Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:31:11 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070403223111.GA18304@santiago.connexer.com:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:10:32AM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>> On 2 Apr, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact
>> >> denied their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc.,
>> >> it's pretty obvious that the "QCs don't apply" provision was the
>> >> operational part of this order, and not "taken out of context quite
>> >> badly". It's more reasonable to conclude that the other language
>> >> was included as whitewash.
>> >>
>> > Actually, if what you described happened to *every* prisoner, *then*
>> > you
>> > *might* *maybe* have a point. However, it isn't happening to every
>> > prisoner, if at all. Now, what I'd like to knw:
>>
>> The lack of logic in the above statement is self evident, so I
>> won't
>> even comment. :-)
>>
> ???
>
>> > * Why does everything need to be some sort of vast conspiracy?
>> > Remember Hanlon's Razor? It could have just as easily been
>> > someone overlooking something, someone going against orders,
>> > whatever.
>>
>> I'm a scientist, we use Occam's razor, not Hanlon's. :-) Since
>> we were discussing a presidential order, which referenced justice
>> department memos (which are of dubious legal merit, anyway), I don't
>> see how that can be "someone going against orders.
>>
> I'm sorry, but who decided that the memos were of "dubious legal merit"?
> The media? Please forgive me if I consider their motives suspect.
..the Red Cross have suspect motives?
> Now, if there has been a court decision which invalidates the Justice
> Department's opinion, then you have something.
>
>> > * In what way have the prisoners' GC protections allegedly been
>> > withheld?
>> >
>> >
>> Torture.
>
> Forgive me if I wait for this to be proven in court.
.. ;o)
>> Humiliating and degrading treatment.
>
> If it weren't for the fact that the prisoners often attack or otherwise
> harrass the guards I might be more sympathetic. IIRC, Gereman soldiers
> were held in POW camps in Canada during WWII. Now, I'm sure that some
> tried to escape (what POW wouldn't). But despite how despicable the
> German military's actions were, my understanding based on history is
> that as POWs they were still professional soldiers.
..actually no, the vast majority was draftees.
> They did not sling feces and urine at their guards.
> They did not attack their guards and
> try to infect them with disease.
..this is actually an old Christian Feudal European military strategy and
proved very effective against the native "Indian" American, use the
complete medieval Christian lack of hygiene as a biological weapon
against the Maya etc civilizations, one such conquistador brought 300
pigs across to somewhere between NOLA and Boston around 1500-1525 to
introduce pig borne deceases to kill off 95 to 99+% of the "redskins",
AFAIR what I read. Early intruders reported "big cities" and "public
baths", all this was gone by 1600-1650AD and the native Americans were
living in the "Wild West", when the English started to arrive in numbers.
..and keep in mind the victors are the ones who get to spin History
itself, Their Way[TM], whenever you read whatever purports to be History.
> Just go read some of the accounts of
> the people who have served as guards in some of these places. The
> accounts read worse than those of guards in maximum security prisons or
> death row.
>
> My perspective is this. We start off treating them nice and
> professionally.
..where? Sissy Boy George started these war crimes by policy,
before invading Afghanistan.
..or, is "treat them nice" just your personal wannabe ambition?
> When they start acting like animals, then we treat them
> as such. By all accounts, the prisoners are treated quite
> professionally at first. It is only when they become vicious towards
> the staff that incidents of retribution or what might be considered
> humiliating and degrading treatment happen.
>
>> Televising pictures of them. (funny, how we now condemn Iran for
>> doing similar. I'm not defending Iran's actions, but it's rather
>> hypocritical for us to criticize them for doing things that we
>> also do)
>
> Umm, the "we" you are talking about is the news media.
..you forget the Iranian media here.
> You know, the
> people who want to portray us as worse than the enemy. It is not
> surprising that they have done that, as it gives cause to make the exact
> statement you just made.
>
>> Not determining their POW status by a competent tribunal.
>>
> What is a competent tribunal? The President and Defense Department
> wanted to have military tribunals. Lots of people were against this,
> even though the GCs specifically allow POW who are military personnel to
> be tried by military tribunals of the captor's. So, if a POW murdered a
> guard, he could be court martialed rather than tried in a civilian
> court. Seeing as these are enemy *combatants* we are talking about, it
> makes sense that a military tribunal handle that. It also then makes
> sense that a military tribunal be the body which determines the status.
>
>
>> P.S. While a pretty strong case can be made that al-Qaeda fighters do
>> not qualify as POWs, it's not so clear-cut with Taliban forces.
>>
>> And what I'd like to know, is what the US gains by not giving them at
>> least common article III protections?
>>
> Nothing. I am in agreement that GC protections should be accorded.
..define "accorded", or tell me why you argue against the full 4 Geneva
Conventions.
..we agree they are not, and I believe I and the Conventions are
brilliantly clear they should be.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: