Donald Rumsfeld, War Criminal
Well, 'fraid so.
Going apeshit that the Iraqis are in contravention of the Geneva Convention, beating PoWs and displaying them on TV (against Article 13 of the Convention), and quite rightly, he should consider the PoWs from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay.
641 men are held there.
Here are the Articles of the Geneva Convention Rumsfeld has no objection to violating:
13: They were shown on TV (in goggles or with hoods on their heads, forced to kneel, being wheeled around on trolleys)
17: "No coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them any information of any kind whatever." (Sleep deprivation, exposure to bright light, prevention from lying down. Two have been beaten to death.)
18: Stripped of their clothes, denied their possessions
22: Interned in a penitentiary
26: Denied proper mess facilities
28: Canteens
34: Religious premises
38: Opportunities for physical exercise
41: Access to the text of the convention
70 / 71: Freedom to write to their families
72: Parcels of books and food.
My favourite:
118: They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of hostilties."
Rumsfeld says that they are not PoWs but "illegal combatants," which is a term invented by the US military without any kind of status under international law. This contravenes Artice 4 of the third Convention, "under which people detained as suspected members of a militia must be regarded as prisoners of war."
How can Rumsfeld object on moral grounds, and have the sauce to call on international law, when his forces behave like this?
Going apeshit that the Iraqis are in contravention of the Geneva Convention, beating PoWs and displaying them on TV (against Article 13 of the Convention), and quite rightly, he should consider the PoWs from Afghanistan in Guantanamo Bay.
641 men are held there.
Here are the Articles of the Geneva Convention Rumsfeld has no objection to violating:
13: They were shown on TV (in goggles or with hoods on their heads, forced to kneel, being wheeled around on trolleys)
17: "No coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them any information of any kind whatever." (Sleep deprivation, exposure to bright light, prevention from lying down. Two have been beaten to death.)
18: Stripped of their clothes, denied their possessions
22: Interned in a penitentiary
26: Denied proper mess facilities
28: Canteens
34: Religious premises
38: Opportunities for physical exercise
41: Access to the text of the convention
70 / 71: Freedom to write to their families
72: Parcels of books and food.
My favourite:
118: They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of hostilties."
Rumsfeld says that they are not PoWs but "illegal combatants," which is a term invented by the US military without any kind of status under international law. This contravenes Artice 4 of the third Convention, "under which people detained as suspected members of a militia must be regarded as prisoners of war."
How can Rumsfeld object on moral grounds, and have the sauce to call on international law, when his forces behave like this?
Comments
The war against terrorism ( i dont speak about the Iraqi war, because for me there is no direct link with it) is not finished and still continue (for example ten french engineers died after a terrorist attack last years in Pakistan, after the end of the Afhghani war).
The combattants of the terrorism network are not regular soldiers. And if my memory is good , spies are not protected by the geneva convention. There is a juridic hole for the status of these terrorist. I don't think they desearve to be tortured, or to be beaten to death, but i don't think that the geneva convention perfectly suit their situation either.
However even we follow the geneva convention , US do not have the obligation to freed them, because the hostilities still continue outside Afhghanistan. I fear that this war will continue for several years. We cannot free this people now, i don't want to give them a chance to make anothers terrorist acts.
The international community have to find a new status for them, who respect the human rights and allow the protection of people.
If they weren't, and are suspected of being members of a militia - Al'Qaeda - they should be treated as PoWs under the Geneva convention.
If they aren't considered as members of a militia then they should, under international law, be tried to determine their status. America refuses to do this 'because they're in an off-shore military base.'
Anyway, REGARDLESS of the American army's flouting of international law, it is treating its prisoners in an inhumane way. Whether they're PoWs or not, the US has lost the moral high ground.
And by the way: THEY HAVE TELEVISIONS IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES. They have computer graphics on the weather reports and everything. You reap what you damn well sow.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Powerdoc, they were government forces fighting for their government, the Taleban.
Actually. The Taliban goverment was not recognized by the UN I beleive, and most nations in the world(except for maybe Pakistan). The Taliban are not from Afghanistan, most of from Pakistan(and a few other countries). This is the difference. They were not a 'legal' army or goverment by the rest of the worlds standards.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
And by the way: THEY HAVE TELEVISIONS IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES. They have computer graphics on the weather reports and everything. You reap what you damn well sow.
Hassan , what does it have to do with my post ? Did i claim somewhere that Muslim do not watch TV nor have any computer ?
And for the lack of humanity, i am against it, no matter if they are soldier, criminal or terrorist. A democratia should never lower her-self at the level of those she is supposed to fight.
Originally posted by The General
Actually. The Taliban goverment was not recognized by the UN I beleive, and most nations in the world(except for maybe Pakistan). The Taliban are not from Afghanistan, most of from Pakistan(and a few other countries). This is the difference. They were not a 'legal' army or goverment by the rest of the worlds standards.
Which is why Hassan writes:
"Rumsfeld says that they are not PoWs but "illegal combatants," which is a term invented by the US military without any kind of status under international law. This contravenes Artice 4 of the third Convention, "under which people detained as suspected members of a militia must be regarded as prisoners of war."
The US has violated the Geneva convention.
Powerdoc: your argument is very dangerous. When they gave us all those right in our seperate constitutions they didn´t think some could go and become terrorists. Does that mean that it should be possible to take them from us?
That is what (International) law, constitutions and the like mean: The replacement of anarchy with rules. Perhaps not rules that last forever but at least last until they are changed.
The other day I killed the neighbours downstairs. I did it because they were muslims and I had heard in the tv that someone had ordered them to kill all westerners. It was not until later I found out that not all muslims do what they are told by various religious leaders. But my TV had told me otherwise. I don´t think I should be punished for murder because when murder became illegal here in Denmark the TV hadn´t been invented.
