News Do Iraqis Have Any Rights Under US Military Control?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
It's the wording of the law. Everyone. Appeal to the UN if you disagree.

Wow. I really expected you to try to get around that one. I'm stunned. So tell me, should the kids who can't yet sign their own name be allowed to use a thumbprint when they vote? Does it imply provisions for kids who can't yet read to have someone read the candidates list to them? FZ+, you're cracking me up. This is hilarious.

Or maybe there is another possibility that is obvious to everyone except you: "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone." Incidentally there is an easy way out, though it would destroy your arguement: You could simply admit that a "declaration" is a declaration, not a law. Just like the US Declaration of Independence, its a declaration of principles, not a real workable law. That explains why it is so general, vague, and impractical.

However, it is wholy incorrect to say that all those who were loyal to Saddam were criminals.

How so? I think they call them "accomplices." If the regime itself (as defined by the criminal dictator) is criminal, everyone involved in running it is complicit in the crimes. Again, that's how it worked with Nazi Germany. Maybe I should tell YOU to take that one up with the UN, since there is some precident here.

Not if the US has already selected the possibilities of government that would draw it up.

At some point, the US will release all control over the Iraqi government.

In US prisons, you get your phone call. This is an essential safeguard to ensure the prisoners are not abused. Without such contact, we cannot in fact know if the conditions are adequate or not, though suggestions from past prisoners say they are. (also a breach)

I conceded the mail thing, but now you're interpreting it wrong. It really does mean MAIL. The phone call is NOT how they guarantee there is no abuse, that's the Red Cross's job. A person in jail is not exactly an objective observer of the conditions in the jail.

How much?

Hmm... Dodge or cite examples? I guess you have made your choice.

Articles 2 and 7 of the universal declaration of human rights. Do read it please.

laws of the universal declaration.

I let this slide until now, but as Kat pointed out, the universal declaration is *NOT* law any more than the Declaration of Independence is US law.

In any case, nothing in those two says anything about one entity protecting an entity from legal responsibility. To me that means the USA has put itself in the position to answer all such claims. This doesn't violate anyone's rights - if they want to sue, they can still sue the USA.

I can give examples for the others as well.

By all means. But could you also reread the one you just posted please? The part in the parenthases about it not being illegal at the time to carry a weapon was an aside. They weren't charged with it, so it can't be argued that they were charged retro-actively. In fact, the main complaint was that he was imprisoned WITHOUT being charged. Feel free to argue that as a separate violation if you want.

Allowances for this case is given in the Universal Declaration.[re:balancing rights]

That would be Article 7: equal protection under the law. And it does in fact mean that rights of people are BALANCED against each other. I said before that's a fundamental principle of "rights." That comes straight from Locke (via the US Bill of Rights).

I was not talking about the transition stage you referred to. I was talking about the goals and specifications for the final "independent" government the US set out.

So you know the exact form of something that doesn't exist yet? Impressive. In any case, if you are worried about the final form of the government, why are all of the examples you cited in the "transitional" part? Obviously you can't give an example of a volation that hasn't happened yet, but by saying its the final form of the gov't that you are worried about, you are arguing against yourself. In any case, allow me to let you off the hook: I asked for examples of violations that have actually occurred. So you need not concern yourself with fortune telling. I also asked specifically for Geneva Convention violations, but for now I'll settle for whatever you can give me. Though I guess you just conceded that there can't be any violations by an entity that doesn't exist yet. Then again, any violations by the future government of Iraq will be by the future government of Iraq, not the US.

Do you? Without quoting data from 10 years ago, during which it was effectively a guerilla civil war? Or previously, during another war?

The usual number cited by those who said the UN sanctions were responsible for the deaths since 1991 was about 500,000. Of course since we found warehouses full of hoarded food and caches of oil-for-food money, it is clear that those deaths are all on Saddam's head. That figure does not include executions of political prisoners.

As some cynics note, at least Saddam kept security, and electricity/water going.

Sabbotage by Saddam loyalists is a topic for another thread.

In fact, I specifically decided to show you the thin end of the wedge - the claims that are indisputable by confirmation with a variety of sources. If you want the more sensationalist data I avoided, any googlisation would do.

So this wet tissue paper is the BEST information you have? Good to know.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I'm stunned. So tell me, should the kids who can't yet sign their own name be allowed to use a thumbprint when they vote? Does it imply provisions for kids who can't yet read to have someone read the candidates list to them?

just because they can't read the Queen's English doesn't mean they can't read. Are you implying that Iraqis are incapable of a Republic or a Democracy?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

No one has yet even alleged such violations in an international forum, much less attempted to take action. To me that's pretty telling.

