THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Fifteen British sailors and marines have been taken prisoner by the Iranian National Guard and are at a secret location in Iran, being interviewed.

Should they be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention, or under Guantanamo Bay rules?

McTag wrote:

Fifteen British sailors and marines have been taken prisoner by the Iranian National Guard and are at a secret location in Iran, being interviewed.

Should they be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention, or under Guantanamo Bay rules?

Since they were in uniform AND under arms,they qualify to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.
Of course,since they were not at war with Iran and were not in Iranian waters,the seizure of these people is illegal,according to the GC.

Now,since the peopl being held at Gitmo were NOT wearing a uniform,they do not qualify under the GC accords.

So,your question is a stupid one.
All you have to do is read the GC.

mysteryman wrote:

McTag wrote:

Fifteen British sailors and marines have been taken prisoner by the Iranian National Guard and are at a secret location in Iran, being interviewed.

Should they be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention, or under Guantanamo Bay rules?

Since they were in uniform AND under arms,they qualify to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.
Of course,since they were not at war with Iran and were not in Iranian waters,the seizure of these people is illegal,according to the GC.

Now,since the peopl being held at Gitmo were NOT wearing a uniform,they do not qualify under the GC accords.

So,your question is a stupid one.
All you have to do is read the GC.

Ah, I see. It's all about the uniforms. Thank you.

That's probably why those interned at Guantanamo Bay were all given a new orange one, even those prisoners captured in Pakistan and Egypt and sold to the US.

McTag wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

McTag wrote:

Fifteen British sailors and marines have been taken prisoner by the Iranian National Guard and are at a secret location in Iran, being interviewed.

Should they be treated under the rules of the Geneva Convention, or under Guantanamo Bay rules?

Since they were in uniform AND under arms,they qualify to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.
Of course,since they were not at war with Iran and were not in Iranian waters,the seizure of these people is illegal,according to the GC.

Now,since the peopl being held at Gitmo were NOT wearing a uniform,they do not qualify under the GC accords.

So,your question is a stupid one.
All you have to do is read the GC.

Ah, I see. It's all about the uniforms. Thank you.

That's probably why those interned at Guantanamo Bay were all given a new orange one, even those prisoners captured in Pakistan and Egypt and sold to the US.

Actually,it is.
According to the 3rd GC..
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Article 4 covers the British troops and what they were doing.

No detainee can be without a legal status under the Conventions. According to the ICRC Commentary:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, [or] a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law.1

Second, they have to fulfill some minimum conditions: they must be under responsible command; have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; carry arms openly; and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Likewise, all persons in custody, regardless of their status, must be treated humanely. An important measure to ensure humane treatment, provided under the Geneva Conventions, is to permit visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross and for the detaining government to follow their recommendations.

The rights and protections granted to POWs are enumerated in detail in the Third Geneva Convention. "Nonprivileged" or "unlawful" combatants are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention, customary international law and, where applicable, Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Although the United States is not a party to Protocol I, the U.S. government accepts many of its provisions as part of customary international law; especially relevant is article 75 on "fundamental guarantees," which sets out basic standards of humane treatment and due process that is required for all persons affected by the conflict, regardless of their status.

Humane Treatment: POWs must be humanely treated at all times. They must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults or public curiosity. POWs must be kept in facilities "under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power in the same area." In particular, "the premises provided for the use of prisoners of war...shall be entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted." (Third Geneva, Arts. 13, 25, 34).

Nonprivileged combatants are entitled to humane treatment. While the detainees can be denied certain rights that would endanger security-such limitations should be absolutely necessary, and should never amount to inhumane or degrading treatment.

Interrogation: While POWs the detaining power may interrogate them, POWs are only required to provide their surname, first names, rank, birth date of birth, and their army, regimental, personal or serial number under questioning. POWs, cannot be punished if they do not but are not required to provide additionalany other information. "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Third Geneva, Art. 17).

While nonprivileged or unlawful combatants cannot claim the same protections under interrogation as POWs, they are, like all detainees, protected from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as set out under international human rights law and customary international law. Relevant international instruments include Article 75 of Protocol I, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. For instance, Article 2 of the Convention against Torture, which the U.S. has ratified, states: "No exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Violation of Article 2 is a criminal offense of universal jurisdiction.

