posted on May 12, 2004 08:32:50 AM new
In my opinion the International Red Cross is not worth a hill of Beans. Like the United Nations it is filled with dipsticks, crooks and contempt for the United States.
Congress should that a good look in the Mirror at it's self. They dropped the ball.
The only people that were blind sided or trying to cover up is Congress & the Media. The information was put out on a silver platter. None of them contacted the Defense Dept. or asked any questions during Both Press releases on National T.V. No one for the Congress requested any information about the investigation. The were more worried about Vacation & Playing politics than treatment of Terrorist and Combatants.
posted on May 12, 2004 08:36:28 AM new"The Red Cross complained last Fall and was ignored" It was not ignored. Press release in Jan. 1st & 2nd investigation completed. Feb. press release 6 charged. ( we had a tread on it.). More charges may be coming. Commanding Gen. removed.
The Red Cross was ignored - and nothing was done until the pictures were threatened to be released. But the torture never should have happened in the first place. Now many of Bush's protectors are attempting to place blame on the lowly enlisted people claiming it was "just a few bad people". At least Graham of S. Carolina has stated he will not remain silient while these enlisted people are scapegoated.
The Geneva Convention does not apply. When the last Prisoners of war were released. all that remain are Terrorist and Combatants.
Wrong. The General that has investigated has said that over 60% of those imprisoned at the facility were innocent non-combatants that shouldn't have even been in prison. If you think the GC and other treaties and our own laws are strict about POWs, they are even more strict about the treatment of innocent civilians and even criminals held under martial law.
Another thing that should be looked into is the civilian jobs of some of these prison guards. It is my understanding that some of these men and women have jobs as prison guards and policemen here in the states.
posted on May 12, 2004 08:43:28 AM newThe Red Cross was ignored - and nothing was done until the pictures were threatened to be released. Wrong and links have been provided showing the dates.....
The majority of American's are not as outraged as the Bush haters who ARE using this for political gain.
Just like kerry.....setting up on his website his outrage....while asking for campaign donations. Now that's shameful....using this disgrace on our nation to raise campaign funds.
posted on May 12, 2004 08:54:33 AM new
It is called the BUCK STOPS HERE. The shot of Kerry tromping through the jungle in his campaign add was shot with his own Super 8 camera.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:00:01 AM new
You are misinformed about Geneva. It does apply.
None of those dodges can be applied in Iraq, where the conduct of the U.S. military is incontrovertably governed by the Third Geneva Convention, which prohibits:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
The Fourth Convention, which the United States has not signed, but has voluntarily agreed to abide by, extends those same protections to detained civilians.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:13:56 AM new
Fred - You should know by now that helen is our expert military spokesperson...she knows all the rules/regulations/etc...although when asked has never provided her credentials
I especially like this part:
which prohibits the:
Taking of hostages
So...get that straight...during war time we are NOT allowed to take hostages for any reason....;-D
posted on May 12, 2004 09:22:54 AM new
Glad to Helen. But it was already pointed out to the committee. You need to clear your ear wax to listen or read what has been said.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:40:25 AM new
STEPHEN CAMBONE, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence:.......Testimony before the Armed Services Committee, May 11, 2004
So first, with respect to the application of the Geneva Convention to detainees in Iraq, from the outset of the war in Iraq, the United States government has recognized and made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to our activities in that country. Members of our armed forces should have been aware of that. If they were not -- if they were not, Lieutenant General Sanchez, the CJTF-7 commander, reminded them on more than one occasion that the forces under his command operated under that obligation.
Nevertheless there clearly was a breakdown in following Geneva Convention procedures at Abu Ghraib, and we are in the process, as you know, of investigating why that happened.
As Major General Miller, who is now in charge of detainee operations in Iraq, remarked on Saturday, the procedures established for interrogations in Iraq were sanctioned under the Geneva Convention and authorized in U.S. Army manuals.
All permissible interrogation activities were within the requirements and boundaries of applicable provisions of the convention. We are currently investigating why soldiers -- some soldiers at Abu Ghraib did not abide by those understood procedures and guidance.
posted on May 12, 2004 09:48:36 AM newI guess we now know why Bush didn't approve the Hague War Crimes Convention: He didn't want to be standing in the dock at Nuremburg, with no belt or shoelaces.
