Usa Remembers Geneva Convention
Immacolata
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">al Jazeera launches english site</div> <!--QuoteBegin--al Jazeera+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (al Jazeera)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US remembers Geneva Convention</b>
Are US prisoners of war more equal than the Iraqi prisoners in the custody of US-led forces?
The answer seems to be yes, given the contrasting reactions to images of US prisoners of war captured yesterday.
Just a day earlier, pictures of surrendering Iraqi soldiers being forced to kneel down and being body-searched by US-troops stirred few emotions in the Western world.
But it all changed dramatically the moment Al Jazeera television broadcast on Monday images of five American troops in Iraq’s custody.
“Anyone found ill-treating American prisoners of war would be dealt with as war criminals,” insisted US President George W Bush told newsmen.
British Prime Minister, Tony Blair was more caustic and explained that “the televised parade of the US prisoners of war was yet another instance of excesses committed by Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.”
Western leaders haven’t stopped spitting fire since then. In between criticising Iraq and condemning Al Jazeera, they have suddenly begun to recite ad verbatim the rights and privileges of prisoners of wars in the Geneva Convention.
“Its illegal to do things to the prisoners of war that are humiliating to the prisoners. It is against the Geneva Convention,” said US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
A US marine arrests an Iraqi soldier, dressed in civilian clothes on the road north of the town of Basra March 24
For the first couple of days of the conflict, western television broadcasts have been replete with images of humiliated and humbled Iraqi prisoners.
Some images had the Iraqi soldiers on their knees while they were frisked by US Marines. In others, they were lined up with their hands tied to their backs. Some of the Iraqi prisoners were also seen to be shivering, possibly in shock and fear.
But neither the US administration nor the western media found anything objectionable in the images, at least not until it was the turn of the captured US prisoners to be shown.
Surely, the double-standards were inexplicable and Michael Kik, the Al Jazeera representative in France wondered aloud on Monday as to “why Al Jazeera alone was being put on trial?”
Appearing before the head of the Higher Audiovisual Council(CSA), France’s broadcast watchdog, during the day, Kik argued : “for 10 years pictures of Palestinian prisoners have been shown all over the world, and in the Gulf everyone has been watching images of Iraqi prisoners kneeling in humiliation.”
Significantly, several US-based television channels have now broadcast —if not in whole, at least in parts — Al Jazeera’s visuals on the US prisoners. NBC broadcast a brief excerpt of the tape while CNN and Fox News have been showing still frames from it. CBS News broadcast a longer excerpt.
But none earned any rebuke either from the US administration or the Pentagon, as did Al Jazeera last night when a top US general, in the course of a live press conference, derided the channel for broadcasting “disgusting” visuals.
Analysts say that the US has always applied double-standards in dealing with human rights and the contrasting reactions weren’t really surprising.
However hostile, the west’s hostile reaction is not free of contradictions.
British soldiers from the Household Cavalry Regiment stop suspected Iraqi soldiers
There is nothing wrong with Article 13 of the Geneva Convention that the world adopted in 1950 for enshrining rights and privileges of a captured prisoner in war. “Prisoners of war must at all time be humanely treated…..POWs must at all time be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insult and public curiosity,” it stated.
The problem is that the US is seeking to take refuge under provisions of the United Nations when the war they are waging does not have UN approval.
There is more to US double-standards.
The US is holding 625 suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathisers in Guantanomo Bay in Cuba where there designation as "unlawful comabatants" has stripped them of even the most basic human rights including the right of habeus corpus.
An application filed by Human Rights groups before the US federal court seeking an end to the arbitrary detention was again thrown out two weeks ago because the “detainees held outside US territory were beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.”
Robbed of any legal recourse, the Guantanomo detainees have been chained, manacled, hooded and forcibly shaved.
On each score, the US has erred. Forcible hooding, even temporarily, is violation of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Reality. Forced shaving of beards is in contravention to the 1966 Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
The continuing ill-treatment of the Guantanomo Bay detainees bodes ill for the future of all prisoners of war. “The violations there will undermine the ability of the US government to ensure adequate treatment as and when US citizens are captured or held,” said Michael Byers of the International Law at Duke University, North Carolina.
