am, so I am constantly surprised at how ignorant people in general are). America probably does have a bigger share of ignorant people than most, but that isn't saying much when we as a whole are already far into the ignorant category. Maybe we can keep it together for a few more generations and get informed.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by LeFevre


Honestly UCE I think the vast majority of people dont think, and are very ignorant (and I think I have an idea of how ignorant I am, so I am constantly surprised at how ignorant people in general are). America probably does have a bigger share of ignorant people than most, but that isn't saying much when we as a whole are already far into the ignorant category. Maybe we can keep it together for a few more generations and get informed.

I assume some of that was sarcasm (correct me please if I am wrong, sometimes I have a hard time with catching sarcasm on the internet). I don't believe that more Americans are ignorant. UE is just upset. Americans are just in the spotlight now, and like all other countires, most Americans are unaware of our ignorances. Hopefully the Americans who are aware of our ignorance (some of them, anyway) can help persuade the others past their nationalism and pride and towards recognizing their own ignorances.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


I assume some of that was sarcasm (correct me please if I am wrong, sometimes I have a hard time with catching sarcasm on the internet). I don't believe that more Americans are ignorant. UE is just upset. Americans are just in the spotlight now, and like all other countires, most Americans are unaware of our ignorances. Hopefully the Americans who are aware of our ignorance (some of them, anyway) can help persuade the others past their nationalism and pride and towards recognizing their own ignorances.

no sarcasm

[ceo_esq]

UndercoverElephant,

So far you’ve alleged (among other things) that the United States has:

- detained prisoners from the Afghan campaign in conditions constituting flagrant breaches of the Geneva Conventions;
- mistreated Iraqi POWs; and
- committed crimes against humanity (the short definition of which, by the way, is murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations in a widespread and systematic way, whether in time of war or peace).

I and others have endeavored to show why these allegations are either demonstrably incorrect, or that at a minimum (in some cases) their truthfulness remains a matter of significant factual and legal doubt and controversy (such that it is highly unreasonable to take, at the present time, such an inflexible position in reliance thereon). I am somewhat curious to know how many, and which, of your received notions about these matters would have to be undermined before you would modify your position (or, at the very least, your rhetoric). For the moment, you have largely ignored what has been pointed out to you, and you persist in employing terms like “breaches of the Geneva Conventions” and “crimes against humanity” – to say nothing of your distasteful and ludicrous allusions to Nazism – in such a way as to suggest that either you do not have a solid grasp of the subject matter or you are being intentionally polemical, or both.

I have no reluctance to criticize the U.S. administration, I did not vote for Bush, and I’m not an apologist for anyone’s propaganda. Despite being one of those Americans you appear to revile, I believe myself capable of autonomous thought, and my professional familiarity with public international law informs my independent conclusion that the allegations you’ve made are by and large not justified. I'm not the only one.

Respectfully,

ceo_esq

Ceo


- detained prisoners from the Afghan campaign in conditions constituting flagrant breaches of the Geneva Conventions;


You are denying this?


- mistreated Iraqi POWs;


Mistreated Afghanistani POWs. All they have done to the Iraqis (so far) is parade them on TV.


- committed crimes against humanity (the short definition of which, by the way, is murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations in a widespread and systematic way, whether in time of war or peace).


GUILTY AS CHARGED.


I am somewhat curious to know how many, and which, of your received notions about these matters would have to be undermined before you would modify your position


The evidence is there for all to see. The Americans didn't just abuse prisoners in camp X-ray. They invited American photographers in to take pictures so the whole world could see it. The Americans did it deliberately as an act of vengeance for 9/11. They flouted the GC ON PURPOSE. They WANTED us to see it. They WANTED people to know that they were AMERICANS, and they were THE BOSS, and they didn't have to follow the rules BECAUSE THEY DICTATE THE RULES.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Prisoner-Sensory-Deprevation27jan02.jpg

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Prisoner-Sensory-Deprevation27jan02.htm


AMERICA'S WAR against terrorism may have decimated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. But that was to be expected. What is surprising is another side of America exposed by this war, which the country likes to believe does not exist.

