Skip to main content

View Diary: The End of Outrage (210 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm no lawyer (none)
    but doesn't a country have to hold hearings to prove that the detainee is a criminal, and not a combatant? There has to be a demonstration that the person held isn't covered, a requirement that Bush and his Grand Inquistor have circumvented by claiming that the President can make such determinations by fiat.

    Even if they prove that the person isn't a combatant, that person would still be covered under the International Declaration of Human Rights, and should not be subjected to torture or extended detention without legal proceedings.

    Posts like yours make me queasy, and come awful close to justifying Gonzales' position.

    ""All things entail rising and falling timing. You must be able to discern this." - Miyamoto Musashi

    by Madman in the marketplace on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 11:20:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Neither am I... (none)
      But from my reading of the Geneva Convention, no, they don't.

      The problem here is that the people being held were not members of their country's armed forces. They are not wearing "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance", nor were they "carrying arms openly" or "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war".

      As for the supposed "torture", even the ICRC could not actually claim that they were being tortured. They could only claim that the actions were "tantamount to torture". I'm sorry, but psycological pursuasion is not torture. Hanging someone by their thumbs, electrifying their genitals, etc, is. If anything like that were going on, then yes, prosecute the perpetrators. But for psycological pressure? No.

      Oh, and as for the "International Declaration of Human Rights", it's a joke. Even the UN won't abide by it. If they did, then they would have stopped the genocide in the Sudan, they would have verified the destruction of all WMD and WMD-related material as they were supposed to do per their own resolutions.

      Posts like yours make me queasy, and come awful close to justifying Gonzales' position.

      Be queasy all you want. Puke all over your keyboard if you wish. In my post, I specifically stated "NOTE: I'm not saying that the actions committed were moral in any way, but they were certainly not in violation of the Geneva Convention.".

      I didn't want to get into a discussion of what you (or anyone else here) thinks is right or wrong. I simply pointed out that the premise in the original diary was wrong. And it is.

      •  Well you are wrong (none)
        as the US had now conceded the Geneva Convention applies to enemy combatants.  You seem to be arguing to yourself.

        Finally, you fail to consider that the US must have a basis for the detention.  Do you know what this one is?  I do, "enemy combatant" in the conflict in Iraq - sounds more like the Geneva Convention applies no?

        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

        by Armando on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:13:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  no torture? (none)
        Really? No fucking kidding?  Glad you told us who we were talking to.

        I'm thinkin', I'm thinkin'

        by Armando on Sat Dec 11, 2004 at 12:14:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Rules (none)
        Frank "Greg" Ford, formerly Sgt. Frank "Greg" Ford, a counterintelligence agent in the California National Guard's 223rd Military Intelligence (M.I.) Battalion stationed in Samarra, Iraq,
        --He went on, "There were also rules and regulations to follow. Some of the rules applied only in peacetime, some only in time of war. Some always applied. You knew which was which. These simple, basic rules were pounded into your head from the day you got off the bus at basic training. You broke the rules, you paid the price. Period. Everyone knew that simple fact, and everyone accepted it."

        But Ford said those rules were savagely broken in Samarra in June 2003. He described multiple incidents of what he called "war crimes" and "torture" of Iraqi detainees ranging in age from about 15 to 35. According to Ford, his teammates, three counterintelligence agents like himself -- one of them a woman -- systematically and repeatedly abused several Iraqi male detainees over a two-to three-week time period. Ford describes incidents of asphyxiation, mock executions, arms being pulled out of sockets, and lit cigarettes forced into detainee's ears while they were blindfolded and bound. These atrocities took place in an Iraqi police station, Ford said. His attempts to stop the abuse were met with either indifference or threats by his team leader, who was himself one of the abusers, according to Ford. --

        no further comment

        http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/08/coverup/index1.html

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site