Al Jazeera<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the implicit and expressed allegiance of al Jazeera is obvious, but their article raises a valid point: is it fair to show iraqi POWs frisk searched and marching away to the POW camps in defeat, or keeping hundreds of former taliban soldiers in indefinite custody, and then cry bloody Geneva Convention when the other side of the war start doing the same?
Well, it smacks bad in my mouth. I think there must be many who ask themselves wherein the justification is to keep the guantanamo prisoners. Certainly not in any international POW laws. That merely blemishes the current case, and I think the USA propagande machine would have looked slightly better if they had them selves dutifully upheld the geneva convention. So are we on the way of making the geneva convention into a rhetorical tool that we draw out when it's convenient - or has it always been like that? Somehow I doubt the majority of POW's of the last 50 years have been treated as the treaty would like us to. I agree with Michael Byers, last in the article, that what is being done now will damage US soldiers taken POW in the future. Have they not thought of that?
Are US prisoners of war more equal than the Iraqi prisoners in the custody of US-led forces?
The answer seems to be yes, given the contrasting reactions to images of US prisoners of war captured yesterday.
Just a day earlier, pictures of surrendering Iraqi soldiers being forced to kneel down and being body-searched by US-troops stirred few emotions in the Western world.
But it all changed dramatically the moment Al Jazeera television broadcast on Monday images of five American troops in Iraq’s custody.
“Anyone found ill-treating American prisoners of war would be dealt with as war criminals,” insisted US President George W Bush told newsmen.
British Prime Minister, Tony Blair was more caustic and explained that “the televised parade of the US prisoners of war was yet another instance of excesses committed by Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.”
Western leaders haven’t stopped spitting fire since then. In between criticising Iraq and condemning Al Jazeera, they have suddenly begun to recite ad verbatim the rights and privileges of prisoners of wars in the Geneva Convention.
“Its illegal to do things to the prisoners of war that are humiliating to the prisoners. It is against the Geneva Convention,” said US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
A US marine arrests an Iraqi soldier, dressed in civilian clothes on the road north of the town of Basra March 24
For the first couple of days of the conflict, western television broadcasts have been replete with images of humiliated and humbled Iraqi prisoners.
Some images had the Iraqi soldiers on their knees while they were frisked by US Marines. In others, they were lined up with their hands tied to their backs. Some of the Iraqi prisoners were also seen to be shivering, possibly in shock and fear.
But neither the US administration nor the western media found anything objectionable in the images, at least not until it was the turn of the captured US prisoners to be shown.
Surely, the double-standards were inexplicable and Michael Kik, the Al Jazeera representative in France wondered aloud on Monday as to “why Al Jazeera alone was being put on trial?”
Appearing before the head of the Higher Audiovisual Council(CSA), France’s broadcast watchdog, during the day, Kik argued : “for 10 years pictures of Palestinian prisoners have been shown all over the world, and in the Gulf everyone has been watching images of Iraqi prisoners kneeling in humiliation.”
Significantly, several US-based television channels have now broadcast —if not in whole, at least in parts — Al Jazeera’s visuals on the US prisoners. NBC broadcast a brief excerpt of the tape while CNN and Fox News have been showing still frames from it. CBS News broadcast a longer excerpt.
But none earned any rebuke either from the US administration or the Pentagon, as did Al Jazeera last night when a top US general, in the course of a live press conference, derided the channel for broadcasting “disgusting” visuals.
Analysts say that the US has always applied double-standards in dealing with human rights and the contrasting reactions weren’t really surprising.
However hostile, the west’s hostile reaction is not free of contradictions.
British soldiers from the Household Cavalry Regiment stop suspected Iraqi soldiers
There is nothing wrong with Article 13 of the Geneva Convention that the world adopted in 1950 for enshrining rights and privileges of a captured prisoner in war. “Prisoners of war must at all time be humanely treated…..POWs must at all time be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insult and public curiosity,” it stated.
The problem is that the US is seeking to take refuge under provisions of the United Nations when the war they are waging does not have UN approval.
There is more to US double-standards.
The US is holding 625 suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda sympathisers in Guantanomo Bay in Cuba where there designation as "unlawful comabatants" has stripped them of even the most basic human rights including the right of habeus corpus.
An application filed by Human Rights groups before the US federal court seeking an end to the arbitrary detention was again thrown out two weeks ago because the “detainees held outside US territory were beyond the jurisdiction of US courts.”
Robbed of any legal recourse, the Guantanomo detainees have been chained, manacled, hooded and forcibly shaved.
On each score, the US has erred. Forcible hooding, even temporarily, is violation of the 1984 Convention against Torture and Reality. Forced shaving of beards is in contravention to the 1966 Convention of Civil and Political Rights.
The continuing ill-treatment of the Guantanomo Bay detainees bodes ill for the future of all prisoners of war. “The violations there will undermine the ability of the US government to ensure adequate treatment as and when US citizens are captured or held,” said Michael Byers of the International Law at Duke University, North Carolina.
Al Jazeera<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now the implicit and expressed allegiance of al Jazeera is obvious, but their article raises a valid point: is it fair to show iraqi POWs frisk searched and marching away to the POW camps in defeat, or keeping hundreds of former taliban soldiers in indefinite custody, and then cry bloody Geneva Convention when the other side of the war start doing the same?
Well, it smacks bad in my mouth. I think there must be many who ask themselves wherein the justification is to keep the guantanamo prisoners. Certainly not in any international POW laws. That merely blemishes the current case, and I think the USA propagande machine would have looked slightly better if they had them selves dutifully upheld the geneva convention. So are we on the way of making the geneva convention into a rhetorical tool that we draw out when it's convenient - or has it always been like that? Somehow I doubt the majority of POW's of the last 50 years have been treated as the treaty would like us to. I agree with Michael Byers, last in the article, that what is being done now will damage US soldiers taken POW in the future. Have they not thought of that?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Im really waiting for MonSes answer on this(mainly because he usually manages to make USA look like a little angel, want to see how he pulls this out <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). 5? bet he is going to give us a lecture on other world countries harassing prisoners and USA being the nicest of them all.
Problem is, it's making the USA government look bad, but the actual pain will be felt by the soldiers. I think this is hurting support and bolstering animosity towards the war even more. Score 1 to the Iraqis on propaganda front. No one clearly expected them to behave better, and USA on the moral crusade ... sorry, war, crusade and Middle EAst is a naughty word, should take a more large approach. So this merely dispell the illusions: It's a war. Grimy dirty bloody war and there's no more beating about the Bush.
Bottom line, I think Jesus said it best. I don't care wether you beleive the bible or not, it's a good verse:
Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
In short, Fix Guatanmo Bay, and then we'll talk about allowing the US to enforce the Geneva Convention. In the meantime, I think the marines are doing a great job keeping POW's from not drawing weapons and fireing on them, and if it were my son or father out there, that's all I'd ask of them.
Double standard or not, you mess with our men and women and you're ****.
Whereas Dread will grasp at any and every piece of Anti-American propaganda and treat it like gospel. The US is always guilty until proven innocent, and if a news report is anti-US, that means that it's <i>just gotta</i> be true. Yes, yes-- we know.
Incidentally, whatever happened to those chemical weapons you were positive the US was bringing to the front, though you never managed to produce a halfway decent source ('oh . . I heard about it. And I can't remember where. But it's true')? And the news articles where, suspicious as you are of Western media, you took the word of <i>Iraq's foreign minister</i> at face value on the topic of civilian casualties? The examples go on and on, for anyone willing to plow through some of these old threads.
At any rate, there is a double standard here, but KFS does bring up a good point-- the western media is fairly intrusive in this war, so there <i>is</i> a difference between them scoring video of surrenders as they happen, and the Iraqi <i>government</i> bringing a film crew around to 'interview' the prisoners. Not to mention the prisoners who were possible executed (we'll only know the truth if we can secrure the release of the others, which is doubtful).
Does anyone remember the interviews of the American prisoners from the first Gulf War? Aside from being routinely tortured, they were forced to read Anti-American propaganda to the camera. I recall one pilot who mangled his own face (since this was one part of the body that they wouldn't harm, for this very reason) in order to cast doubt on his 'confession'.
