US army admits to violating geneva convention

[fourier jr]

"There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated.

...

According to the report, the abuse included:

-- Forcing detainees to perform exercises such as deep knee bends for hours on end, to the point of exhaustion.

-- Blowing cigarette smoke into the sandbags the prisoners were forced to wear as hoods.

-- Throwing cold water on the prisoners in a room that was between 40 degrees and 50 degrees.

-- Blasting the detainees with heavy-metal music, yelling at them and banging on doors and ammunition cans.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Prisoner-Abuse-Iraq.htm?oref=login

 

[kyleb]

The Geneva Conventions apply to POWs, and it is very specific about what defines a POW. From what I can tell; terrorists, or suspected terrorists for that matter, do not fall under any of those definitions. Not to say I support torturing anybody by any means, I just don't see credibity in brining up the Geneva Conventions in such situations.

 

[GENIERE]

"There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated.

...

According to the report, the abuse included:

-- Forcing detainees to perform exercises such as deep knee bends for hours on end, to the point of exhaustion.

-- Blowing cigarette smoke into the sandbags the prisoners were forced to wear as hoods.

-- Throwing cold water on the prisoners in a room that was between 40 degrees and 50 degrees.

-- Blasting the detainees with heavy-metal music, yelling at them and banging on doors and ammunition cans.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Prisoner-Abuse-Iraq.htm?oref=login

I suggest each torturer be given 70 virgins immediately.


...

 

[kyleb]

Hah GENIERE, I suppose I should come to expect you to pop in with a smartass jab whenever a discussion involves Muslims.

But on a more pleasant note, apparently we are looking to set a better example for civilized conduct:

The New York Times suggests the Defence Department is discussing changes to the operation of the military tribunals.

The tribunals were set up by US President George W Bush to prosecute foreign citizens suspected of being terrorists.

The proposed changes include bolstering the rights of defendants, using more independent judges and barring confessions obtained by torture.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1332387.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/p...&en=f363e59197d6ef2a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[1123581321]

"There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees," a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated.

...

According to the report, the abuse included:

-- Forcing detainees to perform exercises such as deep knee bends for hours on end, to the point of exhaustion.

-- Blowing cigarette smoke into the sandbags the prisoners were forced to wear as hoods.

-- Throwing cold water on the prisoners in a room that was between 40 degrees and 50 degrees.

-- Blasting the detainees with heavy-metal music, yelling at them and banging on doors and ammunition cans.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Prisoner-Abuse-Iraq.htm?oref=login

Good, terrorists deserve more, but then we would really piss some people off, wouldn't we? They kill us, can't we make them miserable? Besides, that's not too bad, what about our POWs in Nam, liberals didn't scream and b**** about that, why should they now? Besides, the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists, they have have a uniform, a clear leader, and must fight for and under one nation. right now, none of that stuff applies

 

[Smurf]

Besides, the Geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists, they have have a uniform, a clear leader, and must fight for and under one nation. right now, none of that stuff applies

The greatest and most common feat of war leaders since the beginning of history, has been convincing people that there are no rules of war, and that they don't apply.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

At the top:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

There is only one single exception to the rule in the article, and that is here:

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

 

[Bilal]

You invaded, destroyed and stole their country based on lies and against the international laws, and then you call them terrorists because they fight back?
Others are joking about Muslims and show them as non human? It seems they use the same propaganda of German NAZI in 30s against the Jews to justify their dirty crimes?

I do not understand this ‘ugly ideology and culture’ which is combination of ignorance and arrogant...
Let’s see what the end of your arrogance..

Let’s see what will happen for the international laws which developed through centuries to arrange the relations between different nations during peace and war.

To justify your crimes because you think the other culture/religion/race is evil is the core of Fascism..

At last,

The nations of Middle East are not ''Red Indian'' , we (Atheists, secular, Muslims, Christian, satanic, Arab, Persian, Turkish, African , ..) will fight till the end . We know that we have no enough force to defend our countries, but the invaders will be exhausted with the time and we will give chance for China, Europe or any other Nation to lead this world.

 

[Smurf]

To justify your crimes because you think the other culture/religion/race is evil is the core of Fascism..

I can't help but point out that this statement implies that Fascism is, in fact, evil. Which is wholely untrue.

 

[Bilal]

I know that the modern history is written by the ''winners of 2WW'' and it is not necessary to be true...
But from my point of understanding, Fascism refers to racism and hate against other cultures. It depends how you understand it.

I can't help but point out that this statement implies that Fascism is, in fact, evil. Which is wholely untrue.

