News Are Mercenaries in Iraq Considered POWs Under the Geneva Conventions?

[pelastration]

the nature of the American leaders

In my opinion the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the torture of detainees in Iraq. Is such abuse 'isolated'? Maybe, I don't know. We only know what has become public. We have seen some photo's, but are there video's too? And Pentagon tried to stop but because of Internet (some sites began to publish ...) we know it.

There is something really wrong on the structural level however. And there he - Bush - is also responsible for.
Allowing private contractors to interrogate prisoners is shameful and illegal. Private contractors have no rules of conduct. When mercenaries have human beings under there hands inside a protected environment - and they have the 'freedom' to do whatever they can imagine with these prisoners - you open the door for all types of sadistic actions and sexual aberrations. Who controls the mental health of these private contractors?

Just think how private contractors of DynCorp (actual CSC http://www.csc.com/solutions/businessprocessoutsourcing/ ) organize prostitution with Bosnian girls of 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml: Quote: "The women who refused were locked in rooms and withheld food and outside contact for days or weeks. After this time they are told to dance naked on table tops and sit with clients. If the women still refuse to perform sex acts with the customers they are beaten and raped in the rooms by the bar owners and their associates. They are told if they go to the police they will be arrested for prostitution and being an illegal immigrant." end of quote.

Can you imagine if such type of private contractors have almost unlimited power in a prison?
This sick situation should stop asap.
US regulations should make such practices or possibilities impossible. As long it doesn't stop ... this system is characteristic of U.S. forces, since it creates the structural framework to make abuse possible, and that will tell us something about the nature of the American leaders ... and 'the way we do things in Iraq".

Outrage in Iraq and Arab countries? Yes. And can you imagine when some of your relatives are actually a prisoner in Iraq?

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=1de49146-ea60-492f-bb5f-b68c09d22933
President George W. Bush expressed personal disgust Friday with photographs detailing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American troops and vowed swift punishment to soldiers found responsible for any mistreatment.

With Arab television networks broadcasting the images throughout the Middle East, Bush called the abuses isolated and uncharacteristic of U.S. forces.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said at a Washington news conference with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. And so I didn't like it one bit."

 

[ptex]

organize prostitution with Bosnian girls of 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml: Quote: "The women who refused were locked in rooms and withheld food and outside contact for days or weeks. After this time they are told to dance naked on table tops and sit with clients. If the women still refuse to perform sex acts with the customers they are beaten and raped in the rooms by the bar owners and their associates. They are told if they go to the police they will be arrested for prostitution and being an illegal immigrant." end of quote.

US regulations should make such practices or possibilities impossible. As long it doesn't stop ... this system is characteristic of U.S. forces,

Could you please post the title of this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml) article.
Here is a quote "The former American policewoman claims she was sacked because she sent an email to Jacques Paul Klein, the chief of UN mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which highlighted the sexual exploitation of women by those who had been sent to protect them from the sex trade.

Details of the email, sent in October 2000, were given to the tribunal at Southampton, Hants, yesterday.

In it, Mrs Bolkovac, a mother of three from Lincoln, Nebraska, claims that bars were frequented by UN police officers and other humanitarian workers who availed themselves of women forced into prostitution."

Damn Americans?

I think that you take much of the stuff you post out of context and much of the links when read fully contrdic your stace. But hey I would do it also if I no real facts. You would make a great politician you should move to the US and run for office you are on the right track.

 

[hughes johnson]

In my opinion the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the torture of detainees in Iraq. Is such abuse 'isolated'? Maybe, I don't know.

That is correct, you don't know. Your opinion has no effect on the facts. We are currently running an official investigation to find out what the facts are. You are not.

Allowing private contractors to interrogate prisoners is shameful and illegal.

Is it?

President George W. Bush expressed personal disgust Friday with photographs detailing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American troops and vowed swift punishment to soldiers found responsible for any mistreatment.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said at a Washington news conference with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. And so I didn't like it one bit."

That's good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you, do something about it (other than whining). When you see things like this happening, and you don't do anything about it, that makes you guilty as well. Your country should be doing a lot more about this sort of thing in countries all over the world. How come you haven't been? You are not pulling your weight. Perhaps there's no profit in it for you?

 

[pelastration]

If it's not good enough for you, do something about it (other than whining). When you see things like this happening, and you don't do anything about it, that makes you guilty as well. Your country should be doing a lot more about this sort of thing in countries all over the world. How come you haven't been? You are not pulling your weight. Perhaps there's no profit in it for you?

I don't ask you to defence yourself.
You have nothing to do with those facts.
Do you feel attacked personally?
And why point at me?

