1
   

American POWs in Iraq

 
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 11:39 am
Idea
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 11:40 am
They have the right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This they receive. Above that, they may be granted or denied priveleges as merited by their behavior and provided by their captors. It is noteworthy that the vast majority of the detainees are in better health now than at the time of their capture, and that most have also put on significant weight.
That they were not uniformed soldiers in the service of a state entity does complicate the matter of defining their status. Ununiformed partisans carrying out hostile activity are commonly executed out-of-hand at time of capture in a warzone. The detainees have fared somewhat better than that.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 11:43 am
frolic, in case you missed it, there appear to be widespread and vigorous popular Anti-Regime Uprisings taking place in Southern Iraq at the moment. Coalition Forces, primarily British, are currently assisting materially in Basra and perhaps elsewhere. News units are on the way.
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 12:16 pm
Quote:
I am comforted to know the ones behind razorwire pose no threat.


I guess you're a military person, because that's something horrible to say. Hitler held similar plans.

By the way, there is no reliable source on the Basra revolt - the news comes directly from HQ. It may very well be a propaganda trick to allow US/UK bombing of innocent civilians. They need collateral damage to get to the Iraqi troops, who are mingled with civilians.

Eventually, both the wars in Afganistan and Iraq are illegal and unprovoked. Even the shady culprit who - as the legend goes - started this all, OBL, remains an uncertain factor.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 12:51 pm
There is a helluva lot of uncertainty indeed. That is the way of war.
A pertinent aphorism is that the most unreliable information available is that comprised of the first reports from a battle.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:02 pm
timberlandko?

Those G-Bay prisoners? Dont you think they have the right to court-appointed attorneys or at least to seek legal assistance?

detaining people without charge for a undefined period is illegal and inhumane. People in England knew that even in 1679. Habeas Corpus Act, never heard of it i suppose.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:29 pm
Your supposition is not borne by the facts. My impression is that habeas corpus does not apply for any of a variety of reasons ... which there is little use debating, because we are surely opposed on the issue. Now, were we to take the literal meaning of the translation, I'd be undismayed to see the bodies ... Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:37 pm
just a little note: geneva convention does not apply only to POWs, but also to treatment of civilians in war or conflict. btw, i just peaked at the list of parties: the u.s. and iraq have signed and ratified the geneva convention, the great britain and australia never had it ratified by their parliaments.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:46 pm
Timber,

That convention was held from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
and the treaty came into force on 21 October 1950. The broadcasting on TV wasn't a big issue those days. Maybe they have to update it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:47 pm
With the status of GB and Austrailia re The Convention's domestic ratification, perhaps it would be efficacious to assign care of the detainess to them Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:48 pm
frolic wrote:
Timber,

That convention was held from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
and the treaty came into force on 21 October 1950. The broadcasting on TV wasn't a big issue those days. Maybe they have to update it.


No argument there, frolic. Many existing laws should be re-exmined in light of subsequently developed technology.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 01:51 pm
But in the strict interpretation showing POWs is always forbidden, even if they say nothing. BTW, the Iraqi almost have to show them. Otherwise the US army officials say those are lies and propaganda. They actually did, until those people were on the screen.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 02:08 pm
haha, timber, you jester. i don't see australia or gb coming anywhere near pows, even if they got some, they would probably just fork them over to the u.s. to deal with. kidding, naturally...
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 06:02 pm
EXCUSE ME! The Commonwealth of Australia (not the 52nd State of the Union) ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions on Oct. 14, 1958. The UK signed on Sept. 23, 1957. Both of these states are ALSO party to the additional protocols of 1977, something that the US is NOT (along with the democratic nations of Iraq, Iran, Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, etc).

Anyone can check the listings of signatories at the International Committee of the Red Cross

ICRC
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Mar, 2003 10:18 pm
Alas, you are right, Mr. Stillwater! That teaches me not to ever trust the first document I run into in the Google search. Thanks for straightening the record and apologies to all the Brits and Australians. I will verify my sources three times next time!
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Mar, 2003 12:31 am
Mr Stillwater wrote:
EXCUSE ME! The Commonwealth of Australia (not the 52nd State of the Union) ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions on Oct. 14, 1958. The UK signed on Sept. 23, 1957. Both of these states are ALSO party to the additional protocols of 1977, something that the US is NOT (along with the democratic nations of Iraq, Iran, Thailand, Myanmar, Pakistan, etc).

Goodness! We should consult Iran and Iraq so we can learn how to be humane to enemy combatants and civilians! Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

(And if Iraq is a democracy, then I'm a f#@$ing piano.)
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2003 05:29 pm
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/walker.jpg
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Apr, 2003 01:00 am
Seems to me the American POW's were treated like princes, compared with the POW's in Guantanamo Bay.

Quote:

Teens held in Guantanamo

Three youths under the age of 16 are being held in the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the US military has revealed - sparking renewed anger among human rights groups.
The teenagers, between the ages of 13 and 15, were captured while fighting US troops in Afghanistan, the Los Angeles Times newspaper reported.

Because of their age they are kept in cells separate from the adult detainees, they receive mental health counselling, and efforts are being made to contact their home nations, US Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson told the paper.

However they are still considered "enemy combatants" - the US classification for Guantanamo detainees - as they were captured as "active" fighters against US forces, he added.

"We did have to adapt and make some special considerations and look at how we're going to handle them with regard to the rest of the detention population," Colonel Johnson said.

"But we have to face the hard reality that there are some places in the world where child combatants are used to further a cause."

One of the youths has been identified by Canadian media reports as a Canadian citizen wanted by the US over a grenade attack in Afghanistan which killed a US soldier.

Legal battles

Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay still holds about 660 detainees from more than 40 countries, mostly arrested in during the 2001 bombing campaign in Afghanistan following the 11 September attacks in the US.


That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become
Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett
Washington describes them as unlawful combatants who can be held indefinitely without trial, meaning they are not accorded the rights of prisoners-of-war as defined by the Geneva Convention.
Attempts by human rights lawyers in the US and abroad to reclassify the detainees' status or get them access to legal representation have consistently been rebuffed by US courts.

The US has countered that the detainees are providing them with intelligence on Afghanistan's former Taleban authorities and Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

'Cavalier' attitude

However news of the teenage combatants has angered civil rights campaigners, drawing condemnation from Amnesty International.

"That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights," spokesman Alistair Hodgett told the Associated Press news agency.

Since the first group of detainees was sent to the camp in January 2002, several inmates have attempted suicide, and several have been released for lack of evidence.

Afghan prisoners released from US detention in Guantanamo Bay have spoken of being kept in small cages and interrogated dozens of times to try to prove links to al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

However they also said conditions at the camp were immeasurably better to those in Afghan prisons.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/2970279.stm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.38 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 01:16:10