Geneva Convention

 >When asked about the Geneva Convention, George W. Bush wanted to know
 >what hotel it would be held at and immediately ordered an aircraft
 >carrier to be stationed on Lake Geneva to await his landing.
 >
 >Seriously, though, with Rumsfeld saying it is OK to keep prisoners
 >awake, make them assume unusual postures, give them horrible food
 >etc., so as to 'soften' them for interrogation, obviously there must
 >be some room for interpretation as to what meets the standards of the
 >Geneva Convention--one of the few international treaties that the Bush
 >administration, possibly by oversight, has not abrogated.
 >
 >I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
 >himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
 >not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"


How convenient that you forgot to mention that Bush flew into Bagdad while the
war raged.

Very predictable.

In any case, this is a reminder that we were attacked by a group that declared
war on us. We did not start the war but we will finish it. We will finish it
on our terms and that includes minimizing our losses and then minimizing enemy
losses.

The terrorists and their fundamentalist leaders must decide to surrender as
other despots decided to surrender. Germany surrendered and it prospered to
become the largest export economy in the world Japan surrendered and became
the fastest growing economy in the world. Viet Nam did not surrender and it is
still suffering from its backward ways.

Our enemy must decide if it wants progress or continued suffering.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

 > Why these human rights violations. You telling me taking pictures of
 > Arab penis is the worst thing going on in the world right now? As you
 > guys argued ad nauseum there are plenty of other dictators in the
 > world.

im sure the arab in question was more concerned about then having attack
dogs set on him than he was for his modesty at being exposed in front of
those sweet little GI Janes with the dog leads.

youre right, in that this probably isnt the worst thing going on in the
world right now, so should we all go and give the sudan and zimbabwe a good
thrashing and leave the americans to it in iraq? of course not. worse
things happening elsewhere is no justification whatsoever for terrible
things happening in iraq. dont forget that the vast majority of these
prisoners in the bahgdad gaol are iraqi (ask their wives, daughters and
sisters outside), and since there has never been any more than a highly
spurious connection between al queda and iraq, these guys probably arent
terrorists.

my only hope is that one day an independent iraqi democracy idicts those
responsible for these actions on war crime charges; since ultimately, that
is exactly what they are. war criminals!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

 >my only hope is that one day an independent iraqi democracy idicts those
 >responsible for these actions on war crime charges; since ultimately, that
 >is exactly what they are. war criminals!


That is fine but I am sure you would have them srart with the most egregious
crimes and perpetrators - those Sadam loyalists responsible for the brutal
murder and torture of millions. Certail\nly, you would agree that we need to
find the several hundred for toruring and murdering the soccor players who
committed the crime of losing - and what about the thousands involved with the
gassing of the Kurds - and the hundreds that committed and abetted the killing
of political victims by Tree shredder?

It might be a few decades till they got to the "naughty photography " crimes.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

pete_bayle.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Pete Bayle) wrote in message news:<8d9486cd.0405131159.66578a19.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>...
 > jm_1951.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Jonathan Mason) wrote in message news:<fc36aad3.0405130546.64f1ddce.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>...
 >
  > > I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
  > > himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
  > > not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"
 >
 >
 > Why these human rights violations. You telling me taking pictures of
 > Arab penis is the worst thing going on in the world right now? As you
 > guys argued ad nauseum there are plenty of other dictators in the
 > world.
 >
 > Would you rather be in an American jail in Iraq having you penis
 > exposed or be a white guy in Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
 >
 > I thought so.

You have missed the point. Don't let yourself be influenced by
half-assed TV propagandists. USA and Iraq are both signatories to the
Geneva Convention. The whole point of the Geneva Convention is that
all parties should treat prisoners in a reasonable way so as to
prevent a cycle of retaliation developing--which is exactly what seems
to be happening in this case. In other words, you should treat
prisoners the same way you want your side's prisoners to be treated.

What would Orwell have argued here?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

moyehoist.TakeThisOut@aol.com (Moyehoist) wrote in message news:<20040513101207.09153.00000917.TakeThisOut@mb-m19.aol.com>...
  > >When asked about the Geneva Convention, George W. Bush wanted to know
  > >what hotel it would be held at and immediately ordered an aircraft
  > >carrier to be stationed on Lake Geneva to await his landing.
  > >
  > >Seriously, though, with Rumsfeld saying it is OK to keep prisoners
  > >awake, make them assume unusual postures, give them horrible food
  > >etc., so as to 'soften' them for interrogation, obviously there must
  > >be some room for interpretation as to what meets the standards of the
  > >Geneva Convention--one of the few international treaties that the Bush
  > >administration, possibly by oversight, has not abrogated.
  > >
  > >I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
  > >himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
  > >not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"
 >
 >
 > In any case, this is a reminder that we were attacked by a group that declared
 > war on us. We did not start the war but we will finish it.

