Prisoner Abuse.....details!

[Firethorn]

Now that was an interesting article.

"Geneva Convention prohibits" I hear that alot. Now, I understand the reasons behind the rules of war, but part of the reason to have the conventions was to avoid a sort of tit for tat. Following the conventions doesn't seem to be preventing the terrorists from doing anything, so maybe it's time to try something else?

 

[Sparks]

Following the conventions doesn't seem to be preventing the terrorists from doing anything, so maybe it's time to try something else?

Firstly, it's very clearly stated in the Conventions that the other side not adhering to the Conventions does not grant licence to you to abandon them as well. That's the only part of the Conventions written to prevent "tit for tat" actions.

Secondly, if you're willing to start torturing people, including those who you didn't catch during a firefight but who were simply pointed at by someone you don't know who said they were dodgy, and you don't see anything wrong with torturing them, then how do you expect people to tell the difference between you and Hussein, other than the fact that fewer people died per month under him according to the statistics?

 

[Luckyorwhat]

Yea, what Sparks said, you have to grant the enemy the liberties whether they wear a uniform or not.

The kick-in-the-balls is that this stuff wasn't done to the few American prisoners. If you differentiate between the two US-Iraq actions, then in round 2 great care was taken to be proper - Lynch was being treated very well, iirc. Compare that to Iraqi prisoners, who were as likely as not to even be granted the privilege of having their bullets removed.

And just to clarify - The Abu Garib and Jitmo actions led to the violent re-action. It's not a co-incidence that those beheaded were dressed in orange jump-suits.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Firstly, it is my understanding that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Gitmo detainees. (BTW, they are from Afganistan, not Iraq.) We, however, are subjecting ourselves to it because we do not stoop to their level as a matter of policy.

Secondly, anyone actually torturing has been dealt with severly. In fact, we have made a public show of severly punishing any even those who "humiliated" prisoners or terrorist detainees in an attempt to extract vital information. Would you have us just say, "Prettly please?"

 

[Sparks]

Firstly, it is my understanding that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Gitmo detainees.

That's what the current US administration says. However, since it is the current US administration that would be guilty if their coverage under geneva wasn't challanged, I'll be taking their claim with a large pinch of salt. It is, after all, like asking the burglar to define what constitutes burglary...
There is a mechanism defined in the convention for settling this, by the way, but it requires the arbitration of a third independent party. The US, being one of the two parties in conflict, cannot make the determination.

(BTW, they are from Afganistan, not Iraq.)

Not all of them, from what little we know. Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, Australia, the UK, the US...

We, however, are subjecting ourselves to it because we do not stoop to their level as a matter of policy.

There is evidence that strongly suggests that that is not the case though.

Secondly, anyone actually torturing has been dealt with severly. In fact, we have made a public show of severly punishing any even those who "humiliated" prisoners or terrorist detainees in an attempt to extract vital information.

So far we've only seen a handful of such cases. If they're the rule, excellent. If they're the exception though...
Well, lets wait and see before cheering, shall we?

Would you have us just say, "Prettly please?"

I'd rather see the detainees identified as being either military POWs or civilian suspects and the appropriate rights granted in either case, to be honest. It's more consistent that way.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Firstly, it's very clearly stated in the Conventions that the other side not adhering to the Conventions does not grant licence to you to abandon them as well. That's the only part of the Conventions written to prevent "tit for tat" actions

comparing apples and oranges here. gitmo 'detainees' are being questioned for information.
the hostages taken by 'insurgents' are not being questioned for information, they are tortured and killed simply because the 'insurgents', ahhh, forget it. cant express myself here the way i wish to.

but the point is, we take prisoners for a reason, to obtain information.
they take prisoners because they are sadistic.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Does the Geneva Convention prohibit beheadings, blowing up women and children or flying airplanes into buildings?

 

[Sparks]

but the point is, we take prisoners for a reason, to obtain information.

Quoting directly from the Geneva Convention:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Does the Geneva Convention prohibit beheadings, blowing up women and children or flying airplanes into buildings?

Yes, no and no. The second is covered by the Hague Convention instead of Geneva, and the third isn't covered by anything other than civil and criminal law.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'd rather see the detainees identified as being either military POWs or civilian suspects and the appropriate rights granted in either case, to be honest. It's more consistent that way.

And this "consistency" will give of useful information, ...how???

I'm not in favor of torture. It sould be (and has been) punished. I simply do not believe that "humiliation" is torture. It's a nice bonus that these ... folks... are so easily humiliated without having to resort to any physical abuse.

 

[Chris Rhines]

So what we have here is American soldiers taking a page from the Chekist interrogators from The Gulag Archipelago. Wonderful. Just freakin' wonderful.