And the point about intrusive media, partially true. They show what happens, iraqi soldiers surrendering. there is a degree of difference between that and interview of scared looking POWs.
However, I think still that the public demand of Bush that iraqis treate pows according to the geneva conventions is striking a wrong chord with many of the opponents already. Those who believe the whole Guantanamo affair is a blunt attempt to circumvent said Geneva Convention. And that is now going to hit US soldiers in the face.
It's propaganda so far, by both sides, but US has a bad hand in crying Geneva Convention, when it doesnt want to follow it when it doesn't suit it's plans. Now not a lot of verbal opposition will matter at this point, but in future conflicts it might. And if the offense bogs down into a month or more long war, there might be some unforeseen international repercussions that will be stronger because of the Geneva Convention hipocrisy, which I view it as right now.
This whole thing is similar to the manner in which we treat international criminals-- internally, we make sure the world knows that we don't subscribe to torturous methods of interrogation-- because we simply ship prisoners off to countries that have no such laws to obtain the information we need.
As is usually the case, we try to take the high road and the low road at the same time.
Whereas Dread will grasp at any and every piece of Anti-American propaganda and treat it like gospel. The US is always guilty until proven innocent, and if a news report is anti-US, that means that it's <i>just gotta</i> be true. Yes, yes-- we know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This anti-US-bashing stance you're taking is starting to get as fanatic as my 'all governments suck' opinion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not to hijack this thread anymore, but my stance is a little more complicated than that-- closer to yours, actually. Look-- It's fine to bash the US. <b>I</b> bash the US. But if you're going to do it, get it right, and be even-handed about it-- none of this holier-than-thou crap. Hold the US to the same standards as you do other nations.
Why is it acceptable to have a knee-jerk 'LIES!' reaction to anything the US gov't says or does, but then present a statement by an Iraqi <i>official</i> about unconfirmed civilian casualties as <b>proof</b> that coalition forces are <i>intentionally</i> targeting civilians? (See Dread's posts over at the Iraq war post)-- and then imply that <i>Ned</i> is being ignorant?
What I'm trying to get across is that <b>all</b> media is propaganda, and regardless of the source, you always have to ask yourself two things--
1) 'Sure, they're telling me this, but what are they <i>leaving out</i>?'
2) 'What is the agenda here-- what do they <i>gain</i> by presenting this particular assemblage of facts to me?'
How can people accuse the US of double standards, but then judge the US using similar tactics?
God, that pisses me off. The anti-war protests that went on around here a couple weeks ago were using statistics quoted from Iraqi officials as well, and had a similar attitude about our military and government reports. Absolutely ridiculous.
Interesting that "Iraqi official" says nothing about using civilians as human shields and dressing soldiers in civilian clothes, which has been purportedly happening.
Now, I don't expect that every detail we're getting is 100% accurate, but that doesn't seem all that outlandish a suggestion. After all, it's a logical progression of events that, if you move civilians to a military site which is then struck by the US military and these civilians are killed, the US clearly intentionally targeted that site, and therefore clearly intentionally targeted civilians. Anyway. I'm sorry to take this even further off-topic, but that's my biggest pet peeve about this whole "media is evil" thing - it's the US media that's always lying, and the enemy media that's always telling the full truth. Like they don't have their own agenda, too...
Maybe that's because the US wouldn't be silly enough to invite CNN along to an execution? Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (Note to conspiracy theorists - it doesn't mean it necessarily does, either <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> )
There's an interesting article by a columnist in today's Guardian (<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,921411,00.html' target='_blank'>"One rule for them"</a>), about the topic of this thread. He then goes on to talk about US special forces' participation in the Northern Alliance's mass-murder of PoWs in Afghanistan. Nothing proven yet, but investigations are in progress.
Just to add my 3 cents, one the reason the US is so up in arms is that the Al-Jazeera tapes also show prisoners being slapped and hit when they are put on television - light torture basically. This is the footage that you can't see on US re-broadcast footage. I challenge you to find any such tapes of US troops behaving that way. They are also being singled out for specific interview as a person in these tapes - the footage that Jazeera describes as analogous is not some iraqi being interviewed by US government-run TV, it's a line of a hundred iraqi's being marched around, captured by some random foreign journalists cameras from a distance.