You are totally misinformed. Iraq did attack the US or its allies.
Come out of your spider hole.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

"slow_graffiti" <random123456.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<dLSoc.4136$EI2.2042@doctor.cableinet.net>...

 >
 > my only hope is that one day an independent iraqi democracy idicts those
 > responsible for these actions on war crime charges; since ultimately, that
 > is exactly what they are. war criminals!

So then I guess I can assume that you supported the war and are doing
everything in your power to prevent the Coalition from running away so
that that independent dmeocracy might show up some day soon?

And as far as war criminals are concenred. If you arrested every Sunni
in Iraq who participated in or collaborated or benefited from the rape
and terror and looting of Saddam you wouldn't have enough war
criminals or jails to keep them all.

Another question. How many exclaimation points do you use when you
write Saddam? Or Al Qaeda?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

jm_1951 DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Jonathan Mason) wrote in message news:<fc36aad3.0405140436.7e7fbf61 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
 > pete_bayle DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Pete Bayle) wrote in message news:<8d9486cd.0405131159.66578a19 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
  > > jm_1951 DeleteThis @yahoo.com (Jonathan Mason) wrote in message news:<fc36aad3.0405130546.64f1ddce DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
  > >
   > > > I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
   > > > himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
   > > > not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"
  > >
  > >
  > > Why these human rights violations. You telling me taking pictures of
  > > Arab penis is the worst thing going on in the world right now? As you
  > > guys argued ad nauseum there are plenty of other dictators in the
  > > world.
  > >
  > > Would you rather be in an American jail in Iraq having you penis
  > > exposed or be a white guy in Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
  > >
  > > I thought so.
 >
 > You have missed the point. Don't let yourself be influenced by
 > half-assed TV propagandists. USA and Iraq are both signatories to the
 > Geneva Convention. The whole point of the Geneva Convention is that
 > all parties should treat prisoners in a reasonable way so as to
 > prevent a cycle of retaliation developing--which is exactly what seems
 > to be happening in this case. In other words, you should treat
 > prisoners the same way you want your side's prisoners to be treated.
 >
 > What would Orwell have argued here?

It kind of irrelevant though I admit interesting. When I went thru
survival school we were told that we would end up telling them
everything anyway, so the only goal was to last 24 hours so things
could be changed. We never expected to be treated according to the
Geneva convention.

I doubt anything has changed. And if I am not mistaken the Iraqis did
not treat the prisoners from the first gulf war according to the
convention.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

 >You are totally misinformed. Iraq did attack the US or its allies.
 >Come out of your spider hole.

Its presumed that you meant "Iraq did not attack..," and I'm not sure why you
disdain spiders.

You also disdain the right of the US to defend itself and you are absolutely
wrong that the "Oil for Food" Boondoggle did not funnel millions into the
coffers of terrorists.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp</a>
----------------------------------------
There are at least two links documented already. Both involve oil buyers picked
by Saddam and approved by the U.N. One was a firm with close ties to a
Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as
"belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." The other was a Swiss-registered
subsidiary of a Saudi oil firm that had close dealings with the Taliban during
Osama bin Laden's 1990's heyday in Afghanistan.

-------------------------------------------------


Even Libya was able to read the writing on the wall and come clean.

Perhaps your confines are a bit cavelike and you need help distinguishing
reality from those bits of shadow representations on the wall.

That's why we're here. You mean well, you have two good eyes and we can help
you see.

r
ps I hope you don't mind me quoting National Review - or is that on your
blacklist?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

  >>
   >> > I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
   >> > himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
   >> > not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"
  >>
  >>
  >> Why these human rights violations. You telling me taking pictures of
  >> Arab penis is the worst thing going on in the world right now? As you
  >> guys argued ad nauseum there are plenty of other dictators in the
  >> world.
  >>
  >> Would you rather be in an American jail in Iraq having you penis
  >> exposed or be a white guy in Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
  >>
  >> I thought so.
 >
 >You have missed the point. Don't let yourself be influenced by
 >half-assed TV propagandists. USA and Iraq are both signatories to the
 >Geneva Convention. The whole point of the Geneva Convention is that
 >all parties should treat prisoners in a reasonable way so as to
 >prevent a cycle of retaliation developing--which is exactly what seems
 >to be happening in this case. In other words, you should treat
 >prisoners the same way you want your side's prisoners to be treated.
 >
 >What would Orwell have argued here?

