American Hypocrites?

Alizarin

WHAT! Now stop me if ive got this wrong are the US/forces shooting civilians refugees, are the US surrendering and then shooting @ their captors? Or are they all walking out of uniforms so they can use the locals are shields. Or how about delirately mortaring Basra to put down the recent revolt. Maybe ive got this wrong or maybe u should check yur facts.

ok.. saddam's bullies are clearly going outside the lines. that does NOT give us the right to do the same sorts of things. the point of this thread is that, while we, the US, point fingers at the iraqis for how they aren't following the conventions of war with regard to POW's, we sit with hundreds in cuba being "questioned" for a year or more... in other words, we expect iraq to follow certain rules but we, ourselves, because we mean right, are exempt. as for the surrendering, according to the US that's not a war crime because we never ratified that convention (proffered a good while ago). neither have the iraqis.

i keep hitting on a idea given in several movies/books/etc...

US: "I am king.. I make the laws. I am above the law."
teacher: "NO ONE is above the law.. ESPECIALLY the king!"

bonkey

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
There are guide lines that TV stations can show POW’s but that they should not be interviewed or interrogated on TV like “ did u bring flowers or bullets to my country etc.” Iraqi TV interviewer (from memory) or show footage of POW’s been humiliated. IMO all western TV stations have not show Iraqi POW’s in close in 1 to 1 interviews or silent ‘mugshot’ coverage. They have clearly not been shown in exactly the same way.

IN a local paper over here on Friday, there was a shot of a UK marine standing over an Iraqi prisoner, kneeling down, hands in the air, gun pointed at the back of his head.

Closer examination shows that the soldier is smiling at the camera - not even looking at the prisoner. Some closer examination again reveals that he is not wearing any head-gear, no webbing, nothing. He is in basic (clean) fatigues, with an assault rifle.

it has every indication of being a "staged" shot - the marine is clearly not concerned, not being particularly cautious in his stance...not even concerned enough to keep an eye on the person he has his gun trained on - which is a basic feature of anyone's gun-safety training.

If it is a staged shot, is it in violation of the Geneva Conventions? The point is that I dont believe either side is following the GC when it comes to media exposure. Yes, the western version is (for us) somewhat more palatable, but thats not really the point.

If this is the only type of breach of GC conventions for POWs that the Iraqis are up to, then its a storm in a teacup because the West knows that when it comes to media it will draw the line as blurrily as it wants to itself.

If it is not the only type of breach...and we have no evidence on way or the other...then its hardly worthy of such significant amounts of coverage.

The original TV station who releases the footage would have broken the Geneva Convention and would be liable for any criminal prosecutions at a later date.

You cannot be in breach of a Convention which you did not sign. There isnt a single media entity who is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.

illegal war? Who’s declared it illegal? Don’t u mean it hasn’t got full UN backing.
Or can u provide details of a court of law that’s declared it illegal

Read the UN charter. Here's some of the relvant bits.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

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 inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Now, the US is a signatory of this charter. They therefore have agreed that they will not use force on other member nations, will not intervene in internal matters of other states, etc. etc. etc. You know - intervention like deciding "your government is not to our liking, so we think we should depose it for you".

The only cases where it is acceptable to set aside the conditions of the charter is where the UN decides to act on an issue...which is expressly what has not happened here, remember?

jc

Éomer of Rohan

And in that beautiful little post we see just how hypocritical the US and her 'allies' are. I love it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Yup - thats the one. Sorry for bringing it into another thread...I hadnt spotted that someone had already been discussing it.

jc

Hmmm, a soldier being over zealous , perhaps, it happens.
I'm sure law of averages, some of the British Army have to be looney.
When I hear, UK Government ministers( unlike their Iraqi counterparts ) saying it is ok to do this, then I'll get worried about the Geneva convention.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
When I hear, UK Government ministers( unlike their Iraqi counterparts ) saying it is ok to do this, then I'll get worried about the Geneva convention.
mm

I would have said that when I see a government condemning a single incident from the opposition, I would expect them to come out strongly and enforce the same standards amongst their own.

This may indeed have been a single incident by a loony. The military leadership and government in question should still treat it as what it may be, and ensure that if it is potentially a breach, that the person or group responsible is suitably investigated and punished if necessary.

Also, given the public outrage they expressed at the Iraqi's, one would imagine that doing so and being seen to do so would be a major PR coup for them in the issue of treating POWs, and in presenting their image of a humanitarian war.