What I see is a sick mentality in treating these prisoners.
I ask in first instance: What are private defense contractors doing there?

I put this link already on another post http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact but here I put some lines again.

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

...

Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

------
To me: " MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days. " is a systematic policy, known and approved by superiors. That means 'war-crimes'.

This case of abuse in Iraqi prisons brings again attention to the letter to the United Nations delivered on Monday May 6, 2002 ,(where) the US says it will not consider itself bound by the treaty (to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC)- even though Bill Clinton signed up to it in 2000.
The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1970312.stm.
It seems to me that the "nature of Mr. Bush" is at such a mental and intellectual level that "war crimes" are allowed and justified. And that means no 'justice' for the victims (if they are still alive).

 

[hughes johnson]

We're investigating it. If some things need to change, then I'm sure we will change them. Everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances. I really don't mind if sadaam is wearing panties, they probably look nice on him if he has the legs for it.

 

[pelastration]

We're investigating it. If some things need to change, then I'm sure we will change them. Everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances.

sure. We know those type of investigations. I'm sure everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances to cover as much as possible.

 

[hughes johnson]

sure. We know those type of investigations. I'm sure everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances to cover as much as possible.

If there is a problem, it will be straightened out in time.

 

[pelastration]

If there is a problem, it will be straightened out in time.

If there is a problem? If there is a problem?
See ... you also would prefer a cover-up. Do you question too that there is the Taguba report?

A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating.

Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added— “detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”
...
Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’ ‘Make sure he has a bad night.’ ‘Make sure he gets the treatment.’” Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information.’”

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded.

He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International http://www.caci.com/business/intel.shtml , be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote.
He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)

“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel “were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

The only thing you can say is: If there is a problem, it will be straightened out in time.

 

[kat]

fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February

Whenever I read something like this I begin to question whether we're being selectively fed information.
I think there IS a problem, and I think it is serious. I also think that we have safeguards set up to catch (obviously it's been caught, albeit better by far to not have happened at all) and then to prosecute. I don't foresee this being dropped. The American public is outraged.
The fact that the U.S. media along side the government is the device that is working through the process...is one more example of the difference between a democratic country and those run by tyrants.

 

[studentx]

Pelastration, I am glad your beginning to discover the horrors that can go on behind closed doors and it finally touching you. I thought with Dutroux and all these belgian perverts you wouldn't have slept thru Saddam, but it took a few Americans to finally wake you up

Dont you think we should wait for the UN to agree before we take any action?

 

[pelastration]

Pelastration, I am glad your beginning to discover the horrors that can go on behind closed doors and it finally touching you. I thought with Dutroux and all these belgian perverts you wouldn't have slept thru Saddam, but it took a few Americans to finally wake you up

Dont you think we should wait for the UN to agree before we take any action?

Studentx, please feel free to start a thread on Dutroux. A lot of people believe there in also a network behind and want that investigated, and I agree on that. The Dutroux case is a criminal case.
The Iraq case show that there is a systematic attitude behind. It's a mixure of military, political and criminal attitude. The offenders are in this case people having a type of authority and they should handle conform a number of rules in respect with human rights. It's significant that now also Gen. Georges R. Fay is involved since his MI guys are part. http://images.google.com/imgres?img...y&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=G&edition=us.

 

[hughes johnson]

Dont you think we should wait for the UN to agree before we take any action?

Absolutely. A full investigation by the UN is in order here, eventually there should be a vote by the security council. Patience is important here, we should all work together on this.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

We're investigating it. If some things need to change, then I'm sure we will change them. Everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances. I really don't mind if sadaam is wearing panties, they probably look nice on him if he has the legs for it.

Oh I'm sure at least one of their names was "Sadaam." In fact, there's a basketball player named "Saddam Muhammad," new jersey nets is it?
Yes let's put you in charge and all the Muhammads will be wearing panties and live in dog cages. That's reeel mentaly healthy.

 

[hughes johnson]

Oh I'm sure at least one of their names was "Sadaam." In fact, there's a basketball player named "Saddam Muhammad," new jersey nets is it?
Yes let's put you in charge and all the Muhammads will be wearing panties and live in dog cages. That's reeel mentaly healthy.

What do basketball players have to do this? Why would you want to have them live in dog cages? What are you talking about?

 

[kat]

***boggle****

 

[pelastration]

1. Another POW prisoner was killed at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail in November 2003 by a private contractor who worked as an interrogator for the CIA.