So basically, the comparison is not quite exact. Not that this will stop Dread's personal digs on me, as I apparently hurt his lil feelings earlier...
(I am NOT endorsing this point of view, as I have not researched it, I just think it shows some of the questions that need to be answered, and how complex those questions are.)
<a href='http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm</a>
Also, it should be known that the "Geneva Convention" was not a singular event. There have been FOUR of them, and I think each succeeding convention sometimes makes changes to the preceding one. It is helpful to consider which "Geneva Convention" one is talking about, and what kinds of people it applies to.
The "Geneva Conventions" are not necessarily blanket rules that apply to how every country treats every human being. Countries or entities that don't sign into it are not protected by it. Additionally, persons that don't meet certain criteria are not protected by it- in general, the farther you are from being connected to a signatory of the conventions, the less likely it is that you meet one of the criteria. If you have your own pirate island in the middle of the Atlantic, talk to no one, wear only your underwear, and sail into New York, guns blazing, for reasons of your own, you are not considered part of any rules of any game and are completely on your own. Since SOME terrorist organizations operate in a similar fashion, while some are more connected to nation states, it gets complicated.
The U.S. MIGHT be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, but the issue is sufficiently complicated that you can't simply look at what they're doing to detainees and come to your conclusion. It is necessary to first learn WHO is protected by the conventions, and then begin the process of determining whether all or any of the detainees meet that standard. The only thing that is clear from a distance is that SOME of them clearly have no protection at all from anything, while others MIGHT.
Red Cross overview:
<a href='http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm#geneva' target='_blank'>http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm#geneva</a>
Ridiculous amount of information here, tricky navigation. Full text of conventions if you look in the right place:
<a href='http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList74/77EA1BDEE20B4CCDC1256B6600595596' target='_blank'>http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/i...1256B6600595596</a>
EDIT: A more blunt way to put it would be to say that the Geneva Conventions are more like a "rules of etiquette" standard for the good ol' boy club of established nations with soldiers who march and wear uniforms. It also has some scattered protections for wild cards like aid workers, and militias. People who don't wear uniforms or have a receptionist who takes calls at the organization headquarters at best can hope to fall into a gray area, and pass for one of the wildcards, like a miliita. Otherwise, they're just trespassing on the golf course and can be shot.
It seems naive to expect governments to do what people want in the absence of law. Despite the routine breaking of its own laws, the law is the only reliable language that any government speaks when communicating with the public. Speaking to the government outside of a context of law is generally ineffective. The government is not a person- it does not "feel." It is composed of thousands of individuals who all critique each other and look over each other's shoulders in accordance with "the law." With the exception of a few key players at the top, no individual has enough power to override the rest. Unless people expect to make either Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld "care", (they DON'T), it seems fruitless to expend effort on anything other than changing the law(s).
Do we show video of Iraqi POWs shot in the head, NO. What is this bs about us filming Iraqi POWs we have a few bloody shots of them walking away with their hands on thier heads, and some interviews, which were done WITH their permission. None of this crap about "maybe they do kill Iraqi POWs just not near cameras"
If you even think for a second that this is true, YOU should be killed, people who say things like that don't deserve to pass on their DNA.
<img src='http://www.msnbc.com/c/0/145/361/10x7/030325_war_08.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
a good website i just found <a href='http://www.warblogging.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.warblogging.com/</a>
As for demonstrating where Iraq is falling under the terms of the geneva convention as laid out; there are cut-and-paste quotes from the Red Cross webpage at <a href='http://www.icrc.org' target='_blank'>http://www.icrc.org:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Section II
Rules relating to the conduct of combatants
For example, it is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and methods and materials of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury, particularly those which are intended to cause, <b>or can be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oil fires? Oil spills in the gulf 20 times the size of the exxon accident?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Neither may the presence of civilian persons be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.[P. I, 51; IV, 28]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human shields?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to receive, 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dressing as civilians and attacking troops, while scattered among real cilivians? Raising a false surrender flag?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The enemy who is hors de combat, or who has surrendered, or who shows his intention to surrender, or who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress, shall not be made the object of attack<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Beating up prisoners captured after ejecting from aircraft, or executing maintenance workers captured in their vehicles ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, the same article adds that no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to obtain from them information of any kind whatever<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ditto?