But hey, support the troops, right?

- Chris

 

[jefnvk]

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

So what if we were to subject them all to 'disadventageous' conditions, and the ones that talk get better conditions?

I'm not saying torture is right. What I am saying is that I cannot take any claims of torture seriously when it involves 'standing in uncomfortable positions' or strip shows. The ones that are are beating prisoners, killin ghtem, electrocuting them, they need to be the ones investigated.

 

[Luckyorwhat]

RileyMc: "Does the Geneva Convention prohibit beheadings, blowing up women and children or flying airplanes into buildings?"

That's a fair point. Ivevitably the conversation deteriorates after this paradox is presented.

First point, the method of death is less important. I guess you could measure it by Pain/Time, but that would make beheading look pretty good, and burning look pretty bad.

Second point, war sucks, women and children will die, and the percentage of casualties in any conflict will increasingly be composed of women and children, it broke the 50% barrier during WW2, and has shown no signs of slowing down. This is why some people are so stridently against war. I don't have a deep understanding of war, and I'm thankful for that.

Third point, the airplanes and buildings action is not that different from rowing an explosive-packed boat into the USS Cole, or even a kamikaze flying their plane into the USS Saratoga. Again, we see the huge percentage of civilian casualties. This is probably because of the very nature of the attacks and their targets, but you would see a similar percentage if examining the swaths cut by Serb and Croat forces through each others' territory. It seems, just an outsider opinion, it seems like us civilians are the stakes for which the game is played. In WW2 we produced the munitions, and each side strove to knock out the other's civilian manufacturing. Currently us western civilians can influence governments and make the money to support them, so the terrorists target us. The enemy civilians serve a different purpose, they replace the dense foilage of SE Asia as the medium for concealment from air-strikes. Just a guess, but that's why I imagine civilians are always the losers.

 

[Sparks]

So what if we were to subject them all to 'disadventageous' conditions, and the ones that talk get better conditions?

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

I'm not saying torture is right. What I am saying is that I cannot take any claims of torture seriously when it involves 'standing in uncomfortable positions' or strip shows.

Stress positions are not just "uncomfortable". And while watching a pretty girl in a bikini isn't uncomfortable for you, there are many things which are similarly non-physical in nature but which would induce mental anguish for you that would count as torture.

 

[feedthehogs]

Those that don't think mental abuse or torture is as bad as physical torture need to go to a shelter for abused women and talk to them.

At least if they cut your head off, your dead.

The long term effects from mental torture can last a life time.
Its worse than being killed.

The US is no better than anyone else, although we would like to think we are because we hold ourselves in such high esteem.

Dismissing their religious belief because we cannot understand it does not make the effects of using it against them any less severe.

Why is it the majority of the world does not like us?

Because they see us not riding our high horse around.

 

[spacemanspiff]

you know what, this is just something we'll have to agree to disagree upon. i've watched the videos of Americans and others being beheaded. with dull cutting instruments no less.

thats what they do to all of US, they put it on display and the entire world outside of America still finds reasons to hate our country.

but when we make their soldiers look at scantily clad women or touch a woman, that makes us worse????

 

[Sparks]

thats what they do to all of US, they put it on display and the entire world outside of America still finds reasons to hate our country.
but when we make their soldiers look at scantily clad women or touch a woman, that makes us worse?

In the real world, two people can be guilty of two different crimes without either's actions being exonerated by those of the other.
There are also the points that Guantanamo was around and Iraq was invaded long before the kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq; and that US PoWs during the invasion were given far better treatment than detainees, as shown by Lynch's treatment.

 

[R.H. Lee]

and that US PoWs during the invasion were given far better treatment than detainees, as shown by Lynch's treatment.

How do you figure? She was beaten, suffered multiple fractures, and was raped by her Iraqi captors.

 

[Sparks]

How do you figure? She was beaten, suffered multiple fractures, and was raped by her Iraqi captors.

Horse hockey. She was in a car crash and got the best treatment the Iraqi hospital had, including surgery to repair her leg fractures (two of the hospital staff donating blood for the surgery), and the iraqi medical staff risked their necks and were shot at by US forces when they tried returning her in a marked civilian ambulance two days before the US special forces stormed the hospital (which had no Iraqi soldiers in it at the time) with a full TV crew and a flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32410

 

[Luckyorwhat]

Sparks, do you expect people to believe that? It's true, but still you expect people to believe it?

JK, sorta.

A case could be made that during the first US-Iraq conflict American POWS were beaten and coerced, a very strong case, a case with beaten soldiers making statements on video-tape... But a beating and co-ercion is what most detainees get before they arrive at the jail.