Iranian involvement.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1289823.0.0.php

US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran
By William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007

America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme.

In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.

The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime.

In the past year there has been a wave of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials.

Such incidents have been carried out by the Kurds in the west, the Azeris in the north-west, the Ahwazi Arabs in the south-west, and the Baluchis in the south-east. Non-Persians make up nearly 40 per cent of Iran's 69 million population, with around 16 million Azeris, seven million Kurds, five million Ahwazis and one million Baluchis. Most Baluchis live over the border in Pakistan.

Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.

His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Although Washington officially denies involvement in such activity, Teheran has long claimed to detect the hand of both America and Britain in attacks by guerrilla groups on its internal security forces. Last Monday, Iran publicly hanged a man, Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, for his involvement in a bomb attack that killed 11 Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan. An unnamed local official told the semi-official Fars news agency that weapons used in the attack were British and US-made.

Yesterday, Iranian forces also claimed to have killed 17 rebels described as "mercenary elements" in clashes near the Turkish border, which is a stronghold of the Pejak, a Kurdish militant party linked to Turkey's outlawed PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party.

John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: "The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity."

Such a policy is fraught with risk, however. Many of the groups share little common cause with Washington other than their opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose regime they accuse of stepping up repression of minority rights and culture.

The Baluchistan-based Brigade of God group, which last year kidnapped and killed eight Iranian soldiers, is a volatile Sunni organisation that many fear could easily turn against Washington after taking its money.

A row has also broken out in Washington over whether to "unleash" the military wing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Iraq-based Iranian opposition group with a long and bloody history of armed opposition to the Iranian regime.

The group is currently listed by the US state department as terrorist organisation, but Mr Pike said: "A faction in the Defence Department wants to unleash them. They could never overthrow the current Iranian regime but they might cause a lot of damage."

At present, none of the opposition groups are much more than irritants to Teheran, but US analysts believe that they could become emboldened if the regime was attacked by America or Israel. Such a prospect began to look more likely last week, as the UN Security Council deadline passed for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment programme, and a second American aircraft carrier joined the build up of US naval power off Iran's southern coastal waters.

The US has also moved six heavy bombers from a British base on the Pacific island of Diego Garcia to the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which could allow them to carry out strikes on Iran without seeking permission from Downing Street.

While Tony Blair reiterated last week that Britain still wanted a diplomatic solution to the crisis, US Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday insisted that military force was a real possibility.

"It would be a serious mistake if a nation like Iran were to become a nuclear power," Mr Cheney warned during a visit to Australia. "All options are still on the table."

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss further punitive measures against Iran. Sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear technology and know-how were imposed in December. Additional penalties might include a travel ban on senior Iranian officials and restrictions on non-nuclear business.

'Shia police' kill dozens in Iraq

Iraqi police have been accused of working with armed Shia groups [EPA]

At least 45 people are reported to have been shot dead by off-duty Shia policemen in the northwestern Iraqi town of Tal Afar a day after deadly lorry bombings hit a Shia area of the town.

The policemen roamed the town's Sunni neighbourhoods for two hours shooting at Sunni residents and homes early on Wednesday, security officials said.

"I wish you can come and see all the bodies. They are lying in the grounds. We don't have enough space in the hospital. All of the victims were shot in the head," a doctor at the town's main hospital said.

"No less than 45 people were killed. I've never seen such a thing in my life."

Police rampage
The Iraqi army later moved into the Sunni areas to stop the violence and a curfew has been imposed, the officials said.

Wathiq al-Hamdani, the provincial police chief, said: "The situation is under control now."

"The local Tal Afar police have been confined to their bases and policemen from Mosul are moving there to replace them."

In Tuesday's truck bombings in Tal Afar, one suicide bomber lured victims to buy wheat loaded on his truck in a Shia area of the town.

A second truck bomb exploded in a used car lot. The attacks killed at least 55 people and wounded 185.

Tal Afar is 418km northwest of Baghdad.

I am disappointed in so many of my fellow Americans. It appears that more than half will now tolerate America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help? For me that's unconscionable. The morality of too many appears to be collapsing far faster than I thought.

ican711nm wrote:

I am disappointed in so many of my fellow Americans. It appears that more than half will now tolerate America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help? For me that's unconscionable. The morality of too many appears to be collapsing far faster than I thought.

