Newsweek Lied, People Died

Every individual in Abu Ghraib and those in all other such institutions managed openly or secretly by the US do have, one hazards, home countries.

From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War
British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A01

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The point being (speaking slowly) that thousands are not released, presumably because the US thinks there is some chance those folks will cause further trouble. As, under the present philosophy, no one caught up in their nets has any fundamental rights whatsoever and, as Halliburton and its salesmen in the Pentagon and administration are happier than a piginshit to build bigger and and more such institutions, then one ought to assume that those folks released (to the hospitals or blown up neighborhoods or home countries where they will be released rather than tortured or held further) are not perceived as members of any terrorist organization.

I'm not following you here blatham. What thousands? The thousands in Iraq? They all have POW status, or criminal status and have been adjudicated through the Iraqi criminal system. -

Captured insurgents are not entitled to be prisoners of war (unless they are found to be members of the former Iraqi armed forces, such as was the case with Saddam Hussein). Such persons are entitled to humane treatment and other protections due under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The rights of such persons, such as not to be mistreated, are often the same as rights POWs enjoy. As noted, they may nonetheless be prosecuted for having taken up arms as well as for committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.

According to "Human Rights Watch," captured insurgents are not entitled to POW status unless "found to be members of the former Iraqi armed forces."

A leading human rights group has criticised the US over the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
In its annual report, Human Rights Watch says that when a country as dominant as the US openly defies the law, it invites others to do the same.

Openly defies the law?

According to "Human Rights Watch," captured insurgents are not entitled to POW status unless "found to be members of the former Iraqi armed forces."

Ticomaya wrote:

According to "Human Rights Watch," captured insurgents are not entitled to POW status unless "found to be members of the former Iraqi armed forces."

Didn't know that they decide that now.

Legal Aspects of the Ongoing Fighting in Iraq

January 28, 2002
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
Washington, DC


Dear Ms. Rice, We write concerning the legal status of the Guantanamo detainees. Our views reflect Human Rights Watch's experience of over twenty years in applying the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to armed conflicts around the world. We write to address several arguments advanced for not applying Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which, as you know, requires the establishment of a "competent tribunal" to determine individually whether each detainee is entitled to prisoner-of-war status should any doubt arise regarding their status. Below we set forth each of the arguments offered for ignoring Article 5 as well as Human Rights Watch's response. we hope the U.S. government will agree to establish the "competent tribunal" required by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention for the purpose of determining case by case whether each detainee in Guantanamo is entitled to prisoner-of-war status.

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director Human Rights Watch

Your quoted article refers to

Quote:

Legal Aspects of the Ongoing Fighting in Iraq

.

Quote:

January 28, 2002
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
Washington, DC


Dear Ms. Rice, We write concerning the legal status of the Guantanamo detainees. Our views reflect Human Rights Watch's experience of over twenty years in applying the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to armed conflicts around the world. We write to address several arguments advanced for not applying Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which, as you know, requires the establishment of a "competent tribunal" to determine individually whether each detainee is entitled to prisoner-of-war status should any doubt arise regarding their status. Below we set forth each of the arguments offered for ignoring Article 5 as well as Human Rights Watch's response. we hope the U.S. government will agree to establish the "competent tribunal" required by Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention for the purpose of determining case by case whether each detainee in Guantanamo is entitled to prisoner-of-war status.

Kenneth Roth
Executive Director Human Rights Watch

Source

According to "Human Rights Watch," captured insurgents are not entitled to POW status unless "found to be members of the former Iraqi armed forces."

Quote:

Captured insurgents are not entitled to be prisoners of war (unless they are found to be members of the former Iraqi armed forces, such as was the case with Saddam Hussein). Such persons are entitled to humane treatment and other protections due under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The rights of such persons, such as not to be mistreated, are often the same as rights POWs enjoy. As noted, they may nonetheless be prosecuted for having taken up arms as well as for committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Link.

Whatever their status, they are entitled to humane treatment.

They all have POW status, or criminal status and have been adjudicated through the Iraqi criminal system.

Being treated humanely doesn't give them POW status nor does it adjudicate them through the Iraqi system.

Due to American vernacular, many people incorrectly equate humane treament with the Geneva Convention.

A POW, detainee and insurgent can all recieve humane treatment, though not all of them are due the full range of Geneva Convention rights.