Now... show me where the coalition does these things, and how they are in anyway comparable.
Beating up prisoners captured after ejecting from aircraft, or executing maintenance workers captured in their vehicles ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or emptying your clips into the river where you think said parachutist is hiding? LOL, as one general said, "Their search and rescue techniques leave a lot to be desired." I've done similar things, WHICH ARE IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE LAWS SET FORTH BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, but the fish were not signatories to the Geneva Convention.
My cynical nature leads me to believe there's a little fudging on the American side, but come on, the Iraqis are practically having a food fight in front of the teachers...
UN chapter 1 Article 2
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; and, All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner consistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Besides, what is it with this 'human shield' rhetoric? Sorry to remind you, but there are usually some civilians in cities. Not that the US will stop bombing it, though...
Or maybe Saddam just imprisoned 5 Million civilians in an army-camp and then claimed it to be a so-called "Baghdad". First he raped them of course and ate some children for dinner (Kurds were the dessert).
Or maybe Saddam just imprisoned 5 Million civilians in an army-camp and then claimed it to be a so-called "Baghdad". First he raped them of course and ate some children for dinner (Kurds were the dessert). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clarification: His son Udai does the raping.
The tone in which this was written comes across to me as if people are always exaggerating when they report widescale atrocities and sadistic inflicting of pain. I agree that judgement should be withheld until there is evidence, but in the case of Saddam, you have a LOT of people with interesting stories to tell.
Don't dismiss stories of ghoulish activity outright. A little trip to places like the archives of stileproject.com or other morbid libraries will quickly yield a harvest of video evidence of the rotten things people do to each other. Beheadings, slitting throats and watching them die, shooting fingers off of hostages to show family they mean business, all there in full color to watch and absorb.
Saddam is a bad dude- perhaps one of the last of the old-time dictators with balls hung down to his knees. Say what you will about Bush, but Bush is more like a business man, who only kills for business, and never does it himself. Saddam has, how shall we say, plenty of "hands-on training." It's not a joke, or a figure of speech.
a good website i just found <a href='http://www.warblogging.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.warblogging.com/</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
wow, that web site isn't based, it looks like saddam himself wrote this stuff, if you wanna belive what this says "go ahead I won't stop you" but Im gonna take CNN's FOX's MSNBC's word over this garbage
And I love your compassion about dismissing intentional atrocities on civilians by the Iraqi government. Should I bring in some people here that claim the Holocaust never happened so you can agree with them too, just because you weren't there? Because those guys would be your pals.
But apparently, it's still cool to crack jokes about the Kurds Saddam has murdered.
So let me get this straight-- if the US kills the civilians, you play Mr. Suave, elitist, tsk-tsk, shame-the-nation hero. If the Iraqi government murders them, you play Carrot Top. That sound about right?
Edit: Yes, Nem, <i>I know</i> I'm still on that kick. You're looking for peace; I'm looking for parity. Though, I'll agree that peace would be pretty cool, too.
USA+UK only have their current level of support because they dress up their war as a humane act. If I'm not mistaken Rumsfeld, old cynic that he is, actually used the words "act of humanity" to describe the war yesterday. That means the USA must measure up not only to legal but also to <i>moral</i> standards. And they fail. They're no better than any other nation conquering territory for their own purposes.
Guantanamo proves that, because the people there receive no kinder treatment than any other country would grant its mortal enemies while cameras are watching.
The USA care about the USA, not humanity, that's the sad lesson of the war.
That said, many prisoners of war would be very thankful if their captors would treat them as the USA can afford to treat their "unlawful combatants". Usually POWs just disappear. That's why those 5 Americans who were paraded on Iraqi TV should be thankful too, as that severly lessens their chance of never being heard of again.