Powerdoc is correct...they are NOT protected by the convention. They are NOT members of a "real" army. And whatever bullshit you hear...what evidence of torture do you have? None. Zero. You have rumor and heresay. That's all. These people rape and beat women and are the perpretrators of horrendus, unspeakable other acts upon their brethern.
And pardon me, but WHAT THE FVCK ARE YOU THINKING? How about we worry about the three thousand Americans that were needlessly slaughtered by people that were supported BY the people we are holding?
I'm so sick of your anti-American bullshit. You post so much of it that you discredit yourself. And please, go ahead...worry about the TERRORISTS instead of the innocent Americans, Germans, French, British and 30 other nationalities that lost their lives at the hands of these pigs.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Hassan , what does it have to do with my post ? Did i claim somewhere that Muslim do not watch TV nor have any computer ?
And for the lack of humanity, i am against it, no matter if they are soldier, criminal or terrorist. A democratia should never lower her-self at the level of those she is supposed to fight.
I love you even more than Groverat. That's my first point.
Secondly, and sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that the people we are fighting, and the people who want to kill us by putting bombs in public places or blowing up aeroplanes, see what we're doing to them. Want to fight against radical Islam under a banner of fair-mindedness, liberty and righteousness? Way to go.
Originally posted by Anders the White
Might is right apparently.
Powerdoc: your argument is very dangerous. When they gave us all those right in our seperate constitutions they didn´t think some could go and become terrorists. Does that mean that it should be possible to take them from us?
That is what (International) law, constitutions and the like mean: The replacement of anarchy with rules. Perhaps not rules that last forever but at least last until they are changed.
The other day I killed the neighbours downstairs. I did it because they were muslims and I had heard in the tv that someone had ordered them to kill all westerners. It was not until later I found out that not all muslims do what they are told by various religious leaders. But my TV had told me otherwise. I don´t think I should be punished for murder because when murder became illegal here in Denmark the TV hadn´t been invented.
A convention is not a constitution. The constitution apply to all. A convention is a contract between two or more entity, who agreed to act in a certain manner. The geneva convention apply to war, and for example do not apply for spy, or to any conventionnal criminal. As someone said the Talibans where never recocnize by the UN, so they are not considered as regular soldiers.
If the mafia take control of a gov, will you consider that the geneva convention apply to them ? : certainly not.
As i said before, it's not an excuse to torture these people or to kill them. A new status has to been find. But i can't consider that the war against terrorism is over, and that we must release them. The taliban have to paid for their crimes, they must be sued under the proper juridiction. This juridiction have to been built or found.
Of course i agree that these people should not been keep in secret forever, but i think that the name of war criminal is exagerate. War criminal is a very strong word, and even if i am not a big fan of Rumsfeld, i think that this denomination is exagerate. Saying that Rumsfeld have not the highest moral value in the word is something, saying that he is a war criminal is something else. I can buy the first, but not the second one.
I don't believe that I made the point that the behaviour of the American army justifies the Iaqi violations of the Geneva Convention or the actions of Islamic terrorists. My point is that Donald Rumsfeld, and the American army, has no leg to stand on, morally speaking, and no handy recourse to international law when its own men and women are mistreated.
But your defence of the torture and mistreatment of your government's prisoners of war is passionate, I'll grant you that.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I love you even more than Groverat. That's my first point.
Secondly, and sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that the people we are fighting, and the people who want to kill us by putting bombs in public places or blowing up aeroplanes, see what we're doing to them. Want to fight against radical Islam under a banner of fair-mindedness, liberty and righteousness? Way to go.
I love you too Hassan.
I understand now what you meant : we must show the example.
I just say that the name war criminal is too much. War criminal apply for very, very bad guy who had commited very, very bad things like Milosevich .
My point was not to say that the management of these talibans where perfect : it's difficult and new solutions must be found. Actually the Bush admin do not nothing to try to solve the problem. After the war, she will have to try to resolve this problem, and to decide to the future of these people. The statu-quo situation of these people should not last forever.
My anger at this thread stems from its ridiculous title. Donald Rumsfeld is not a war criminal. To even suggest such a thing discredits any and all future opinions of the poster on that topic. Saddam Hussein....now THERE'S a war criminal!
Powerdoc:
The taliban have to paid for their crimes, they must be sued under the proper juridiction. This juridiction have to been built or found.
Sued? Perhaps we have a language barrier here? I want to give you the opportunity to use a different word before I fly off the handle. I hope you don't mean "prosecuted in a court of law". I would seriously disagree with that. The proper jursidiction? How about a Military Tribunal.
Anyway. According to international law they are prisoners of war or else they should be tried to determine their status.
Sorry if you find this inconvenient.
I'm facing the Mother of All Deadlines right now and simply don't have the time to Google up evidence, as much as I'd like to. (I need an AO research assistant.) Rest assured that two of them have beaten to death and the rest are undergoing 'torture lite'. If I find the time I'll post some up. I only have time to be witty, rude, and anti-American.
And it becomes very dangerous when they very convenient fall in between all definitions. They are not criminals, not PoW and not anything else that have been made treaties or even national laws about. So, by luck, the administration is able to make up a new category, illegal combetants, and apply all the rights they want and deny them all the rights they want.
I´m not as worried by the fact that they aren´t regarded as PoW as I am deeply scared that you can be defined into a status so a state can do whatever to you what they want. The power that the one who defines has is the greatest in the world.
"Rumsfeld says that they are not PoWs but "illegal combatants," which is a term invented by the US military without any kind of status under international law. This contravenes Artice 4 of the third Convention, "under which people detained as suspected members of a militia must be regarded as prisoners of war."
The US has violated the Geneva convention.
until then?