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

[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.