Start with the treatment of Al-Qaeda prisoners being transported to the X-Ray camp in Guantánamo Bay Cuba. The photo graphs splashed across the globe shackled captives, their eyes blacked out behind no-see goggles, their ears and noses tightly muffled as they were made to kneel before their captors rightly caused international outrage, even in European countries that consider themselves U.S. allies.


POW Status Denied Taliban and Al-Qaeda detainees, shackled and deprived of all sensory stimuli, are held in a temporary detention facility at the U.S. Naval Station, Guantánamo Bay. U.S. authorities maintain the prisoners are being treated humanely.



The "technique" being applied to the prisoners as shown in the pictures is called sensory deprivation. It is a refined but no less cruel form of torture. All the prisoner's senses are blocked. The eyes are completely blindfolded. The ears are muffled. So is the nose. The prisoner cannot see, hear, smell, or feel anything. The Al-Qaeda men were kept like this for an agonizing 20-hour flight from Afghanistan, and seemingly for another spell thereafter.

Try to imagine the extreme trauma this totally blacked-out state causes, and you will get sick. Like all torture, the aim is to break the victim as he is pre pared for interrogation. Sensory deprivation is especially preferred because it leaves no physical traces.


GUILTY.

Stop defending the fascists. :mad:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Ceo



You are denying this?


Al Qaida and Taliban are not uniformed soldiers, they are terrorists. They have changed the rules of warfare, not us. These people should have been executed as spies, this is how enemy combatants who dress up as civilians and attempt to hide among us should be treated. The fact that they still draw breath at Camp X-ray is likely a huge surprise to them.



Mistreated Afghanistani POWs. All they have done to the Iraqis (so far) is parade them on TV.


The Iraqi army is a uniformed military in service to a sovereign nation. The nation of Iraq has signed the GC. Their treatment of American and British POWs is governed by the GC, just as is our treatment of their captured soldiers. They have broken several rules of the GC already...we have not. Al Qaida and Taliban are outside the GC....we can legally do with them as we wish. I imagine we will not be executing them. :rolleyes:


GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Well Judge Geoff,...I don't believe you have heard all the evidence. Your impartiality is also a bit suspect if you don't mind me saying so "Your Honor".


The evidence is there for all to see. The Americans didn't just abuse prisoners in camp X-ray. They invited American photographers in to take pictures so the whole world could see it. The Americans did it deliberately as an act of vengeance for 9/11. They flouted the GC [b]ON PURPOSE. They WANTED us to see it. They WANTED people to know that they were AMERICANS, and they were THE BOSS, and they didn't have to follow the rules BECAUSE THEY DICTATE THE RULES.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Prisoner-Sensory-Deprevation27jan02.jpg

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/Prisoner-Sensory-Deprevation27jan02.htm


There is no GC issue Geoff,....please show me where the GC protects soldiers not in uniform. ie; terrorists They are the ones changing the rules of war, (airliners used as bombs)...please excuse us if we have to adapt to this new dichotomy.



GUILTY.


Yeah, yeah, we know.....BTW none of this would be happening if not for 9/11. I know you get tired of hearing this....but we also get tired of hearing you say words like "GUILTY! and FASCIST!" over and over again. :rolleyes:


Stop defending the fascists. :mad:

Stop defending terrorists who fly planes full of people into buildings full of other people. Stop defending brutal dictators who starve and murder their own people while hoarding WMD and building palaces to their glory. :mad:

Rik :

I will now withdraw from this thread. I will allow others to say their part. I am sorry my political views are so offensive to you. I am sorry the behaviour of the American government is so offensive to me. I'm not interested in excuses about how the geneva convention does not protect the Al-Qaeda suspects. I am not interested in hearing you justify the use of torture. :(

Stop defending terrorists who fly planes full of people into buildings full of other people.


THOSE PEOPLE ALREADY DIED ON 9/11.


Stop defending brutal dictators who starve and murder their own people while hoarding WMD and building palaces to their glory.


THERE ARE NO WMD.

I give up. I am not interested in politics. You will find me in the philosophy forum. :(

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
You are denying this [that detention of the Afghan campaign prisoners violated the Geneva Conventions]?
It's not clear to me which provisions of the Geneva Conventions you think were applicable here and why. It has already been explained to you why these detainees are not POWs. The sources I find most persuasive, as an international lawyer, suggest that there were no violations of the Conventions (see my earlier post for the legal arguments).

As for allegations of mistreatment of those detainees, those photographs (while inflammatory) are hardly conclusive and in fact highly misleading, as they do not reflect the duration and especially the security circumstances under which those measures were implemented. Those photographs and the press stories which accompanied them have been available to the numerous expert observers (one of whom, a former professor of mine, I quoted in my earlier post) who have concluded that the allegations of mistreatment were in fact unfounded.

At the very least, a review of the unbiased reporting of the detention conditions reveals that there is a conflict in the perceptions of the observers, and in my view the weight of credible authority currently tends towards Washington's version of events. For every report of mistreatment, there is at least one independent report denying that such mistreatment took place in the manner alleged and asserting that the detainees are adequately treated. Considering that the truth is at best unclear, with conflicting indications coming from independent sources, why have you already made up your mind so entirely? Particularly since you are relying on this to make some fairly outrageous and facially improbable assertions about U.S. conduct, it would seem as though a reasonable person would resist taking such a stance while the jury is still out.
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
All they have done to the Iraqis (so far) is parade them on TV.You certainly did imply a parity between what the Iraqis did to the U.S. POWs (probable violation of the Geneva Conventions) and what the coalition forces have done to the Iraqi POWs (no violation of the Geneva conventions). See my initial post. If this is not what you intended to suggest, then I apologize.
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Stop defending the fascists. :mad:
Fortunately - largely thanks to the United States - you've never had to get up close and personal with real fascism. If you had, you'd be slower to trivialize the suffering of the millions of victims of fascist regimes by mentioning fascism in this context.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


No. All there needs to be is more people like Rusty willing to stand up and be counted. Too many intelligent Americans are more like Corplinx and try to defend the nationalistic right-wing propaganda coming out of the White House. Too many intelligent Americans listen to Michael Moore and treat him as if he was an idiot. Unfortunately, American politicians appear to reflect American public opinion. If 60% of Americans believe this war is justified because of supposed links between Saddam and AL-Qaeda then there is no hope for your nation. The rest of the world sees it as the transparent b*llsh*t it is. Why do 60% of Americans believe it? You tell me. I do not understand. Why are Americans incapable of thinking for themselves?

This is a serious question Geoff. I know that too few people tend to educate themselves about important current events. Most folks are either too busy, or too stupidly engrossed in sitcoms to spare the time. Well, I did my very best to find the time and read the books. I've read 5 of them now. I was unsure about any possible attack on Iraq before reading up on the subject. I am now absolutely convinced that this war on Iraq is the right move. It'll be painful, and we are going to lose alot of soldier. My old unit is out there with V Corps....and I feel for them. They are going to get this job done though....without the help of France or Germany. Of course going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion...but I guess that's beside the point. :rolleyes:

Once this is done, these nations who clandestinely support terrorism...or are thinking about doing it are going to have to rethink things a bit. As Rumsfeld said...weakness is provocative. We will not be provoking terrorism with our weakness any longer.

-zilla

Oh, BTW...it's more like 70% in favor in the US now. It'll be even more than that once those Republican guard units start using chemical munitions in defence of Baghdad. Sadly enough...you may soon be getting ample evidence of WMD's. :( Our troops are trained to do battle in that environment.....and apparently so are the Iraqis....(captured Iraqi gas masks and chem suits had labels showing them to have been manufactured in 2002)....so much for sanctions eh? The only folks not prepared to be in a chemical environment are Iraqi civilians who will be all around. :( It's gonna get ugly.