GO would have argued for your a new eyeglass perscription for you. When did
the terrorists sign or give any indication of abiding by the Geneva Convention?


Have you not read that Iraq's army was defeated sometime ago and that a
significant portion of the Iraqis are now terrorists that are kidnapping and
savagely killing our soldiers on Moslem TV. There are no terrorist signatures
on the Geneva agreement and neither are they inclined to be interested.

The only US act that might be construed as a Geneva violation is the
disclosure of the embarassing photos - and that was done by Bush bashers.

Orwell was very much a proponent of self defense against subhumans like the
nazis and terrorists. A very big concern of his during WWII was getting
civilians properly trained in the use of firearms so that they might not be
slaughtered in the event of an invasion.

Where do leftists get the idea that the spirit of GO is among the terrorists?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

pete_bayle.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (Pete Bayle) wrote in message news:<8d9486cd.0405142042.52bafaa4.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
 > jm_1951.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (Jonathan Mason) wrote in message news:<fc36aad3.0405140436.7e7fbf61.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
  > > pete_bayle.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (Pete Bayle) wrote in message news:<8d9486cd.0405131159.66578a19.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
   > > > jm_1951.RemoveThis@yahoo.com (Jonathan Mason) wrote in message news:<fc36aad3.0405130546.64f1ddce.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
   > > >
   > > > > I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
   > > > > himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
   > > > > not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Why these human rights violations. You telling me taking pictures of
   > > > Arab penis is the worst thing going on in the world right now? As you
   > > > guys argued ad nauseum there are plenty of other dictators in the
   > > > world.
   > > >
   > > > Would you rather be in an American jail in Iraq having you penis
   > > > exposed or be a white guy in Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
   > > >
   > > > I thought so.
  > >
  > > You have missed the point. Don't let yourself be influenced by
  > > half-assed TV propagandists. USA and Iraq are both signatories to the
  > > Geneva Convention. The whole point of the Geneva Convention is that
  > > all parties should treat prisoners in a reasonable way so as to
  > > prevent a cycle of retaliation developing--which is exactly what seems
  > > to be happening in this case. In other words, you should treat
  > > prisoners the same way you want your side's prisoners to be treated.
  > >
  > > What would Orwell have argued here?
 >
 > It kind of irrelevant though I admit interesting. When I went thru
 > survival school we were told that we would end up telling them
 > everything anyway, so the only goal was to last 24 hours so things
 > could be changed. We never expected to be treated according to the
 > Geneva convention.
 >
 > I doubt anything has changed. And if I am not mistaken the Iraqis did
 > not treat the prisoners from the first gulf war according to the
 > convention.

Sorry to take so long to reply to this.

In an unpublished letter to the Times of 12th October 1942, Orwell
argued that "we" (the British) should not get into a cycle of
retaliation with the Germans over POW violations, but that we should
take the high ground and say "We cannot stop you maltreating our
prisoners... but don't fear that we shall retaliate in kind. You are
Nazis and we are civilized men. This latest act of yours simply
demonstrates the difference." He goes on to describe the process of
retaliation as "silly".

My position on this is that 1) we should not torture prisoners because
of what it tells the world about us and our values, 2) we should not
torture prisoners because it invites a vicious circle of retaliation,
3) we should not torture prisoners because there is precious little
evidence that the information obtained by torture is of any value.
This is also the opinion of a coworker who was a sergeant in military
intelligence who was involved in interrogation of POWs in Desert
Storm.

Furthermore, you say "if I am not mistaken the Iraqis did not treat
the prisoners from the first gulf war according to the (Geneva)
convention". You are right, I think, but it is not the position of the
US government that Geneva should be ignored for this reason.

In fact in testimony given to the House Armed Services committee in
1993 it was stated unequivocally that "The position of the United
States Government is to do everything in its power to bring to justice
anyone who, by action or inaction, is responsible for fundamental
violations of the law of war."

