Our treatment of prisoners-of-war, and our double standards. Is this how we demonstrate our civilised behavior, our belief in the rule of law, our moral superiority? -- The Philadelphia Talk Radio Politics and Opinion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:53:38 03/25/03 Tue
Author: Chris Henry
Author Host/IP: cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa / 212.138.47.29
Subject: Our treatment of prisoners-of-war, and our double standards. Is this how we demonstrate our civilised behavior, our belief in the rule of law, our moral superiority?

George Monbiot
Tuesday March 25, 2003
The Guardian

Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".
He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.
This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.
His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).
They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.
The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.
Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light.
You would hesitate to describe these prisoners as lucky, unless you knew what had happened to some of the other men captured by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. On November 21 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander, General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Many of them have never been seen again.
As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27. The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead.
The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared."
Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites".
It should not be necessary to point out that hospitality of this kind also contravenes the third Geneva convention, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", as well as extra-judicial execution. Donald Rumsfeld's department, assisted by a pliant media, has done all it can to suppress Jamie Doran's film, while General Dostum has begun to assassinate his witnesses.
It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Chris, I will answer one point to begin with for that article is a bit long. This article claims that war with Iraq is illegal. That is patently false! This war IS legal. The Gulf War did not end. There was a cease fire agreements signed by Saddam Hussein and his cronies which included disarmament of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Since that time Saddam has violated 17 UN Resolutions including resolution 1441. This is legal and right but you and many others in the world have your heads in the sand. -- William, 16:16:27 03/25/03 Tue (cache-rf05.proxy.aol.com/152.163.188.165)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Only marginally longer than some of your replies! -- Chris Henry, 23:53:23 03/25/03 Tue (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> It would have been a legal war if the vote had been put in the UN. It wasn't because only 4 countries indicated their willingness to vote "Yes" (That's right, not just France, also Russia, China etc.). So the US and Britain didn't put it to a vote. If a second vote wasn't needed, why table it , and make all those attempts to drum up support? -- Chris Henry, 23:58:48 03/25/03 Tue (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Chris, you are distorting the facts ... again! The UN Security Council vote was 15 - 0 passing resolution 1441 which Saddam then violated. The French promised to veto any other resolutions, sight unseen, which Blair and the UK and Bush and the US brought forth. The bottom line is, they, the UN, dropped the ball. The US, UK, AU, Polland, Spain, and others, and now the approximately 47 countries who support this war, got off their asses and took action, something the UN did not do for more than 12 years. How's the weather in Saudi Arabia? -- William, 21:48:22 03/26/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> The weather in Saudi Arabia is fine, thanks for asking. In the 80's during the day, 60's overnight. Getting hotter now by the day as the summer approaches. We had a sandstorm yesterday, just like up north in Iraq. How's the weather where you are? -- Chris Henry, 06:00:27 03/27/03 Thu (cache7-1.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.17)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Chris, our weather has been fair. The temperature has fluctuated during the day up to about 60 or 70 once in a while over the past week or so, to the thirties or forties. During the evening and overnight the temps have gone from around 50 or so to around 40 or even dipping into the 30s. There have been sunny days with blue skies and clouds to gray days and a bit of fog. It is starting to behave like early spring and I personally expect more snow between now and the end of April with some warm sunny days here and there. -- William, 01:28:15 03/28/03 Fri (cache-dq01.proxy.aol.com/205.188.209.133)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> There are about 30,000 of us out here, the majority getting the oil out of the ground that ends up in your gas tank. There are also about 20,000, Brits, and lesser numbers of Europeans, South Africans, Aussies and Kiwis. -- Chris Henry, 06:03:40 03/27/03 Thu (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Getting back to the argement, 1441 never authorized the use of force. If it did, would you expect Syria, part of the so-called "Axis of Evil", to vote for it? If it had authorized force, there would have been no need for Bush and Blair to expend all that energy, nothing for France, Russia or China to veto. -- Chris Henry, 06:14:45 03/27/03 Thu (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> All 15 members of the UN Security Council signed on to 1441 which authorized action to be taken against Saddam Hussein if he did not cooperate and a time line was given. He did not cooperate. Again, making this action legal. Also, the US is taking steps to protect itself and its citizens as well as other countries from Saddam's regime and the dangers he does present. As a sovereign nation we do have that right and again, this does make this war legal. -- William, 16:23:46 03/25/03 Tue (cache-rf05.proxy.aol.com/152.163.188.165)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> All 15 members of the UN Security Council signed on to 1441 which authorized action to be taken against Saddam Hussein if he did not cooperate and a time line was given. He did not cooperate. Again, making this action legal. Also, the US is taking steps to protect itself and its citizens as well as other countries from Saddam's regime and the dangers he does present. As a sovereign nation we do have that right and again, this does make this war legal. -- William, 16:38:09 03/25/03 Tue (cache-rf05.proxy.aol.com/152.163.188.165)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I seem to remember this spurious sort of claim ("we must protect ourselves") being made when Russia invaded Afghanistan, India attacked Pakistan, China attacked India, Israel occupied the West Bank, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Nice bedfellows. -- Chris Henry, 00:04:02 03/26/03 Wed (cache9-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.20)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> I seem to remember this spurious sort of claim ("we must protect ourselves") being made when ....