It IS telling- its telling you that the international community is skeptical of our intentions, and afraid of our motives.
What would be the result, for instance of an international tribunal against Clinton? Has he committed war crimes, or commanded war crimes to be committed? he did bomb a Pharmaceutical factory in some 3rd world country. And Slobo's TV station. And the international unfair trade alliances. Nobody can touch the President except the House of Representatives, so the UN will not punish the US with military force, but with sanctions.
___
"History will be my judge" --- FDR

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
just because they can't read the Queen's English doesn't mean they can't read. Are you implying that Iraqis are incapable of a Republic or a Democracy?

Please reread that paragraph of satire. It has nothing to do with the literacy rate (though it is pretty appalling) of Iraq. It was simply an extension of FZ+'s insistence that "everyone" including children and convicted criminals should have the right to vote.

What would be the result, for instance of an international tribunal against Clinton? Has he committed war crimes, or commanded war crimes to be committed?

Had the UN believed Clinton guilty of war crimes, they would have attempted to try him - even in absentia. Someone is only above the law if we ALLOW them to be above the law. And the UN won't allow the US (at least they'll try as hard as they can not to) to be above the law.

 

[FZ+]

Or maybe there is another possibility that is obvious to everyone except you: "everyone" doesn't mean "everyone."

It seems your brain has mistranslated the text or something, because I rather distinctly said "represented". And guess what the declaration says?

The point is that the views of everyone should be available in the forum of government, and not be judged because of how "able" you think they are. You can then reject them if the majority find them wrong, but not without representation in the first place. Hell, I'd love to rule out floridans out from elections because I think they are dumb, but it seems the US tries to follow the Universal Declaration. Not always successfully, but tries to. But I see you are too busy giggling over the idea that children have opinions.

Get this through your head. Represent does not mean vote. It means that someone can put their views forward, in the forum of government, without being pre-selected by what a foreign power thinks of them.

How so? I think they call them "accomplices." If the regime itself (as defined by the criminal dictator) is criminal, everyone involved in running it is complicit in the crimes. Again, that's how it worked with Nazi Germany. Maybe I should tell YOU to take that one up with the UN, since there is some precident here.

And therefore 99% of Nazis were denied the vote because they supported Hitler? There is no precident there, as by the way you are saying, that anyone who would vote for a return of Saddam is an accomplice, then the entirity of Germany was "complicit". It doesn't work that way. The ones with a direct connection were indicted under war crimes, but the people were forgiven.

At some point, the US will release all control over the Iraqi government.

Having formed one that is utterly to it's wishes. The US has never promised to respect the will of the Iraqi people no matter if it disagrees with it. It has instead insisted that it's will is to select the choices available for the election, thus crippling the new democracy. That is the problem.

I conceded the mail thing, but now you're interpreting it wrong. It really does mean MAIL. The phone call is NOT how they guarantee there is no abuse, that's the Red Cross's job. A person in jail is not exactly an objective observer of the conditions in the jail.

WTH.. Ah I see. You are reading the wrong section of the geneva convention. Look at the geneva convention relative to the protection of CIVILIAN PERSONS, which also refers to the behaviour of occupying powers.

Read article 25.

All persons in the territory of a Party to the conflict, or in a territory occupied by it, shall be enabled to give news of a strictly personal nature to members of their families, wherever they may be, and to receive news from them. This correspondence shall be forwarded speedily and without undue delay.

I refer to the failure of the US to achieve this, or to undertake the other alternatives. The prisoners I refer to where not considered at military prisoners by the occupying party.

Hmm... Dodge or cite examples? I guess you have made your choice.

Er... Russ... Earth calling russ? Read ONE line down from where you quoted me to find your example. You owe me what? 50 bucks?

I let this slide until now, but as Kat pointed out, the universal declaration is *NOT* law any more than the Declaration of Independence is US law.

But it is the basis of all laws relating to human rights. Additional laws add further rights, not reduce ones that are establish here in principle.

In any case, nothing in those two says anything about one entity protecting an entity from legal responsibility.

Yes it does. It says all parties are equal before the law regardless of the entity they belong to.

Feel free to argue that as a separate violation if you want.

*shrug* Also works. Still an example.

That would be Article 7: equal protection under the law.

Now let's remember what you just said. The universal declaration is not a law. Oops, doesn't apply.

So you know the exact form of something that doesn't exist yet?

Huh? I know the form of it, because the US spokesperson said that's the way it's going to be, and I believe him. You don't? Want to give a reason why? The US has a responsibility by article 28, as I said before.

The usual number cited by those who said the UN sanctions were responsible for the deaths since 1991 was about 500,000.

Might the fact that these were attributed to sanctions be a hint as to how you are taking this out of context?