The above is from another BB "frequented by attorneys". LMAO !!!
posted on May 12, 2004 09:51:59 AM new
Well Hillary and Kennedy should resign also
Top Democrats Told of Iraqi Abuse: Report
5:49 am PST, 12 May 2004
A number of top Democrats, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, were told in February of the alleged abuses of Iraqi detainees by U.S. military personnel, but did nothing to intervene, a report said Tuesday.
Some of the Democrats who were told of the abuses are the same lawmakers who have called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, according to a list published by MSNBC.com.
...
All but one of the people--Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland--are Democrats: Sens. Jack Reed, Mark Dayton, Robert Byrd, Bill Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, Edward Kennedy, Benjamin Nelson, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Paul Sarbanes, John D. Rockefeller.
posted on May 12, 2004 10:12:15 AM newA number of top Democrats, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, were told in February of the alleged abuses of Iraqi detainees by U.S. military personnel, but did nothing to intervene, a report said Tuesday.
What a bunch of bunk. Congress does not and can not micro manage the war. And none of these things happened after Feb.
In her video diary, she catalogs the other dangers in the camp: "This is a sand viper. One bite will kill you in six hours. We've already had two prisoners die of it, but who cares? That's two less for me to worry about."
posted on May 13, 2004 02:02:13 PM new
The fact that there was a failure to disclose information and inaction to correct the problem. Leaves me wondering what assurances do we have that this is not a systemic problem, affecting other areas of government, particularly, Homeland Security. Considering that perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided by the free flow of information and prudent action. Rummy needs to be fired, make an example out of him, leaving no doubt that this will not be tolerated!
posted on May 14, 2004 06:32:06 AM new
Pictures from the Iraq prison also corroberate the enlisted soldiers' claims that they were under MI and CIA direction. The picture shows at least 4 MI personnel with the guards in one picture.
posted on May 14, 2004 06:53:19 AM new
WSJ - today
The core of the Red Cross method has been its scrupulous adherence to confidentiality agreements with the governments whose work it monitors. This approach has obvious drawbacks. But confidentiality has gotten the ICRC remarkable access and--as countless prisoners over the years have testified--has improved conditions for detainees of regimes not known for brooking public criticism. The ICRC held its tongue even as it worked in Nazi Germany and during its 23-year mission in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
So it is more than a little disconcerting, and politically suspicious, that a report now leaks criticizing the United States, of all countries. We'd take ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger's protest that he was "profoundly disturbed" by the leak a bit more seriously if his organization had not rushed to confirm the authenticity of the document and then hold a press conference about it.
Or, for that matter, if the ICRC had not already picked an unprecedented public fight with the U.S. over the Guantanamo detainees. The Red Cross was upset from the start that the Bush Administration didn't grant the detainees "prisoner of war" status, never mind that their terrorist nature is clearly a break from the kind of war rules under which the Red Cross has typically operated. For example, none of the detainees met such Geneva Convention criteria as fighting in uniform and belonging to a military organization with an identifiable command structure that is itself committed to upholding the laws of war.
The Pentagon did pledge to grant the Gitmo detainees many POW privileges, if not formal POW status. And the ICRC was allowed to inspect the facility. But it kicked up a major fuss anyway.
We wonder how many Americans on the right or left would have been sympathetic to this ICRC complaint if they understood that POWs are required to give only name, rank and ID number. Or that the Geneva Conventions forbid even positive reinforcements such as better rations to coax information from POWs.
In other words, had Donald Rumsfeld agreed to ICRC terms at Gitmo, we wouldn't have been able to interrogate these men in hopes of thwarting the next 9/11.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 who was arrested in Pakistan and is being held in an undisclosed location under non-POW rules, would also be off limits to serious interrogation.
The ICRC's leaked report shows that the organization has committed itself to similarly extreme positions with regard to Iraq. Contrary to much of the spin, the report acknowledges that "ill-treatment during interrogation was not systematic" for most prisoners, and that "abusive behavior by guards . . . was usually quickly reprimanded."
The report's complaints are mostly directed at the treatment of "high value" detainees, meaning the worst Baathist or jihadi offenders. Some of the concerns they raise are a legitimate and helpful check on U.S. officials.
But as with Gitmo, the ICRC is also promulgating a no-interrogation standard that would severely compromise the U.S. counterinsurgency effort. The ICRC demands an end to "all forms of ill-treatment, moral or physical coercion" and a respect for detainees' "psychological integrity." It even complains about "frequent cursing."