Total BS, Chris. You invent much of your posting. China did NOT attack India and claim that it was in order to protect themselves. Nor did Japan attack Pearl Harbor in order to protect themselves and they never claimed that they did. Israel won Gaza and the West Bank after being attacked by several Arab states in a war in 1967. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in order to maintain superiority in the Pacific and their number one threat was the US fleet. -- William, 03:55:30 03/26/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Regarding the claims about the treatment of the "prisoners" from Afghanistan, these are now false as well. The prisoners are provided with comfortable living conditions, food, water, clothing, religious artifacts and religious chaplains, etc. Everything they would need to have a comfortable life. -- William, 17:14:22 03/25/03 Tue (cache-rf05.proxy.aol.com/152.163.188.165)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Legal rights? Habeas Corpus? Communications to and from their family? Prisoners on "Death Row" have more "comforts" -- Chris Henry, 00:08:30 03/26/03 Wed (cache10-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.29)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Most Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners are NOT US citizens, Chris. They are out to kill US citizens and other non-Muslim people, including Jews, Chris. The US is treating the prisoners in Guantanamo very well. They are doing far better than if they were living an a cave with little or no food, water, medicine, sunshine, etc. There is a difference. -- William, 03:49:34 03/26/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Let's give them the choice, then. Imprisonment without family contact in Guantanamo, or return to their caves. Open up the gates and let's see what happens. -- Chris Henry, 06:18:39 03/27/03 Thu (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Along with that, something you might not know yet is the fact that those prisoners in Afghanistan actually begged to be sent to Guantanamo rather than to be imprisoned in the lesser quality holding areas they experienced in Afghanistan. Regarding the claim that these are the same as soldiers that is false. These are not affiliated with a country, do not wear uniforms or bear the insignia identifying themselves or their affiliation. They are illegal combatants and they are part of a group intent on killing internationally and who have already done so. It is right and just to hold them. -- William, 17:16:25 03/25/03 Tue (cache-rf05.proxy.aol.com/152.163.188.165)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> They were part of the detritus scooped up in the aftermath of the Afghan action, most if not all relatively harmless. If there were any big-time terrorists in there we'd have had a show trial by now. We were hurt bu 9/11 and making a big display of these unfortunates was, to some, like soothing the pain. For others its an embarrassment for a country which prides itself on legal process. Go and look at the foreign press and see their reaction to Rumsfeld's comments, see how many times they mention "Guantanamo"! -- Chris Henry, 00:18:56 03/26/03 Wed (cache2-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.12)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> The article you posted, Chris, is full of distortions, half truths, and misinformation. In fact, it is definitely a slanted against the truth article to be sure. -- William, 17:18:25 03/25/03 Tue (cache-rf05.proxy.aol.com/152.163.188.165)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> I wouldn't expect you to say anything different. The truth hurts. -- Chris Henry, 00:10:47 03/26/03 Wed (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> "The truth hurts" Nice cliche, Chris. This article that you posted is rife with false information, false accusations, distortions, half truths, if any, etc. I have pointed out some of those defects to you. In other words, Chris, your message is not "the truth" and it does not hurt. -- William, 06:08:35 03/26/03 Wed (cache-mtc-ah04.proxy.aol.com/64.12.96.169)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Are you really trying to compare Taliban prisoners held in a sunny prison who get cereal, medical care, and special dietary considerations for religious purposes with the cold blooded execution of American POWs? -- Chez, 13:50:26 03/26/03 Wed (192-63-2094.unisys.com/192.63.209.4)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Chez --- as William pointed out to me, "Chris" is posting through a TLD "sa." Know what "sa" stands for? Hint: Saudi Arabia. Code broken. Propaganda exposed. Nevertheless, it is important to see these kind of reports and write rejoinders. You will probably find that "Chris" is a one-note Charlie, who only posts this sort of thing like our old Mumiacs did. Few who visit here will be convinced of anything by such tactics. Let the news media continue to expose themselves. -- SurveyGuy, 18:41:21 03/26/03 Wed (NoHost/68.81.153.53)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> I'm sorry, have I broken some sort of rule here? Are expatriates U.S citizens banned from posting here, and only residents allowed? I have never concealed where I am writing from, and it would be easy enough to go through a dummy address. So what's your problem? -- Chris Henry, 06:10:03 03/27/03 Thu (cache8-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.27)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Just pointing out our expectations. I have no problem whatsoever. By the way, most of the known "anonymizers" have been blocked here. It will be interesting to hear what you have heard. It also explains why you are unaware of some of the local broadcasts. I am glad you have chosen to revisit. Be aware that your views will often be challenged here. The only rules are at the top. No personal attacks (like calling people Nazis, etc.) on other posters. You may insult public figures (until they post here -- yeah, sure, right.) -- SurveyGuy (This is just a hobby. I lose no sleep over what anyone posts here.), 20:16:54 03/29/03 Sat (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Or is this one of those groups where everyone is supposed to agree with one another? Isn't that a bit pointless? -- Chris Henry, 06:35:47 03/27/03 Thu (cache1-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.11)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Quite the contrary my boy. Bring on your best stuff.. -- Chez, 22:37:19 03/28/03 Fri (07-102.002.popsite.net/64.24.19.102)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> P.S. Want to learn more about "Chris Henry"'s internet backbone, check this WHOIS link: http://www.zoneedit.com/whois.html?zone=212.138.47.29 -- SurveyGuy, 18:53:56 03/26/03 Wed (NoHost/68.81.153.53)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Would you like a photograph? An autobiography? My horoscope? Just ask. -- Chris Henry, 07:00:11 03/27/03 Thu (cache7-1.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.17)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> I have no problem with anything you've posted or the manner. That you are then only poster who uses an IP that handles much of the Saudi Arabia traffic is unique. -- SurveyGuy, 18:19:06 03/27/03 Thu (pcp01422563pcs.lndsd201.pa.comcast.net/68.81.153.209)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Of course not, both sides should observe the Geneva Convention, in full. So should the US in Guantanamo. -- Chris Henry, 06:23:06 03/27/03 Thu (cache2-2.ruh.isu.net.sa/212.138.47.12)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]