So this wet tissue paper is the BEST information you have? Good to know.

From an integrity of source point of view, without making any references to say, single anonymous sources, phd thesis, gut feeling and the clever art of re-interpreting satellite imagery and forging evidence. But I'm not saying, bomb the US, am I? I am saying that there is serious and credible evidence for human rights abuses of at least the level you denied existed, and so you were wrong.

That was what I was trying to settle.


--

Let me now make a dramatic point.

I am FOR the continued occupation of Iraq, because I believe that now that the war has been done, it must be necessary to face the real consequences everyone forgot about. I believe that some human rights incidents are inevitable, and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they aren't, but that we can always do more to ensure greater success to the rebuilding of Iraq. The worst possible thing is in fact for the US to pull out of Iraq right now. Our continued vigilance should not be on a selfish determination to "get our boys home", but to finish what Bushy started. It is in everyone's best interest to overwhelm the controversy of the war with a new peace.

Thank you gentlemen. Next step, the Republican/democrat (never can tell the difference nowadays) presidential candidacy!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
It seems your brain has mistranslated the text or something, because I rather distinctly said "represented". And guess what the declaration says?

You're right - I made the jump from representation to voting in the last post. Apologies. In any case, that makes it even better - its vague enough to allow a government to decide HOW people are represented. If people can take responsibility for children as not being competent to represent themselves, the same can be said for Nazis or criminals.

But I see you are too busy giggling over the idea that children have opinions.

Covered above. Children's opinions are most certainly irrelevant. Others decide what is best for them without regard for the opinion of the child (if desired).

Having formed one that is utterly to it's wishes. The US has never promised to respect the will of the Iraqi people no matter if it disagrees with it. It has instead insisted that it's will is to select the choices available for the election, thus crippling the new democracy.

As I said, until it happens, its academic. We'll just have to wait and see.

I refer to the failure of the US to achieve this, or to undertake the other alternatives. The prisoners I refer to where not considered at military prisoners by the occupying party.

Ok, so the US is responsible for setting up the mail and/or getting the phones working. Thats fine - we're working on it. Its tough though since terrorists continue to blow up much of the infrastructure we build.

Read ONE line down from where you quoted me to find your example. You owe me what? 50 bucks?

You misread your own exampmle - and I covered that... about one line down from that quote

*shrug* Also works. Still an example.

Ahh good - so you accept the other side of the coin - that you misread your own example... Ok, now you can argue that unlawful imprisonment if you choose. Good luck.

But it is the basis of all laws relating to human rights. Additional laws add further rights, not reduce ones that are establish here in principle.

Certainly... so now you are conceding that there can't be a war crime that comes from a "violation" of this? Ok, good... So why are we discussing it? I asked for war crimes.

Yes it does. It says all parties are equal before the law regardless of the entity they belong to.

If it were only that simple when reconciling the laws of two separate countries - especially one that is not even halfway set up. But in any case, that's part of the thing we just agreed isn't a war crime. So not relevant.

Might the fact that these were attributed to sanctions be a hint as to how you are taking this out of context?

I *LOVE* using people's own statistics against them.

I am saying that there is serious and credible evidence for human rights abuses of at least the level you denied existed, and so you were wrong.

That was what I was trying to settle.

Well that's nice. So you concede that though you find some things that may or may not happen in the future unsettling you do NOT have any evidence of actual war crimes that have acutally been comitted? Well why did we even have this conversation? I asked for evidence of war crimes. You gave me ONE, which I conceded (while laughing at it). Somehow I doubt that anyone in the US will be convicted by the Hague for not providing adequate mail service to the Iraqi POW's.

Next step...

Fair enough. But my question remains open for anyone who wants to answer it. Maybe I'll start a new thread.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Please reread that paragraph of satire.

A thousand pardons, your subtleties eluded etc. I read in Newsweek that an official in Iraq said "there's no structure here -- at least the UN has structure."
Was one of the 'beaurueacratic reasons' for this war to intentionally flaunt the UN or at least break alliances with them?

RWAt some point, the US will release all control over the Iraqi government.

That's totally true of course, but when? When it's handed back to the UN in an oil-depleated impoverished ruin? Ok, more optimistic - in 2 years when a sane person regains the title of commander in chief.

FZ+Get this through your head. Represent does not mean vote. It means that someone can put their views forward, in the forum of government, without being pre-selected by what a foreign power thinks of them.

That's a constitutional right in this country, but our presence and the UN's in Iraq is being attacked on all sides by religious fundamentalist terrorists. Of course they have the "right" de-facto to express their views because the government does not exist. Our few tens of thousands spread over a city of 5 million people are not going to stop any massive uprising.