News USA again against Geneva Conventions

[pelastration]

Memo Let's CIA Take Detainees Out of Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57363-2004Oct23.html
Practice Is Called Serious Breach of Geneva Conventions

By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page A01

At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation -- a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

One intelligence official familiar with the operation said the CIA has used the March draft memo as legal support for secretly transporting as many as a dozen detainees out of Iraq in the last six months. The agency has concealed the detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other authorities, the official said.

The draft opinion, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and dated March 19, 2004, refers to both Iraqi citizens and foreigners in Iraq, who the memo says are protected by the treaty. It permits the CIA to take Iraqis out of the country to be interrogated for a "brief but not indefinite period." It also says the CIA can permanently remove persons deemed to be "illegal aliens" under "local immigration law."

... and more.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, moving prisoners across national borders is against the Geneva Conventions - as is not allowing regular access to mail, another thing we're often castigated for. But compared to what the other side did/is doing (yes, even considering the prisoners at Abu Graib [sp?]), we measure up quite well.

 

[tumor]

What else is new?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes Russ, we see how you set your standards.

 

[PerennialII]

Yes, moving prisoners across national borders is against the Geneva Conventions - as is not allowing regular access to mail, another thing we're often castigated for. But compared to what the other side did/is doing (yes, even considering the prisoners at Abu Graib [sp?]), we measure up quite well.

Its always as surprising how someone elses actions seem to be a justification for a whole lot of things ... like throwing your own ethics out of the window.

 

[pelastration]

Its always as surprising how someone elses actions seem to be a justification for a whole lot of things ... like throwing your own ethics out of the window.

At least Superman had some ethics and good deeds, but - in Bushy simple cartoon terms of the good and the bad guys - these Texas Rangers work with the Bad Boys but believe they are the Good Guys because they have the Star and the official gun.
Simple minds. Power goes "over" ethics, Power goes over human rights ... because we are the good guys.

 

[the number 42]

The erosion of civil liberties and human rights is something to be very concerned about. They weren't easily won and they won't be handed back to you on a plate either.

 

[PerennialII]

At least Superman had some ethics and good deeds, but - in Bushy simple cartoon terms of the good and the bad guys - these Texas Rangers work with the Bad Boys but believe they are the Good Guys because they have the Star and the official gun.

Yeah ... simple folks on a mission of belief ... a really bad combination.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes Russ, we see how you set your standards.

Uh huh, Ivan - you won't, for example, see me implying (like you are now) that we're in the same league with people who saw-off he heads of civilians or blow up children at bus stops. From 10,000 miles away, your perspective gets pretty narrow indeed.

And Ivan, what is it with all the one-liners lately? Do you have any arguments to make or are all of your opinions based on knee-jerk reactions?

To the rest of you; perspective, people. I want to hear arguments as to why moving prisoners across national borders is immoral/unethical. Or is it wrong simply because it says so in the Geneva Conventions? And even if it is wrong, is every wrong equally wrong? Are you guys honestly claiming that moving a prisoner is on the same level as hacking off a civilian's head?

And here's something to chew on: doesn't the fact that the things we get castigated for are trivial compared with the actions of others that are let go mean the US is, in fact, better than they are and everyone knows it?

Some actions and reactions (seen here, in the media, etc.):
A: Prisoners at 'Gitmo are denied mail and have their beards (religious symbols) shaved.
R: The US is abusing the prisoners and gets a UN outcry. The US shouldn't break the GC for any reason, ever.

A: Arab blows up Israeli children at a bus stop.
R: The Arab was a victim of circumstance and is excused (nothing is said about the people murdered).

Thats forced, lopsided perspective. The implication is that more is expected of us because we are, in fact, better.

 

[PerennialII]

To the rest of you; perspective, people. I want to hear arguments as to why moving prisoners across national borders is immoral/unethical. Or is it wrong simply because it says so in the Geneva Conventions? And even if it is wrong, is every wrong equally wrong? Are you guys honestly claiming that moving a prisoner is on the same level as hacking off a civilian's head?

The thread started from moving Iraqi prisoners, which sure is against the Geneva conventions, but I wouldn't say that is the issue I'm at least after here. The greater and concrete violations of the conventions have arisen for example in Guantanamo & Abu Ghraib. And still, if you agree to a convention stick with it, you don't just pick a part that suits you or interpret it as you will. Even though the violation appears minute it tells a grim tale about the overall attitude in dealing with POWs & terrorist suspects etc.