Or do their own soldier's merit some sort of immunity because they're the good guys, and we wouldnt the good guy's losing morale for something as trivial as this?

jc

Originally posted by daveirl
But Rumsfeld and Ari Fliescher say that it is OK to treat the Afghan prisoniers the way they do. Since the British don't complain about it, I'll take that as an acceptance of it.

Thats because they take the view that Al Queda are terrorists ie ordinary criminals,not representing a country and therefore, not prisoners of war.

It's kind of similar to say Mrs Thatcher not granting political status to IRA prisoners.
mm

Originally posted by bonkey
I Also, given the public outrage they expressed at the Iraqi's, one would imagine that doing so and being seen to do so would be a major PR coup for them in the issue of treating POWs, and in presenting their image of a humanitarian war.

Or do their own soldier's merit some sort of immunity because they're the good guys, and we wouldnt the good guy's losing morale for something as trivial as this?

jc

I agree,they should learn from this mistake, but keeping a tight reign on your army, person by person isn't easy.
Perhaps, the next move, would be a parliamentary question to Mr Hoon , asking whether, the soldier in question was reprimanded.
mm

Corben Dallas

Now, the US is a signatory of this charter. They therefore have agreed that they will not use force on other member nations, will not intervene in internal matters of other states, etc. etc. etc. You know - intervention like deciding "your government is not to our liking, so we think we should depose it for you".

>>>Bonkey

so still no details of court of law thats made a declaration that the war is illegal? nice quotes from the UN charter as well, but the UN have'nt come out and said that they think the war is illegal have they???????????

the Guantanamo prisoners should be given a fair trial as terrorists, they're being held because theyre suspected Al Queda members- An illegal terrorist organisation.

An illegal terrorist organisation.

Three questions: Is there such a thing as a legal terrorist Organisation? (seems a contradition in terms)

Who determines if an organisation is a terrorist, or freedom group?

Also, who determines if an organisation is illegal?

Originally posted by klaz
Three questions: Is there such a thing as a legal terrorist Organisation? (seems a contradition in terms)

Who determines if an organisation is a terrorist, or freedom group?

Also, who determines if an organisation is illegal?

Klas, lets not get into a semantics battle.
I read Corbens post differently,ie I read it as saying an illegal organisation which is terrorist, much like the status of the IRA.

Generally speaking, murder and mahem( terrorising ) by a group who are not the army of a country would be accepted as terrorism.
The noun derived from the verb would probably be terrorist.
Most countries in the world would describe Al Queda as terrorists.
If of course a country or government helps, a group in another country to cause mahem and violence, then the country thats helping them may describe them as freedom fighters.
But that doesn't mean it's so.
mm

Man, in regards to the "Illegal Terrorist Organisation", i just found it a very funny comment.

Most countries in the world would describe Al Queda as terrorists.

I agree, i see them as terrorists. Howver, many here, view the palestinans as being freedom fighters, despite their targeting civilians, and children. Its because this topic is so comnplicated that i was wondering who decides if a group is terrorist, or a freedom group. Were the partisans from WW2, terrorists, because they killed German troops? I dunno.

Are the CIA a terrorist group, since they've in the past supplied equipment, and training to small groups rebelling against legel governments? Its because of the term terrorism is used so widely these days. The US are describing the majority of Iraqi resistance as being terrorist tactics, that i find myself wondering, who determines if a group, is classed as being terrorist...

Originally posted by klaz
I agree, i see them as terrorists. Howver, many here, view the palestinans as being freedom fighters, despite their targeting civilians, and children. Its because this topic is so comnplicated that i was wondering who decides if a group is terrorist, or a freedom group. Were the partisans from WW2, terrorists, because they killed German troops? I dunno.

I would see the Pallestinians as a nation, they already have self rule of sorts.
Bus bombers who come from there are terrorists as they do not act on the orders of a government.
The partisans status, in my view fall more into the "freedom- fighter" description as countries were at war with Germany essentially to free France amongst others from the Nazis.

Are the CIA a terrorist group, since they've in the past supplied equipment, and training to small groups rebelling against legel governments? Its because of the term terrorism is used so widely these days. The US are describing the majority of Iraqi resistance as being terrorist tactics, that i find myself wondering, who determines if a group, is classed as being terrorist...

The CIA are an agency of the U.S government and are therefore doing it's bidding.
They may well aid "free dom Fighters " in doing that, but as i said in my last post, that doesn't necessarily make them so.
mm