[subgenius]

"Why are Americans incapable of thinking for themselves?"
____________________________

How much time do you have?

(Short answer: I think they're putting something in the water.)

But also remember, a slight majority voted for the other guy.
There's hope, we just need a bigger majority next time, if they allow us to vote.

[LTC8K6]

Entirely normal, if you ask me. I see nothing wrong at all with the photos, and can't see why anyone would be upset.

Never had to guard anyone who would kill them, I guess.

This is exactly how such prisoners should be restrained until they are given accomodations. Particularly if you don't really have enough guards.

They can't form a plan by communicating with each other, they can't run, they can't attack you with their hands, they can't bite you, or spit on you, or kick you. Their posture prevents sudden moves.

Perfect. Textbook. Grade A.

[ceo_esq]

Bump. To the tally contained in the initial post, I've now added a section on misuse of medical service emblems and facilities.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll
The open air cells were a temporary holding at Gitmo because they didn't have the facilities for that many people at the time. Even as people were shouting about alleged mistreatment due to the living conditions, they were building a more permanent structure for the prisoners.

Now I may be incorrect in assuming that these buildings are down now and the prisoners moved into them, but I've also not seen any proof provided here that things have not changed.

You expect me to believe there were nothing suitable besides those cages. Well, they couldn't use the US, which has an abundance of cells, becuase then they might need to abide by the legal system.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LeFevre


Honestly UCE I think the vast majority of people dont think, and are very ignorant (and I think I have an idea of how ignorant I am, so I am constantly surprised at how ignorant people in general are). America probably does have a bigger share of ignorant people than most, but that isn't saying much when we as a whole are already far into the ignorant category. Maybe we can keep it together for a few more generations and get informed.

i would be surprised if americans are all that more ignorant than any other country, all though there are some geunine dillls out there, I know a few dills here.

no, the problem is that there is so much ignorance and power.

[BME]

hi all, just wondering : are the gitmo prisoners, who are pbviously not pow's, being charged and prosecuted or just kept there until further notice ?
cheers, Bart

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by LeFevre
Honestly UCE I think the vast majority of people dont think, and are very ignorant (and I think I have an idea of how ignorant I am, so I am constantly surprised at how ignorant people in general are). America probably does have a bigger share of ignorant people than most, but that isn't saying much when we as a whole are already far into the ignorant category. Maybe we can keep it together for a few more generations and get informed.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I'm curious to know why you believe America probably has a bigger share of ignorant people than most countries.

I’ve known plenty of American ignoramuses. I’ve also lived in Europe for a long time and, apart from a few areas of knowledge, I’ve found that Europeans are no less ignorant than Americans and are frequently even more susceptible to received ideas.

However, let’s leave anecdotal evidence on both sides out of the discussion.

Objectively speaking, it doesn’t seem especially likely that Americans should be less ignorant than people in other countries. Statistics can be misleading, but one can’t help observing that in terms of literacy rates, average years of schooling, percentage of GDP spent on education, percentage of bachelor's degree recipients, and access to media outlets, the United States performs comparably or favorably vis-à-vis the major European countries and Japan. These don’t establish an absence of ignorance (in the common sense of the word), but they are at least plausible indicators.

Looking at it from a different angle, a larger percentage of people take their horoscopes seriously in Germany, France and Great Britain than in the United States.

Perhaps we could narrow down what we mean by "ignorant" in this context.

[Agammamon]

Let's keep in mind that violations the Geneva Convention are not automatically war crimes.

[ceo_esq]

Agammamon's point is valid. I'll elaborate a little. Not every breach of the Geneva Conventions is a "grave breach" (the conventions and protocols generally have a clause addressing this point). "Grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions are pretty clearly war crimes. However, a breach other than a grave breach is not necessarily excluded from the definition of war crimes, which is a much murkier matter (witness the wrangling over the subject-matter jurisdictional clauses of the instruments establishing recent war crimes tribunals).

BTW, I'm adding to the initial tally a section concerning the participation of Iraqi children in hostilities.