We AREN'T treating Iraqi POWs the way ours have been treated. That's a true, simple and very straight-forward statement that everyone would probably believe.
While it might be true, that doesn't mean we're living up to the Geneva Convention standards.
Once again... is hooding prisoners and letting them be with their children against the Geneva Conventions?
Is it "wrong"?
I read most of the Convention regarding POW and I didn't see anything about it.
The hood is certainly more a protection of the prisonner than a punishment. Imagine that this people have surrender, perhaps some people of the BAATH party wish to make some retaliation against his family ? or it's simply an application of the geneva convention : no picture of a prisonner.
Sorry but i don't see what's wrong with this picture.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to seperate what the iraqis are doing and what we are doing into two different threads. That way we won´t confuse post like the above with what Tonton thought was your argument in his last post.
PD: Okay. If he had the hood put on just when the photo was taken then I´ll agree with you. But do you really think so? And if so, do you think its a good idea to have photographers roamin areas where the PoW are being held? IF he is a PoW at all.
PD: Okay. If he had the hood put on just when the photo was taken then I´ll agree with you. But do you really think so? And if so, do you think its a good idea to have photographers roamin areas where the PoW are being held? IF he is a PoW at all.
Good point, but it's why we must cautious with pictures out of context, they can have different meanings.
PD: Okay. If he had the hood put on just when the photo was taken then I´ll agree with you. But do you really think so? And if so, do you think its a good idea to have photographers roamin areas where the PoW are being held? IF he is a PoW at all.
Well it's obvious he's a POW, I don't think all that razor wire is there for his amusement.
Keep the reporters out and you're Big Brother. Let the reporters in and you're violating the Geneva Conventions (no backing needed, just take it for granted).
I think the hoods are on to keep their faces out of the media, nothing more. If the hoods were on to torture them why is the guy allowed the hold his kid?
Well it's obvious he's a POW, I don't think all that razor wire is there for his amusement.
Keep the reporters out and you're Big Brother. Let the reporters in and you're violating the Geneva Conventions (no backing needed, just take it for granted).
I think the hoods are on to keep their faces out of the media, nothing more. If the hoods were on to torture them why is the guy allowed the hold his kid?
What's wrong with hooding them?
Did I say keep the reporters out? No. Did I say that it was a violation of the Geneva Convention? No. I wont repeat what pscates said about reading what people write instead of guessing...
I think hooding people you have in your costidy is wrong because they can´t see what you do to them and that is considered an act of torture in itself (Don´t know about conventions but I know what people working with torture victims say). And just to spare a post from someone: "Are you saying we put hoods on our prisoners and then hit them?" No. But do the iraqi soldiers know that?
Him holding his kid was actually the thing that put doubt in my mind that he is a PoW. More likely he is one of those suspisious persons that are held until it is determined if he IS a soldier, legitime or not, or just a normal civilian. Can anyone see if he looks well fead?
I think hooding people you have in your costidy is wrong because they can´t see what you do to them and that is considered an act of torture in itself (Don´t know about conventions but I know what people working with torture victims say). And just to spare a post from someone: "Are you saying we put hoods on our prisoners and then hit them?" No. But do the iraqi soldiers know that?
Don't you think they'll *feel* whatever is done to them?
Don't you think they can fear being harmed even with full lines of vision?
You're really reaching for some anti-American spew here, reaching very far.
Quote:
Him holding his kid was actually the thing that put doubt in my mind that he is a PoW. More likely he is one of those suspisious persons that are held until it is determined if he IS a soldier, legitime or not, or just a normal civilian. Can anyone see if he looks well fead?
Either way I have a tough time believing we're the bastards we're made out to be.
There's nothing wrong with hooding them, 'rat. They should thank their lucky stars that they aren't being brutalized by our "mean, thuggish military". We're bullies, of course. As some genius here pointed out last week, we might not be fighting fair. We might actually be out to win and keep as many of our guys from getting killed as possible.
The shame! How dare we?
They're getting off easy, considering. I admire the restraint of our military. They're better people than I, that's for sure.
Do you know why I get pissed around here by some of you (the usual crew...you know who you are at this point)? Because, time and time again, I only see you rise up and get all indignant ONLY when the U.S. steps in it or fouls up. I check the forums frequently and I simply don't recall much outrage or anger by The AI Brain Trust over images of our soldiers paraded arounded and the very likely idea that they all were tortured and brutalized before being executed. The best some of you can do is fling out some lame "yeah, but..." crap about how "we did this" and "but we did that".
Ooo...courageous and thought-provoking!
But if our guys put a black hood on someone? Holy shit...you'd think we just chopped his arm off with a rusty paring knife and broadcast it on PayPerView.
Get a grip, then follow it immediately with getting a clue.
You know, as soon as a few of you simply cop to the fact that "whatever the U.S. does is wrong, no ifs, ands or buts...but whatever anyone else does is cool and hunky-dory...and - dare I say - noble and courageous", I'll be able to respect you a bit more. I won't necessarily like or understand you any more (we're not expecting miracles here, folks), but I'll at least be able to put some of your nonsense and skewed worldview into some sort of proper perspective/framework and can more quickly disregard/ignore it or give it the inattention it truly deserves.
Don't you think they'll *feel* whatever is done to them?
Don't you think they can fear being harmed even with full lines of vision?
To hood people is "to do something to them" Or do you need to undergo physical pain to be tortured according to you? The difference is without a hood you know what is about to happen to you and you can take precautions, whatever small they are, and prepare for it. And no its not something I make up for the occation. I follow the rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims, well known and respected ww for their expertise, and have read and listened to a lot of their materials and speeches by their chairman and they say hooding people is a form of torture. Our government is funding those the center and they also entered the war with you so its not some wacko left winged centre
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You're really reaching for some anti-American spew here, reaching very far.
Could we just stop those insinuation now please? Its beginning to get very boring and it pollutes a good discussion. I think pscates made a very good point about reading too much into what people post.
Look. I don´t disagree with the fact that the iraqis are treating their PoW a billion times worse. BUT I am not talking to iraqis right now. I´m talking to US and GB citizents AND danes. And we have a responsibility for what WE are doing.
Did I write that? Didn´t I just say that I think this is someone who is contained for a short periode of time until it have been decided if he is a PoW or not?
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat Do you think we have the desire to torture these guys? [/B]
Torture is not defined by your intentions but from what you do. And just to be on the safe side I´ll quote myself (if what you meant by the above sentence is in the line of my hypothetical counterargument):
Quote:
And just to spare a post from someone: "Are you saying we put hoods on our prisoners and then hit them?" No. But do the iraqi soldiers know that?
Didn´t I just say that I think this is someone who is contained for a short periode of time until it have been decided if he is a PoW or not?
If you're saying we should be responsible for what we do I'm asking for clarification by asking if you think this is something we do. If you don't like to answer questions then don't involve yourself in discussion.
What does it matter what they think? They can think they are going to be attacked without a hood one, you're making no sense.
You're asking for condemnation of something that doesn't exist. I don't get what you're saying about taking responsibility on this. You're making an idiotic implication by saying that.
I think this endless harping about the Geneva Convention being violated by the press is misguided--I think it is clear that by allowing the press to take pictures of POWs as they are surrendering or being transported that the US is attempting to allow the world to accurately see how they are being treated.
If we did NOT allow that, as some people in the thread seem to wish, I cannot imagine the anger and accusations that would fly at the US military.
I still don't know about the picture: did he hood himself? What's going on? In the lack of other data, I suspect maybe he's tired of reporters takling his picture.
If that is the case, perhaps we should have discussions with the media about THEIR responsibilities in covering POWs.
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
We AREN'T treating Iraqi POWs the way ours have been treated. That's a true, simple and very straight-forward statement that everyone would probably believe.
While it might be true, that doesn't mean we're living up to the Geneva Convention standards.
Is it "wrong"?
I read most of the Convention regarding POW and I didn't see anything about it.
Originally posted by groverat
Once again... is hooding prisoners and letting them be with their children against the Geneva Conventions?
Is it "wrong"?
I read most of the Convention regarding POW and I didn't see anything about it.
The hood is certainly more a protection of the prisonner than a punishment. Imagine that this people have surrender, perhaps some people of the BAATH party wish to make some retaliation against his family ? or it's simply an application of the geneva convention : no picture of a prisonner.
Sorry but i don't see what's wrong with this picture.
Originally posted by groverat
I'm pretty sure this is a violation.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to seperate what the iraqis are doing and what we are doing into two different threads. That way we won´t confuse post like the above with what Tonton thought was your argument in his last post.
PD: Okay. If he had the hood put on just when the photo was taken then I´ll agree with you. But do you really think so? And if so, do you think its a good idea to have photographers roamin areas where the PoW are being held? IF he is a PoW at all.
Originally posted by Anders the White
PD: Okay. If he had the hood put on just when the photo was taken then I´ll agree with you. But do you really think so? And if so, do you think its a good idea to have photographers roamin areas where the PoW are being held? IF he is a PoW at all.
Good point, but it's why we must cautious with pictures out of context, they can have different meanings.
Originally posted by Anders the White
PD: Okay. If he had the hood put on just when the photo was taken then I´ll agree with you. But do you really think so? And if so, do you think its a good idea to have photographers roamin areas where the PoW are being held? IF he is a PoW at all.
Well it's obvious he's a POW, I don't think all that razor wire is there for his amusement.
Keep the reporters out and you're Big Brother. Let the reporters in and you're violating the Geneva Conventions (no backing needed, just take it for granted).
I think the hoods are on to keep their faces out of the media, nothing more. If the hoods were on to torture them why is the guy allowed the hold his kid?
What's wrong with hooding them?
Originally posted by groverat
Well it's obvious he's a POW, I don't think all that razor wire is there for his amusement.
Keep the reporters out and you're Big Brother. Let the reporters in and you're violating the Geneva Conventions (no backing needed, just take it for granted).
I think the hoods are on to keep their faces out of the media, nothing more. If the hoods were on to torture them why is the guy allowed the hold his kid?
What's wrong with hooding them?
Did I say keep the reporters out? No. Did I say that it was a violation of the Geneva Convention? No. I wont repeat what pscates said about reading what people write instead of guessing...
I think hooding people you have in your costidy is wrong because they can´t see what you do to them and that is considered an act of torture in itself (Don´t know about conventions but I know what people working with torture victims say). And just to spare a post from someone: "Are you saying we put hoods on our prisoners and then hit them?" No. But do the iraqi soldiers know that?
Him holding his kid was actually the thing that put doubt in my mind that he is a PoW. More likely he is one of those suspisious persons that are held until it is determined if he IS a soldier, legitime or not, or just a normal civilian. Can anyone see if he looks well fead?
Originally posted by Anders the White
I think hooding people you have in your costidy is wrong because they can´t see what you do to them and that is considered an act of torture in itself (Don´t know about conventions but I know what people working with torture victims say). And just to spare a post from someone: "Are you saying we put hoods on our prisoners and then hit them?" No. But do the iraqi soldiers know that?
Don't you think they'll *feel* whatever is done to them?
Don't you think they can fear being harmed even with full lines of vision?
You're really reaching for some anti-American spew here, reaching very far.
Him holding his kid was actually the thing that put doubt in my mind that he is a PoW. More likely he is one of those suspisious persons that are held until it is determined if he IS a soldier, legitime or not, or just a normal civilian. Can anyone see if he looks well fead?
Either way I have a tough time believing we're the bastards we're made out to be.
The shame! How dare we?
They're getting off easy, considering. I admire the restraint of our military. They're better people than I, that's for sure.
Do you know why I get pissed around here by some of you (the usual crew...you know who you are at this point)? Because, time and time again, I only see you rise up and get all indignant ONLY when the U.S. steps in it or fouls up. I check the forums frequently and I simply don't recall much outrage or anger by The AI Brain Trust over images of our soldiers paraded arounded and the very likely idea that they all were tortured and brutalized before being executed. The best some of you can do is fling out some lame "yeah, but..." crap about how "we did this" and "but we did that".
Ooo...courageous and thought-provoking!
But if our guys put a black hood on someone? Holy shit...you'd think we just chopped his arm off with a rusty paring knife and broadcast it on PayPerView.
Get a grip, then follow it immediately with getting a clue.
You know, as soon as a few of you simply cop to the fact that "whatever the U.S. does is wrong, no ifs, ands or buts...but whatever anyone else does is cool and hunky-dory...and - dare I say - noble and courageous", I'll be able to respect you a bit more. I won't necessarily like or understand you any more (we're not expecting miracles here, folks), but I'll at least be able to put some of your nonsense and skewed worldview into some sort of proper perspective/framework and can more quickly disregard/ignore it or give it the inattention it truly deserves.
Originally posted by groverat
Don't you think they'll *feel* whatever is done to them?
Don't you think they can fear being harmed even with full lines of vision?
To hood people is "to do something to them" Or do you need to undergo physical pain to be tortured according to you? The difference is without a hood you know what is about to happen to you and you can take precautions, whatever small they are, and prepare for it. And no its not something I make up for the occation. I follow the rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims, well known and respected ww for their expertise, and have read and listened to a lot of their materials and speeches by their chairman and they say hooding people is a form of torture. Our government is funding those the center and they also entered the war with you so its not some wacko left winged centre
Originally posted by groverat
You're really reaching for some anti-American spew here, reaching very far.
Could we just stop those insinuation now please? Its beginning to get very boring and it pollutes a good discussion. I think pscates made a very good point about reading too much into what people post.
Do you think we have the desire to torture these guys?
Look. I don´t disagree with the fact that the iraqis are treating their PoW a billion times worse. BUT I am not talking to iraqis right now. I´m talking to US and GB citizents AND danes. And we have a responsibility for what WE are doing.
Originally posted by groverat
Do you think we keep them hooded 24/7?
Did I write that? Didn´t I just say that I think this is someone who is contained for a short periode of time until it have been decided if he is a PoW or not?
Originally posted by groverat Do you think we have the desire to torture these guys? [/B]
Torture is not defined by your intentions but from what you do. And just to be on the safe side I´ll quote myself (if what you meant by the above sentence is in the line of my hypothetical counterargument):
And just to spare a post from someone: "Are you saying we put hoods on our prisoners and then hit them?" No. But do the iraqi soldiers know that?
Originally posted by pscates
...time and time again, I only see you rise up and get all indignant ONLY when the U.S. steps in it or fouls up.
Thanks for admitting that he U.S. fouls up. That's more than a lot of people can do around here.
Did I write that?
It's a question.
Didn´t I just say that I think this is someone who is contained for a short periode of time until it have been decided if he is a PoW or not?
If you're saying we should be responsible for what we do I'm asking for clarification by asking if you think this is something we do. If you don't like to answer questions then don't involve yourself in discussion.
What does it matter what they think? They can think they are going to be attacked without a hood one, you're making no sense.
You're asking for condemnation of something that doesn't exist. I don't get what you're saying about taking responsibility on this. You're making an idiotic implication by saying that.
It is, in fact, more than *you* do.
If we did NOT allow that, as some people in the thread seem to wish, I cannot imagine the anger and accusations that would fly at the US military.
I still don't know about the picture: did he hood himself? What's going on? In the lack of other data, I suspect maybe he's tired of reporters takling his picture.
If that is the case, perhaps we should have discussions with the media about THEIR responsibilities in covering POWs.
Originally posted by mrmister
It is, in fact, more than *you* do.
Thanks for the chuckle.