Seriously, someone ought to question why the American prisoners who were beheaded were wearing orange jump-suits and had bags over their heads. It is because the golden rule applies in POWs.

In Afghanistan people were willing to look the other way at prisoner mis-treatment, most people. Guantanamo Bay, almost as many people were willing to accept the situation - it was an extraordinary time, ad it was a confusing time. In Abu Garib there was no confusion, the mis-treatment of prisoners over the previous years had been clearly and correctly interpreted as precedence for the new status-quo. Tens of thousands of people partake in the new policy, and when a trial comes up a dozen are punished. A dozen guards punished, and a lesson learned - Don't take pictures! Rumsfield is supported by the President, and Gonzalez is promoted.

If you thought moslems were loath to be captured alive before...

The real crime is that this behavior boomerangs. Innocent soldiers that had nothing to do with prisoner abuse will be punished for their predecessor's actions. When they take prisoners they will abuse them further... Seems sort of like the eastern front in WW2.

 

[jefnvk]

I don't think those were her captors. IIRC, her captors had abandoned her there when they took off. Those were citizens.

 

[Sparks]

I don't think those were her captors. IIRC, her captors had abandoned her there when they took off. Those were citizens.

She was in their custody at the time. The fact that they were medical personel wasn't germane. Also, you'll note that the iraqis who captured Lynch brought her to a medical facility where her injuries were cared for, and that the later allegations of rape and beatings were wholly unsubstantiated by the doctors who treated her. The majority of thing was spin, start to finish.

 

[Derius_T]

Now a few of you quoted the Geneva convention, which I will requote, then
say my peace.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

A little much. I think. In reguards to the first part, so...we capture them,
but we have to say, "excuse me, would you please mind giving me some
information sir? No, well okay then." ***!? How stupid is this?

And the second part. "So you won't answer our questions? No? Well thats
quite alright sir. No problem. Here's a nice soft bed. Would you like cable? Air condition? Are you comfy? What would you like to drink? Do you like steak? Well, we're so sorry to inconvenience you. We hope you enjoy your stay here. If you feel like answering questions, please let us know okay?
If you need anything, let us know. Thanks for shooting our soldiers. Bye,
bye now."

According to the rules, this is how we must treat them? How do WE get
treated by enemy soldiers? Ask any soldier unlucky enough to be a 'guest'
of the vietnamese, or the japanese, or the iraqis. We insist on being 'above'
them for we are so enlightened, but they have NO PROBLEM ignoring the
"rules" and torturing our guys. It seems to me, if you make a set of RULES,
that are supposed to govern everyone, and someone REFUSES to play by
the rules, the rules no longer APPLY to them. Not that I'm advocating
torture, I'm not....but they shouldn't get a holiday inn vacation either......

 

[Flyboy]

According to the rules, this is how we must treat them? How do WE get treated by enemy soldiers? Ask any soldier unlucky enough to be a 'guest' of the vietnamese, or the japanese, or the iraqis. We insist on being 'above' them for we are so enlightened, but they have NO PROBLEM ignoring the "rules" and torturing our guys. It seems to me, if you make a set of RULES, that are supposed to govern everyone, and someone REFUSES to play by the rules, the rules no longer APPLY to them.

Ah, yes. The "two wrongs make a right" theory. Never really bought into it myself.

And the second part. "So you won't answer our questions? No? Well thats quite alright sir. No problem. Here's a nice soft bed. Would you like cable? Air condition? Are you comfy? What would you like to drink? Do you like steak? Well, we're so sorry to inconvenience you. We hope you enjoy your stay here. If you feel like answering questions, please let us know okay? If you need anything, let us know. Thanks for shooting our soldiers. Bye,

Allow me to quote verbatim from the part of the Geneva Conventions you quoted:
"Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."
Are our guys sleeping in soft beds, watching cable TV in air-conditioned tents, dining on steak, and so forth? Then why would we be bound to offer similar conditions to POWs?
Here, let me quote repeat one more of your quotes verbatim:

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, July 1795.

How do you reconcile that--particularly the bit about "[guarding] even his enemy from oppression"--with your previous statements?

 

[larryw]

Is what was done right? Of course not, and those responsible are being punished.

What bothers me equally are those who are trying to apply the actions of a few twisted people to the US as a whole. Since there are a few twisted individuals who use guns to murder, does that make all of us here the same?

And please point me to documentation where the US actually signed the particular Geneva Convention that is being banited around as being violated.

Anyone?

 

[Sparks]

And please point me to documentation where the US actually signed the particular Geneva Convention that is being banited around as being violated.

List of signatories to the 1948 Geneva Convention.