 

[sid_galt]

I can't help but point out that this statement implies that Fascism is, in fact, evil. Which is wholely untrue.

?
You mean fascism is not evil?

 

[faust9]

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

Wikipedia to the rescue! To say fascism is not evil is to ignore the history of the word itself. It sprung up around an evil man during an evil time(there was a more evil man in Europe, but that doesn't raise Mussolini's exalted throne from the 9th circle now does it) and was used to describe a viscious political/economical/racial regime. To say Facism is anything but the most vile of concepts is to say "I really need to hit them thar his-tore-ee buks again!"

 

[kyleb]

Arguing the nature of evil with a guy named faust just seems silly.

Seriously though, what part of the Conventions defintion of POWs applies to terrorists or even suspected terrorists? I don't see anything here that might:

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Part I : General provisions

ARTICLE 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/b0d5f4c...2f681b08868538c2c12563cd0051aa8d?OpenDocument

 

[faust9]

Arguing the nature of evil with a guy named faust just seems silly.

Seriously though, what part of the Conventions definition of POWs applies to terrorists or even suspected terrorists? I don't see anything here that might:

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/b0d5f4c...2f681b08868538c2c12563cd0051aa8d?OpenDocument

LMAO! Touche'

Gotthold Lessing thought I was nobel to the point of writing a story wherein the devil released me from our little pact(I was in the military when I chose this alias--see the connection).

Anyway, I don't have time right now to dig up the links but there have been reports issued by our very own government which state that most of the 'terrorist' activity is in fact the activity of so called 'freedom fighters'. How do you differentiate? Where does the fine line cut between liberators and terrorists? They are against our presence so they are terrorists? What where they when they fought the Soviet scourge then--freedom fighters, guerillas, friendly rebels? I'll admit there are terrorist but, and here's the kicker, once captured they fall under US Jurisdiction and our laws(Supreme court said as much with its GitMo ruling). When do we classify people as terrorist? After we shoot them? What if we were wrong? My Lai ring any bells? Kent state--National Guard troops shot first and asked questions later there didn't they?

We pride ourselves on the law, the love of law, the adherence to the law, the system of law, yadda-yadda-yadda; however, as of late when the law has gotten in the way we as a nation have side stepped it by shooting first, or bagging and tagging prisoners, or shooting wedding parties up, or using deadly accurate vulcan cannons to kill enemy soldiers who are injured or have laid down their weapons.

We have violated the convention. You(we) cannot kick a man off of a bridge for not telling us the right answer. We cannot shoot soldiers who have laid down arms or are wounded. Granted these infractions are seen as minor--you know war is hell--kind of crap happens. But, he have violated it IMHO to argue otherwise is akin to that ostrich that buries his head in the sand to avoid the charging lion.

Well, I do have to run so I don't have the time to fully formulate my though. I'll get back to it later.

 

[kyleb]

Anyway, I don't have time right now to dig up the links but there have been reports issued by our very own government which state that most of the 'terrorist' activity is in fact the activity of so called 'freedom fighters'. How do you differentiate? Where does the fine line cut between liberators and terrorists? They are against our presence so they are terrorists?

When arguing with respect to the Geneva Conventions, the line is cut here:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now again, as I said in my first post in this thread; I do not torturing anybody by any means. I'm simply feel it is important to point out that bringing up the Geneva Conventions in regard to the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay is, best I can tell, barking up the wrong tree.

 

[TsunamiJoe]

To my understanding torture is only the physical abuse of another. We are known for having female officers strip in front of muslim men to try and mentaly disrupt them, along with lining the male detainees up naked next to each other(something about homosexuality is a major no-no to muslims) to again, mentaly disrupt each other.

Though I might add, that most reports filed on sucessfull information retrieval from a person is by simply talking to them like a fellow man.

Also just to add a tid bit, and as much as i hate to admit this, but the CIA took a man from NYC, flew him to syria, then tortured him to gain information, only to later find out he had no affiliation with the terrorists being researched, because they arent allowed to torture on US soil aparently...

 

[1123581321]

You invaded, destroyed and stole their country based on lies and against the international laws, and then you call them terrorists because they fight back?

My friend, you are wrong. Saddam kills his own people, rapes them (not personally, he gets his thuges to do it), and helps terrorists. The US was attacked by terrorists in a clear act of war, and we have the right to fight back. We are the strongest country in the world, and we will not let cowardly terrorists bring us down. You may just watch too much Clintion News Network or Al-gezera(how ever you spell it) and don't realize that most Iraqi citizens are happier that we did what we did. Liberal bias will not let you see that, and you are a 'sheep' who doesn't double check everything to see what is right. and, if the rest of the world is mad at us, then so be it. Hopefully terrorists will hit them, and then they will see. They will see their wrong, and if they don't, they will die. Just like Rome, weakened from within until it fell. What may you ask happened after rome fell, total war. There was no superpower, just powerhungry kings. Mark my words, it may happen again if the US and free world don't take a stand. You need to look at the big picture, not the small details. Sure, people will die, but death cannot be avoided. The terrorists have awoken a sleeping giant, and they will pay with their lives.

A house divided cannot stand.

Fibonacci

 

[Smurf]

Now again, as I said in my first post in this thread; I do not torturing anybody by any means. I'm simply feel it is important to point out that bringing up the Geneva Conventions in regard to the prisioners at Guantanamo Bay is, best I can tell, barking up the wrong tree.

You seem to be missing one of the key points. Suspect Terrorists... Understand?

 

[Smurf]

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The only 2 I can see people arguing is (b) and (d)
Which is really getting off on a technicality, here's why:
1. Snipers (I really shouldn't have to say more, use your brain)
2. a lot do have recognizable signs, be it simply a ski-mask or holding an Ak-47, you know what it means.
3. There are no discernable ways to prove which insurgent organizations do or do not, and to what degree, fullfill all the qualifications, especially (d).
4. USA breaks rules of war too. Does the USA fullfill their own qualifications? In which case wouldn't the insurgents not have to abide by the rules of war on an enemy (USA) who does not abide by them either?

 

[Smurf]

?
You mean fascism is not evil?

Firstly, is it impossible for you to imagine a scenario in which a Fascist organization would be preferable to any other devised system? Secondly, How can a concept be evil? A gun is used to create death and nothing more, is a gun evil? Is the idea of a gun evil? Don't be absurd, Fascism is not evil, Fascism is an idea that even Roosevelt referred to as a great political experiment.

 

[Huckleberry]

If they are in another country blowing up buildings and killing thousands of civilians that have no connection to the military then they are terrorists. If they are in their own country and someone has been dropping bombs indiscriminitely on them destroying buildings and killing thousands of civilians that have no connection to the military and they decide to resist and repel the invading force then they are not terrorists. Because the U.S. claims it has control of their country does not mean that everyone in Iraq agrees.

In my opinion when people start dying everyone loses. All the oil in the world isn't worth the life of one person that wouldn't choose to die for it.

What was the question again?
Huck

 

[Pengwuino]

What the hell. These actions violate the geneva convention? My friend went through worse in his freaken frat house lol. I've done worse to my nephews as a kid lol. I hope the UN doesn't put me on trial :(

 

[1123581321]

The only 2 I can see people arguing is (b) and (d)
Which is really getting off on a technicality, here's why:
1. Snipers (I really shouldn't have to say more, use your brain)
2. a lot do have recognizable signs, be it simply a ski-mask or holding an Ak-47, you know what it means.
3. There are no discernable ways to prove which insurgent organizations do or do not, and to what degree, fullfill all the qualifications, especially (d).
4. USA breaks rules of war too. Does the USA fullfill their own qualifications? In which case wouldn't the insurgents not have to abide by the rules of war on an enemy (USA) who does not abide by them either?

Let me put it this way, what would you do to stay alive in war? would you be 'sporting' about it? If you were, you wouldn't be for long, 'cause you'd be dead. I think the geneva convention should be changed, just as war has changed. Things are different now than they were then.

Fibonacci

 

[Pengwuino]

"Rules of war" sure does seem like an oxymoron when it comes down to these finite details. Sure mass incinerations and executions should be outlawed... but man... some things are absolute nonsense.

 

[Hurkyl]

If they are in another country blowing up buildings and killing thousands of civilians that have no connection to the military then they are terrorists.

What about people in their own country blowing up buildings and killing civilians that have no connection to the military? And don't forget to add economic sabotage to the list.

 

[derekmohammed]

A house divided cannot stand.

Fibonacci

This is an interesting comment. Before throwing around quotes purhaps you should review your own countries political situation?

 

[Smurf]

What the hell. These actions violate the geneva convention? My friend went through worse in his freaken frat house lol. I've done worse to my nephews as a kid lol. I hope the UN doesn't put me on trial :(

Don't be a dumbass. If you actually did I hope you take my advice and see a psychiatrist. There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that's not in the Criminal Code of almost every single country, not excluding the USA.

Let me put it this way, what would you do to stay alive in war? would you be 'sporting' about it? If you were, you wouldn't be for long, 'cause you'd be dead. I think the geneva convention should be changed, just as war has changed. Things are different now than they were then.

Also, don't be a dumbass. These acts arn't committed on the battlefield, they're not committed under threat of death, they're not committed in the heat of the moment. These acts are against prisoners of war. People who have already been detained are being tortured when they are unable to defend themselves.
War has not changed since the conventions, the fourth convention was signed in 1949, there is no more reason to torture prisoners today than there was 56 years ago.

 

[klusener]

My friend, you are wrong. Saddam kills his own people, rapes them (not personally, he gets his thuges to do it), and helps terrorists. The US was attacked by terrorists in a clear act of war, and we have the right to fight back. We are the strongest country in the world, and we will not let cowardly terrorists bring us down. You may just watch too much Clintion News Network or Al-gezera(how ever you spell it) and don't realize that most Iraqi citizens are happier that we did what we did. Liberal bias will not let you see that, and you are a 'sheep' who doesn't double check everything to see what is right. and, if the rest of the world is mad at us, then so be it. Hopefully terrorists will hit them, and then they will see. They will see their wrong, and if they don't, they will die. Just like Rome, weakened from within until it fell. What may you ask happened after rome fell, total war. There was no superpower, just powerhungry kings. Mark my words, it may happen again if the US and free world don't take a stand. You need to look at the big picture, not the small details. Sure, people will die, but death cannot be avoided. The terrorists have awoken a sleeping giant, and they will pay with their lives.

A house divided cannot stand.

Fibonacci

Seriously, Bilal lives right in the middle of where these conflicts are taking place, and you are living in the US getting your information from secondary sources, so I can assure you that he knows more about what's going on there than you because he is seeing it with his own eyes. Every single one of the recent polls show that the Iraqis don't want the US occupation, fine you got rid of Saddam, now get the hell out of there, that's what the civilians are saying. Again, studies by John Hopkins University show that the US forces are murdering the Iraqi civilians at a faster rate than Saddam did during his entire reign and you are expecting the people to like you? What freedom are you giving them, they don't have electricity, they don't have water, they get arrested at night, their men get thrown in jails and have their penises touched by american forces, they get sexually abused, and you expect them to admire you?

The US was attacked by terrorists in a clear act of war, and we have the right to fight back.

you know, i seriously wonder what was the reason for that commission to publish reports on US intelligence and call it "dead wrong" if Americans aren't going to read it. Your own government says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and they never attacked you, and here you are brainwashed saying that you are fighting back Iraq because they attacked you..

 

[klusener]

LOL! Irony at its best, right after I typed my last post, I went to BBC and guess what i find on the front page in bold letters?

Iraqis stage huge anti-US protest

Tens of thousands of protesters have marched through Baghdad denouncing the US occupation of Iraq, two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The gathering was the largest anti-US protest for months

"I came from Sadr City to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of the occupation," one protester, named Abbas, was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

"The Americans wanted time and we gave them time, now we want to rule ourselves," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4429137.stm

Notice the picture..

 

[Pengwuino]

Bilal gets filtered information just like everyone else. Unless he goes into iraq on a daily basis and follows US forces around looking at what they did, then he gets his information as spun as we do. And i wonder why you say iraqies don't want the US occupation. I mean if you get down to it, what does that mean? A group of people don't like to have a foreign army in their country... might as well ask poor people if they like not having money. Its absolute common sense that they would say that. You are fooled into believing that actually means something... but as i said, its like being surprised when poor people tell you they don't like being poor. We know they don't want us there... we don't want to be there... we're trying to leave... but go look at WW2 and WW1 and tell me occupations should be quick and painless.

And you seem to forget that this is a war. We have to fight and unleash our weaponry and fire our mortars and bomb cities because a bunch of insurgents (a small percentage of which are actually iraqies) are saying iraqies don't deserve freedom. And go to JHU's actual website and look at the study because you are actually falsifying information. The study was only of a year and a half before the invasion, not "during his entire regime". The study itself even says the study is pretty hard to gauge anything because of the lack of information and the way it had to be conducted. There are also plenty of polls and studies showing people are freer in Iraq now then under Saddam and most places that had electricity and water during saddams era have it back now. And this whole "penises touched by american forces" sounds pretty childish. I think you need to check out the actual facts.

 

[Pengwuino]

Iraqis stage huge anti-US protest

Lets see... people supported by a terrorist hate us? And ohh, 2 whole months went by and its the largest. Wow, you got to be pretty dense to fall all over this one like you are :)