[Ford Prefect]

I think anyone who believes in the progress of human achievement, traditionally a strong aspect of the American cultural mentality, ought to be disturbed by this apparent failure at overcoming our animalistic rage.

[Rictor]

The point is Tin Can that most of the punishment being done is not against terrorists, its against ordinary citizens. I can't comment on this specific case (and neither can you, we simply don't know one way or another) but in every instance, from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to Fallujah, innocents are bearing the brunt of it.

The proportion of insurgents killed/captured is tiny compared to the number of civies either rotting in prison or six feet under.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Rictor
The point is Tin Can that most of the punishment being done is not against terrorists, its against ordinary citizens. I can't comment on this specific case (and neither can you, we simply don't know one way or another) but in every instance, from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to Fallujah, innocents are bearing the brunt of it.

The proportion of insurgents killed/captured is tiny compared to the number of civies either rotting in prison or six feet under.

Can you show me?

Also, Aldo and Flipside, just because I know it happened means that I'm "turning my back on it" or "denying it happened"? Where the **** did this come from?

[Flipside]

I didn't say you pretended it didn't happen, read my post again, more slowly this time.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I've known we beat the **** out of prisoners and make pictures of our troops giving the thumbs up. Woo hoo! What else is new?

I'm highly doubtful that, if another video of a beheading came out, you would have a similar reaction as you do to this news .

[.::Tin Can::.]

And growing numb to it or closing your eyes to it because you've seen it before, won't make it go away.

I did read it Flipside. I specifically said "turning my back on it" which is basically the same thing as "closing your eyes" to the subject.

It's a metaphorical referance, pertaining to "ignoring" the subject or baseline argument being stated. Both references, "turning your back" or "closing your eyes" can be refered to, pertaining to the subject and not physical reference, be the same thing.

I did read your post.

Jetmech: I wouldn't be surprised, if thats what you mean.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.


Can you show me?

Also, Aldo and Flipside, just because I know it happened means that I'm "turning my back on it" or "denying it happened"? Where the **** did this come from?

The original article which I linked to is now registration only (if you have or can get a Financial Times password, I'll gladly show you).

However, it was only citing a widely available Red Cross report and the report of Major Anthony Taguba who was involved in investigating the abuses.

Here's another article that quotes the same report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/

GENEVA - Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday, and Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Ok Rictor, good evidence. I believe you.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.


Can you show me?

Also, Aldo and Flipside, just because I know it happened means that I'm "turning my back on it" or "denying it happened"? Where the **** did this come from?

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.


So you're indicating we dont already know? Most people on the HLP find out this stuff long before it's posted. I've known we beat the **** out of prisoners and make pictures of our troops giving the thumbs up. Woo hoo! What else is new?

I didn't say you denied it, only that you don't seem to care about it.  Y'know, casually dismissive of the situation & the problem it presents (especially in the much vaunted war 'for' hearts & minds in the Arab world).  

Albeit you do seem to justify it by the 'not as big a crime' arguement, which is about the same as justifying serial murder by the 'well, at least I'm not Stalin' arguement.

Originally posted by Rictor


The original article which I linked to is now registration only (if you have or can get a Financial Times password, I'll gladly show you).

However, it was only citing a widely available Red Cross report and the report of Major Anthony Taguba who was involved in investigating the abuses.

Here's another article that quotes the same report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/

 

This might also be of interest;
Three Misconceptions about the Laws of War

Jelena Pelic is an advisor of the ICRC's legal division, this is linked on their index page

EDIT; specifically (emphasis added by me);
Under humanitarian law no one who has been detained, including an "unlawful combatant," may in any way be subjected to acts prohibited by the Conventions such as murder, violence to life and person, torture or inhumane treatment, or outrages upon personal dignity; nor may they be denied the right to a fair trial. "Unlawful combatants" are in this sense fully protected by humanitarian law. It is simply misleading to suggest that they have minimal or no rights. One of the purposes of the laws of war is to protect the life, health and dignity of all persons affected by armed conflict. It is inconceivable that calling someone an "unlawful combatant" should suffice to deprive him or her of rights guaranteed to every individual.  

[vyper]

[q]Thanks. I love you too.[/q]
The point I was making was how hypocritical the attitude of most Israelis/Jews is over this. You condem terrorism by the Palestinians who have as much historical right as you to be there, yet your own nation was founded on terrorist actions against the very people who helped save your kind from a genocidal mad man.
Yes, that sounds rational.

[q]This, however, stops here and now. General bad-mouthing a people-group is one thing, but I will NOT tolerate personal insults of this nature against anyone, for any reason.

We're here for a COMPUTER GAME first and foremost, FFS, and the fact that we allow these threads is nothing but grace. Learn to debate in a civilised manner or you won't be allowed to debate at all.[/q]

Well that's nice for you Sandwich but I don't take kindly to someone telling me I can't have an opinion on your countrymen's actions because of my age. The point may not have been conveyed very politely but it still stands: Just because he doesn't like what I'm saying doesn't give him the right to dismiss the history.

If we were to go by Fr3z3r's way of thinking, your generation has no claim to the "Holy Land" nor do the Palestinians have any over the occupied territory. Like it now?

Haven't we recently established you started out as Christian or something anyway?

[Bobboau]

does anyonw know were a copy of the geneva convention might be found?

[vyper]

Give it five years, we'll be saying this about the European Rapid Reaction Force by then.

Go figure.

[Rictor]

full text here
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL!OpenView

and "reference guide" (might be quicker if you're looking for something specific)
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[Janos]

Some pretty important stuff regarding the Genevan Convetions, taken directly from Rictor's link:

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.)

A declaration of war is not required in order for the Geneva Conventions to apply.

Individual or mass deportations from an occupied territory are prohibited regardless of motive. If evacuation is required, civilians may be moved within an occupied territory or outside if absolutely necessary, but must then be returned home as soon as hostilities in the area have ceased. (Convention IV, Art. 47)

The Geneva Conventions cannot be used to justify the intervention, direct or indirect, in the internal affairs of a country. (Protocol II, Art. 3)

Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)

Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

This is pretty important, because of this. Check it out.

[Tiara]

It's basically a "You do it, that means we can do it too!" stance that these troops have taken against Iraqi prisoners. They are no better then the Iraqi fighters and terrorists themselves IMO.

[Rictor]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/05/returning_fallujans_will_face_clampdown/

Welcome to the new and liberated Fallujah! Among the any improvements are:

Police-state like measures (remember when someone else made an entire population wear badges to identify themselves? Yeah, that ended really well.)

Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.

Cars are banned, eh? Awesome.

Forced labour.

One idea that has stirred debate among Marine officers would require all men to work, for pay, in military-style battalions. Depending on their skills, they would be assigned jobs in construction, waterworks, or rubble-clearing platoons.

And of course, the Iraqis are the ones coming up with all this. Of course.

"It's the Iraqi interim government that's coming up with all these ideas," Major General Richard Natonski, who commanded the Fallujah assault and oversees its reconstruction, said of the plans for identity badges and work brigades.

Bellon asserted that previous attempts to win trust from Iraqis suspicious of US intentions had telegraphed weakness by asking, " 'What are your needs? What are your emotional needs?' All this Oprah [stuff]," he said. "They want to figure out who the dominant tribe is and say, 'I'm with you.' We need to be the benevolent, dominant tribe.

So that was the problem all along, the US was being too soft. Its so obvious now.

[Zarax]

Just wait until the iraquis will "express their will" of "being part of the US"...

[aldo_14]

Even if this works, and that's a colosally huge gigantic if, isn't it just going to stretch the US troops further and further across the country?  I mean, what happens if there are insurgents taking over Mosul, Tikrit or parts of Baghdad?

[Zarax]

Now that he has 4 years ahead Bush can easily recall the mandatory levy in the US...

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Even if this works, and that's a colosally huge gigantic if, isn't it just going to stretch the US troops further and further across the country?  I mean, what happens if there are insurgents taking over Mosul, Tikrit or parts of Baghdad?

With something like this, I'm hoping it doesn't work, cause, well, its a fricking plan for a police state.