2. No legal action was taken because of a lack of jurisdiction, but the CIA and Justice Department were investigating.

3. Is this normal? No justice?
4. And a POW. This should be a ICC case.

 

[Adam]

Well, there's a reason why the USA refused to sign up for the ICC. Because they knew they would be invading and killing here and there.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No, the antiwar senators refused to approve it just as much as the prowar ones. It would have become the "law of the land" and completely overridden our own court system with an arbitrary legal system where anybody can be hailed into court by anybody, without safeguards.

 

[Adam]

That's kinda the point. It deals with INTERNATIONAL activity, rather than activity within US jurisdiction. If the USA wants international relations, and wants to roam around blowing stuff up, they must grant some authority to outside powers. The only other option is to say "We have all the guns, we can do what qwe like, and the rest of the world can get stuffed", which results in the situation we actually have now, in which nobody trusts the USA, and it is ONLY tolerated because it has such a friggin huge military.

 

[hughes johnson]

That's kinda the point. It deals with INTERNATIONAL activity, rather than activity within US jurisdiction. If the USA wants international relations, and wants to roam around blowing stuff up, they must grant some authority to outside powers. The only other option is to say "We have all the guns, we can do what qwe like, and the rest of the world can get stuffed", which results in the situation we actually have now, in which nobody trusts the USA, and it is ONLY tolerated because it has such a friggin huge military.

If you like international relations, I have good news for you. So do we.

If you like to roam around and blow stuff up, I have more good news for you.

 

[pelastration]

No, the antiwar senators refused to approve it just as much as the prowar ones. It would have become the "law of the land" and completely overridden our own court system with an arbitrary legal system where anybody can be hailed into court by anybody, without safeguards.

1. And now we see in Guantanamo:
a. completely overridden the own US court system
b. with an arbitrary non-legal system
c. where anybody can be held, even US citizen
d. without even minimal safeguarding law
e. trials with no right of appeal to any court.
f. future trials with a lower standard of evidence than in ordinary courts
e. in inhuman conditions
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

But we should also talk about the two next points in my previous post on the private contractors.
2. No legal action was taken because of a lack of jurisdiction, but the CIA and Justice Department were investigating.

3. Is this normal? No justice?
----
4. A lack of jurisdiction means or:
a. badly organized
b. intentional vacuum
But is clear that the criminal acts of the private contractor were done in an compound under US control and authority. So also criminal offends should accountable under US law or under Iraqi law (just like al-Sadr was accused of murder).

5. On the simple 'common sense" level of human reasoning: Is it acceptable that a fellow human is killed in a prison - at the mercy of his interrogator - and that the interrogator is no punished? Is this "normal"?

 

[kat]

But we should also talk about the two next points in my previous post on the private contractors.
2. No legal action was taken because of a lack of jurisdiction, but the CIA and Justice Department were investigating.

3. Is this normal? No justice?
----
4. A lack of jurisdiction means or:
a. badly organized
b. intentional vacuum
But is clear that the criminal acts of the private contractor were done in an compound under US control and authority. So also criminal offends should accountable under US law or under Iraqi law (just like al-Sadr was accused of murder).

5. On the simple 'common sense" level of human reasoning: Is it acceptable that a fellow human is killed in a prison - at the mercy of his interrogator - and that the interrogator is no punished? Is this "normal"?

2. You seem to contradict yourself here. I believe it's because you're taking a portion of a statement out of context. The military legal system has no jurisdiction ove the private contractor. That is why the CIA and Justice Dept. are investigating. Maybe it's not normal for your country to investigate a crime before making arrests?

3. "being investigated" does not equal "No Justice". It usually means..they're investigating...you know, finding out who is guilty and then building a case...isn't that how you do it in your country? Or even in the ICC?

4. A lack of jurisdiction..means...just that...it's not our jurisdiction..it's another departments...The military has an internal legal system that does not apply to civilians. This does not rule out civilian law applying to military personal, only that military law does not apply to civilians, that includes contractors...who would be charged under civilian laws.

5. again, investigating...does not equal ignoring. The wheels of the justice system are often slow but that does not mean they do not serve justice. In comparision, the ICC is particularly slow..(except in the case of Israel, but that's another story) or haven't you noticed?

 

[Njorl]

Actually, a bill passed in 2001 explicitly gave the US jurisdiction to proscecute contractors hired by the defense department for crimes committed outside normal US jurisdiction. It is a condition of their employment that they agree to submit to this jurisdiction. I don't know if it is equivalent to the UCMJ, which is sometimes more harsh and sometimes less harsh than civilian justice, but they are not going to evade proscecution for lack of jurisdiction.

Here is a link.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/paul0330.htm

Edit - this just describes the opening of debate of the bill. It did pass eventually, but I don't know exactly what it will cover. Seeing as how its intent was to cover exactly what happened in Iraq, I think any civilians involved will be prosecuted.