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/03-04-04parks.html" target="_blank">http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108th...gress/0</a>

While this was intended to refer to Iraqi violations, it is presumably
equally valid in reverse. It also speaks of 'bringing to justice", not
of retaliation.

Unfortunately things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, and it seems
that President Bush has totally lost the plot and that the American
people in greater numbers are realising that he has no clothes.
Unfortunately it seems that he is so sealed off from sensible advice
that he cannot see that the terrorism that occurs in Iraq is mostly a
response to occupation and that most of it has absolutely nothing to
do with Al Quaida and the "war on terrorism". Furthermore, it is about
time that someone told Bush that terrorism is a technique of warfare,
not a movement in and of itself, and that a war on terrorism is like a
"war on drugs", i.e. not really a war at all.

Bush continues to trot out the same old lies about Iraq being part of
the WoT, as in his speech last night. I would rather have a president
who lies about love (sex) than about war. It would be nice to see Bush
impeached, but I guess that won't be necessary. In November he will be
impeached by the American people.

Incidentally, lying is never a good thing, but I wonder how many of
those who hated Clinton for it would have said, if Clinton had bitten
the bullet and 'fessed up to the blow jobs: "You know, I hate
Clinton's political philosophy, but I admire him personally for making
those humiliating admissions about the tawdry sex with Lewinski. I
could vote for a guy like that."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention 

moyehoist.DeleteThis@aol.com (Moyehoist) wrote in message news:<20040514180530.11161.00001431.DeleteThis@mb-m14.aol.com>...
   > >>
   > >> > I would have thought that the question the Rumster needs to ask
   > >> > himself is: "is there anything we are doing to prisoners that we would
   > >> > not be equally happy for their guys to to ours, and if so, what?"
   > >>
   > >>
   > >> Why these human rights violations. You telling me taking pictures of
   > >> Arab penis is the worst thing going on in the world right now? As you
   > >> guys argued ad nauseum there are plenty of other dictators in the
   > >> world.
   > >>
   > >> Would you rather be in an American jail in Iraq having you penis
   > >> exposed or be a white guy in Mugabe's Zimbabwe?
   > >>
   > >> I thought so.
  > >
  > >You have missed the point. Don't let yourself be influenced by
  > >half-assed TV propagandists. USA and Iraq are both signatories to the
  > >Geneva Convention. The whole point of the Geneva Convention is that
  > >all parties should treat prisoners in a reasonable way so as to
  > >prevent a cycle of retaliation developing--which is exactly what seems
  > >to be happening in this case. In other words, you should treat
  > >prisoners the same way you want your side's prisoners to be treated.
  > >
  > >What would Orwell have argued here?
 >
 > GO would have argued for your a new eyeglass perscription for you. When did
 > the terrorists sign or give any indication of abiding by the Geneva Convention?
 >
 >
 > Have you not read that Iraq's army was defeated sometime ago and that a
 > significant portion of the Iraqis are now terrorists that are kidnapping and
 > savagely killing our soldiers on Moslem TV. There are no terrorist signatures
 > on the Geneva agreement and neither are they inclined to be interested.
 >
 > The only US act that might be construed as a Geneva violation is the
 > disclosure of the embarassing photos - and that was done by Bush bashers.
 >
 > Orwell was very much a proponent of self defense against subhumans like the
 > nazis and terrorists. A very big concern of his during WWII was getting
 > civilians properly trained in the use of firearms so that they might not be
 > slaughtered in the event of an invasion.
 >
 > Where do leftists get the idea that the spirit of GO is among the terrorists?

Orwell would have cringed at the use of the word "subhumans"; as for
his opinion on the relative human rights of Nazis, I believe he
discussed that very issue in his 1945 essay "Revenge Is Sour": "Only
the minority of sadists, who must have their ‘atrocities' from one
source or another, take a keen interest in the hunting-down of war
criminals and quislings."

And there's a critical difference between self defense and torture.

What is happening in Iraq may not in fact be the worst thing that
humans are doing to one another, but that doesn't make it any less
reprehensible. Playing a game of one-upmanship with war atrocities is
like telling a child who has been brutally raped that he should shut
up and get over it because other children get killed. It's a
disgusting analogy, but I think in this case it's an apt one.

For me, what differentiates Iraq from, say, Zimbabwe, is that the
atrocities in Iraq are being committed by people who are nominally
representing my country; they are also the perpetrators whose actions
I have the greatest (abeit stil slim) chance of actually changing.

/Rachel<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Geneva Convention