Yeah, I guess we're just a bunch of immoral slobs, promoting peace, denying our military to act as the aggressive perpetrator of war against a sovereign nation on behalf of a certain large conglomerate formerly headed by Dick Cheney.

Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001
emphasis added
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE ON POSTWAR FINDINGS ABOUT IRAQ'S WMD PROGRAMS AND LINKS TO TERRORISM AND HOW THEY COMPARE WITH PREWAR ASSESSMENTS together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS;
...
[computer page 112 of 151 pages -- report page 109],
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."

page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "

UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Abdullah: U.S. Occupation 'Illegitimate'
LEE KEATH | AP | March 28, 2007 05:08 PM EST

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia ?- King Abdullah denounced the American military presence in Iraq on Wednesday as an "illegitimate foreign occupation" and called on the West to end its financial embargo against the Palestinians.

The Saudi monarch's speech was a strongly worded lecture to Arab leaders that their divisions had helped fuel turmoil across the Middle East, and he urged them to show unity. But in opening the Arab summit, Abdullah also nodded to hardliners by criticizing the U.S. presence in Iraq.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said the king, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. allies at the summit are trying to win support from other Arab governments to promote an Arab peace initiative that Washington hopes could revive the peace process with Israel. Arab hard-liners fear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will bow to U.S. pressure to water down the land-for-peace offer in an attempt to win Israeli acceptance.

"In wounded Palestine, the mighty people suffers from oppression and occupation," Abdullah said. "It has become vital that the oppressive blockade imposed on the Palestinians end as soon as possible so the peace process will get to move in an atmosphere without oppression."

The United States has so far rejected calls to end the financial embargo imposed on the Hamas-led Palestinian government formed after elections last year. Saudi Arabia and Arab states have called for an end to the sanctions after Hamas formed a new government last month that includes members of the moderate Fatah party.

Abdullah insisted that only when Arab leaders unite will they be able to prevent "foreign powers from drawing the region's future."

"The real blame should be directed at us, the leaders of the Arab nation," he said. "Our constant disagreements and rejection of unity have made the Arab nation lose confidence in our sincerity and lose hope."

The two-day summit plans to revive a 2002 initiative offering Israel peace with the Arab world if it withdraws from lands it seized in the 1967 Mideast war, a proposal the United States and Europe hope can build efforts to resume the long-stalled peace process.

Israel, which rejected the Arab peace initiative in 2002, now says it could accept it if it is amended, particularly to water down its provisions calling for a "just solution" to the Palestinian refugees issues.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon both toured the region ahead of the summit, trying to build momentum for the peace process and the Arab initiative. Ban spoke Wednesday at the summit, calling the initiative "one of the pillars of the peace process" and urging Israel to "take a fresh look at it."

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa rejected amending the peace offer, saying, "They tell us to amend it, but we tell them to accept it first, then we can sit down at the negotiating table." But he said the Arabs must "do more to convince" the Israelis on the offer.

The summit is to reoffer the peace plan as is, but it will create "working groups" to promote the offer in talks with the United States, United Nations and Europe _ and perhaps Israel. The summit's final resolution calls on Israel to accept the initiative and "seize this opportunity to resume serious, direct negotiations on all tracks."

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are hoping that the working groups can work behind the scenes to make the initiative more palatable to Israel and the West and the basis for a relaunching of talks. Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib told the Arab daily Al-Hayat that there was a "potential" that the working groups could hold direct talks with Israel.

But much depends on the makeup of the working groups, which could be the source of dispute at the summit. Some have spoken of restricting the membership to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. But the more hardline Syria _ which opposed changing the initiative _ may also seek to join, fearing it will be sidelined by the moderates.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, a guest at the Riyadh summit, said both sides should show flexibility. "The important thing is to get the negotiations started. In any negotiations there are changes in positions, because negotiations are like that," he said.

AP correspondents Salah Nasrawi, Slobodan Lekic and Nadia Abou el-Magd in Riyadh contributed to this report.

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789

Article III Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

US, S. Arabia in rare row on Iraq: Foreign occupation

WASHINGTON, March 29: The United States on Thursday rejected Saudi Arabia's stand that Iraq was under an ?'illegitimate foreign occupation' and said US troops were there at Iraq's invitation, under a UN mandate.

Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acknowledged the administration was ?'a little surprised to see those remarks' and would seek clarification from the Saudis.

King Abdullah surprised Washington on Wednesday by telling the Arab League summit in Riyadh: "In beloved Iraq, blood flows between brothers in the shadow of illegitimate foreign occupation and hateful sectarianism, threatening a civil war."

On Thursday, the Saudi government stood by the king's remarks.

Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal told a news conference at the end of the summit: "Did (Iraq) choose to have these forces? Had this been the case, it would have been a different matter. Any military intervention that is not at the request of the country concerned is the definition of occupation."

King Abdullah was merely stating a fact, Prince Saud added.

Mr Burns's statement came hours after the US Senate approved a bill tying funding for the war in Iraq to a timetable for withdrawing US troops, setting the stage for a bitter fight with President George Bush.

The measure, seeking to force a dramatic change in Washington's Iraq policy, was approved by a vote essentially along party lines of 51 to 47.

The bill sets a mandatory start to a troop pullout within 120 days of its final passage, and a guideline of March 31, 2008, for the completion of the withdrawal of most US combat forces.

The cross-fire between Washington and Riyadh reflected growing differences between the two long-time allies at a time when the Saudis are taking on a greater leadership role in the Middle East.

Mr Burns said it was possible the king's comments might have been misinterpreted as a result of translation problems or could have been misreported by the media, but expressed confidence the episode would not disrupt cooperation between Washington and Riyadh.

Asked whether the United States was worried by King Abdullah's statement, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Washington was operating well within the boundaries of international law and under U.N. Security Council resolutions in Iraq.

"We want to understand what the thinking is behind it," said Mr McCormack of the king's statement.

He said the United States had encouraged Saudi Arabia to increase its involvement in Iraq.

"It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Ms Perino said the United States and Saudi Arabia had a close and cooperative relationship, but made clear the Bush administration did not agree with the king's statement.

"When it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people," she said.

Iraq's government was also concerned.

"We differ with his majesty (King Abdullah) on this ... This presence is sanctioned by the international community and Security Council resolutions and with consent and support of Iraqi people and Iraqi government," Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said in Riyadh.

"Nobody will gain anything by Iraq's failure. This attitude of simply being a spectator is not helpful," Mr Zebari said.

The king's speech was only the latest sign of a split between Washington and Riyadh.

Last month, Saudi Arabia played host in Makkah to talks that led to an agreement between the hardline Hamas and the moderate Fatah to form a unity government to end Palestinian infighting.

The agreement caused problems for Washington because it enhanced the status of Hamas, which the Bush administration sees as a terrorist organisation.

?-Agencies

Saudi Arabia has already said they will send their troops into Iraq if the Americans fail.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/

Mind you the people SA want to support are the ones killing the vast majority of Americans, the Sunnis insurgents.

I have a brilliant solution

Ask the Iraqis permission to tell both the Iranians and the Saudis that the US will clear out of Iraq if each replaces one-half of our troops with their own troops and then negotiates with the other to propose to the Iraqis for their approval, the best way for them both to protect the Iraqi non-murderers from mass murder.

Whaadaayaathink

xingu wrote:

Saudi Arabia has already said they will send their troops into Iraq if the Americans fail.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16656642/

Mind you the people SA want to support are the ones killing the vast majority of Americans, the Sunnis insurgents.

My proposed solution is more than the Saudis sending "their troops into Iraq if the Americans fail."

For instance, what about the Iranians? What would you have them do? After all, the number of Shiites in Iraq is almost double the number of Sunnis in Iraq.

I wrote:

Quote:

I have a brilliant solution

Ask the Iraqis permission to tell both the Iranians and the Saudis that the US will clear out of Iraq if each replaces one-half of our troops with their own troops and then negotiates with the other to propose to the Iraqis for their approval, the best way for them both to protect the Iraqi non-murderers from mass murder.

Whaadaayaathink

OK!

Let's ask the Iraqi government what they want America to do.

Do they want us to stay or leave?

If they want us to stay, then what do they want us to do?

If they want us to leave, then when do they want us to leave?

Call that humiliation?

No hoods. No electric shocks. No beatings. These Iranians clearly are a very uncivilised bunch

Terry Jones
Saturday March 31, 2007
The Guardian


I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay...