An interesting article on POW abuse in IraqFollow

This conversation prompted me to go look at the geneva convention rules. The third geneva convention, the one on POW's, is the only one I looked at. What particularly interested me was Article 4, which gives the definition of a POW as it applies to the convention. The earlier comment of "the convention doesn't apply, they are not in uniform" wasn't exactly accurate, but not totally off the mark either.

What is interesting, is that if I am reading it right, the Geneva Convention -does- apply (according to last paragraph in article two) to Iraq, but the prisoners that we have there are not POW's by the conventions definitions?

If they are in fact POW's, the abuse is quite illegal, "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated ... Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

Have I missed something?

As the world's only SuperPower, isn't Uncle Sam entitled to bathe in the inhumane sunset of his fading ability to do what the fu[i][/i]ck he likes while the illusion of impunity is still apparent?

I mean, with just a few short years before USA is bought out by Beijing, shouldn't you get your despotic swansong by revisiting the time-honoured US tradition of treating brown people like roaches?

Just wondered is all.

They are Humans. The Geneva Convention does not apply since they are not POW but they are still Humans and protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human rights is a different document.
It was Adopted and proclaimed by the U.N General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

I think most of you are freaking morons, especially those of you who try to be talk smart by repeating all the BS John Stewart, Al Franken, and the rest of the Hollywood psychos who you get all of your ideas from, and can't even spell "whether". I was in the Marine Corps for 6 years, and I am now in the Army. I am an infantryman, and have seen combat in Colombia, Iraq, and a couple other places I can't disclose yet. I have dealt with "detainees" many times, and while I am securing, moving, or interrogating them, I am very firm and can "motivate" insurgents to talk about the locations of his "IED's" or where his buddies are hiding at so they wont kill my buddies or innocent iraqis. I have no qualms about backhanding a terrorist who just had a hand in killing 19 innocent Shiites because he didn't like thier support of the new government. Do I agree with going there? I went because I was told to, and if I am given an unlawful order I have a right to question that order. I am not a ******* killing robot. The worse thing I have seen as far as us killing innocent Iraqis is when we had to call an airstrike on a residence when those combatants holed up inside and were firing indiscriminately at us and civilians on the road with AK's and RPG's. I would say some innocents were killed in that attack but it could have been much worse. My commanders had to make a split second descision that saved lives. I don't necessarily always agree with the President, but I do know that I believe in my government to do the right thing as it pertains to me and my country. Thats where I split from you guys, I believe we should look out for us first and everyone else second. Sorry, thats life deal with it. I don't condone "POW" abuse, but that is an exception not the rule. (by the way, you should see what the Iraqi military does with insurgents when they catch them, not pretty). So if you haven't been there, you can voice your "opinion" all you want, but the United States is not this great evil entity that the left would have you believe. If you don't like it, move to France.

Wee-ooh wee-ooh!!!

................ ___@@@__
..... _____//____�_____\______
... o------- [/white]Troll POLICE --------@)
`-----(@)=======+===(@)----`

"I was in the military" trolling is sooooo last week.

No, that guy is real and you can all ask any of the Admins. He probably found the thread doing a search on "Antimilitary" or something like that. People do use searchs to get to your private forums (It is actually posted in a few FFXI websites on how to beat the Alla system)
You all haven't been exposed to too many military people and the few military spouses you do have in your elite are new to being part of the military. None of them(those who serve) seem to have a great appreciation for people that think the way you do(those who *****) and i am sure the feeling is mutual.
It is easier to blame this on a sock/bot/troll then to accept their opinion as being more widely accepted than you would like.


You can easily just ask any of your favored Admins to do an ISP check ; too much reality for you slackers.
Bravo Fox.



The library is 3 miles from my house, running I could probably make it there in 25 minutes...yeah buttmunch THATS logical.
Fox other than finding game tips this Forum in particular really doesn't give any good information. You probably hear enough wives ******** about useless **** that they could fix if they got off their fatasses,spoiled brats getting pissed off at the world because mumsy & daddy turned off their ATM card or people your tax dollars are supporting because they are too damned lazy to work.

Bohdi

Edited, Mon Oct 17 02:50:55 2005 by niobia

Ahhh Niobia you ****, you must be unaware of the difference between a sock and a troll.

But what can you expect of a rate botter.

(probably just niobia posting from a library or a friends house :P)

No I actually came here because I play Wow and this an awesome resource site. I just happened across this thread while searching the forums.

And Lefein takes the ever so obvious bait.

So let me get this straight. He described the interrogation methods being used and was told by the JAG that they were not in violation of Geneva Convention rules. Shouldn't that end the issue?



Except that they did give him a clear answer. They told him that the techniques being used were legal. There are a whole range of "appropriate" responses for a NCO in that situation, and running off to the press because his laymans understanding of what is or is not legal doesn't match that of the JAG is *not* one of them.


I've been saying this all along. What we're seeing is the that public perception/belief of what is and isn't torture is not the same as the legal definition of those things. Some people will look at someone being held in a hot cell and call that torture. Some wont, and the law wont either (as long as the conditions aren't harmful to the health of the prisoner). But via the power of the press, they can find the one guy who incorrectly labels something torture and put it in print. And then others will read that and think "Well. This guy was there and he's calling it torture, so it must be...".


This guy is not an expert on law. He was told by experts that the interrogation techniques were not torture. He decides that their judgement apparently is wrong, but his is right and runs off to the press. Look. I'm all for oversite, but this isn't really the way to do it.

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them"
----------------------------------------------------------

"even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them."

that would be us.

this tretie we signed in good faith does now, and always has applied to Iraq. the Whitehouse knoes it does too. that is why all the effort to redefine captives in Iraq, and to define what exactly constitutes torture.

the Whitehouse looking for a legal loophole to disreguard the tretie we signed in good faith.

what appals me most is the way a large chunk of americans willingly accept this country walking away from international treties, this one, kayoto, and our nuclear arms tretie with russia, based solely on the words of one man representing one addministraition.

americans willing to let this country walk away from integrity and honor for the sole purpose of justifying what one addministraition wants to accomplish in complete disreguard to every thing this country was founded upon.

we deserve what we get. if we are going to act like a pack of jackels, we deserve to be treated like a pack of jackels.

we committed war crimes. we committed crimes against humanity. we broke international laws and our own laws governing torture. we invaded a defenseless country and butchered over 100,000 men women and children for.....a political agenda.

and a large chunk of this country thinks that is ok.

god bless america? why would he? and who in hell would let us lead them anywhere?

welcome to the moral majority.

Pack of Jackals? or as you put it "packe of jackels" yeah, the second we got to Iraq, all they did was give us ammo, and told us to butcher as many people as possible. Wow, you sure nailed me to a wall, we are nothing but barbarians. There are specific rules of engagement we abide by, we don't slaughter innocents, however the insurgents know this and use it to thier advantage. Like I said before they love to blend in to crowds and hide behind women, old men, and children while they are shooting at us. Yeah its us that are the "jackels." Take a spelling class.