GOP: Treatment of Afghan POWs

[Grond]

Originally posted by Gloer
...3. Coming down to the last topic. It is connected to the above administrative powers. Bush government is granted extensive means to intervane privacy of terrorist suspects. The problem is that terrorism is hard to define and therefore it is easy to abuse the new powers. I really would not like to be a muslim in USA. They just lost their right for privacy and no-one even noticed! I find your last comments the most interesting. It makes me wonder what right of privacy is afforded to any non-Muslim has in a Muslim country. I've looked on the Internet but can't seem to find any listings for Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, Buddhist temples or any other form of non-Muslim place of woship in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmmmmm????

[Gloer]

Grond:

Compare USA with Canada, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a country living in a feudal system last time I checked.

ReadWryt:

I agree with you in that **** Cheney is an intelligent, diligent and pragmatic man. He is too careful to be that easily fooled by some corrupt company executives. I hope they will be put to jail the whole bunch. The thing they did is same as robbing a bank. Even worse since their actions were deliberately deceiving the market economy system that relies on certain fundamentals. One of them is that the balance sheet and the audit of a corporation are reliable. Mr. Lay and the rest build a delicate system of transfering debts to private companies that were owned by Enron. The values of the shares of these companies are estimates. Enron executives gave these shares totally fraudulent values in the balance sheets of Enron to boost it's share price. And then they sold the whole lot of their stake.

I see these Enron executives and their belief system the most urgent threat to capitalistic system right now. Because they are in the core of it.

Now if people equipped with moral standards this low are talking to **** Cheney, then he stepped in an inevitable political mine. He is somewhat limited in his political space and influence right now. Which I don't like since he seems to be less likely to make real careless mistakes than mr.Rumsfeld and mr.Ascroft and the President himself. What do you think? Don't you think that mr. Powell and mr. Cheney are more pragmatic and careful than those three mentioned above? It might be the flawed view of mine after 9/11, but Rumsfeld and Ascroft love to make fast sweeping strong moves rathere than think what is really neccessery which is what Powell and Cheney do.

[ReadWryt]

I actually think that Cheney and Bush are gonna play a bit of Global Good Cop/Bad Cop for a while, especially in the dealings with the Palestinians. I can see Cheney and Rumsfeld sitting around trying to figure out how they are going to reproduce Nixon's trick in the USSR and China with Iran and Iraq, once Saddam is out of the picture, and in a minor way the same thing with Israel and Palestine once Arafat is gone. More and more Arab progressive editorialists are mentioning the "Post-Arafat Palestine"...the Nixon trick can be summed up by a comment he made to the White House press corps..."My Russia game helps my China game, and my China game helps my Russia game.".

In this case though it will be first working both sides of the fence to build a stable and mutually equitable relationship, then using those bilateral relationships to bring the opposing parties to the bargaining table.

Of COURSE Cheney is pragmatic..after THAT many heart attacks one comes to realize that the next major decision could be remembered for all time as your LAST major decision.:p Seriously though, the Enron thing was unavoidable, had Enron NOT been an advisory attendee at the Energy Policy Round Table there would have been worse accusations...claims that Enron had allready BOUGHT the policy points that they wanted and that the meeting was window dressing for the rubberstamp deal that had been made already in the proverbial "Smoke filled back room".

The reprobates that did this though saved all the smoke for blowing up the behinds of their Stock Holders, especially the employees. This is a prime example of the type of garbage that Arthur Anderson is famous for though. Sunbeam, Waste Management and now Enron, all companies they were handling accounting for and that they were the Oversight Auditors for as well. If they were an individual here in California they would be looking at 25 to life under the three stikes laws, but the problem is so much like what we just did in Afghanistan as to be scary. We have to go in, sort out who the bad guys are and try to get them out of there while leaving the majority of the place in tact so that good and honest people don't loose jobs over this. It's a damned hard row to hoe and I think that when people realize that the Justice Department spent 7 years of the last administration chasing ghosts at Microsoft instead of looking into what Enron was doing with all those overseas corperations and "Off Book Debt Concealment" scams they will have to realize what Janet Reno was REALLY doing with Microsoft in the first place.

See, Microsoft was famous in political circles for not contributing to Political causes or candidates. They made lots of donations to cherities and scholastic causes, but they tried for many years to remain apolitical. Enron on the other hand has been all ABOUT contributing to political candidates and parties, and so who get worked over? Ever see one of those movies about the Mafia where the guys with the crooked noses and middle names like "the" go into a business and tell the owner why it is wise to pay the "insurance" money to them or else accidents might happen, then they maybe rough up the owner and break a few things? Picture Janet Reno with Bill Gates in a headlock and you would not be far off from the same scene...Gates wasn't paying his "Insurance", but Enron was.

The thing that will be brushed under the carpet will be how long the Felonious Slobs at Enron have been doing their shell game with their debt, and how much they contributed to the folks in power in the previous administration's watch...

[daisy]

Have to ask,
Why exactly are Taliban soldiers not P.O.W.'s under the Geneva Convention? And does anyone remember whether captured Nazi troops were P.O.W.'s or was that pre-Geneva?

i just can't figure out this Pow thing.

[Grond]

Daisy, from MSNBC dated today.

...But the United States, which this week said it would apply the Geneva Convention to captured Taliban fighters but not to members of al-Qaida, is struggling to differentiate between the prisoners held in Cuba, a senior Army officer said Saturday...

The link to the entire article is here... http://www.msnbc.com/news/689029.asp?0dm=C17SN

[daisy]

I was aware that the U.S. had decided to do the Geneva convention thing for Taliban fighters but why not designate them P.O.W.'s?
And was the Geneva Convention afforded to Nazi prisoners?

Thanks for the link, Grond. I am just freaked by the blindfold, earmuff, surgical mask, shackle stuff going on in sunny Cooba - one of my favourite places on Earth I might add - I had the pleasure of living there briefly and it is just amazing. Fidel notwithstanding...:)

[Grond]

Daisy, over 60% of these detainees are Saudi's who would be presumed to me members of Al-Qaeda and not Afghan Taliban. They were shackled when they arrived in Cuba because we shackle all criminals in the U. S. when in transport. Some were blind folded and had other restraints because they were violent on the airplane.

I am so very angered by the Worldwide Media for portraying us as barbarians. On this very thread not four or five posts ago, I asked Gloer to point out a Church, Synagogue or Temple in Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic Law government. Except for Turkey and a few others, these religions are not tolerated. In other countries a person caught stealing loses a hand. In Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, adultery was punished by death. A gunshot to the head of a woman or hanging for a man. Now the world community screams foul, because we treat these people the same way we treat every other criminal. They are shackled when transported. If they act up in transport, they may be pig tied, gagged and blind-folded.

I fail to see where all the complaints are coming from. Many of the detainees, if released to the custody of the current Afghan government would immediately be tried and executed. Even though the American government has not determined all of the detainees status, we are treating all of them humanely. Much more humanely than the innocents who lost their lives on 09/11.

[daisy]

I don't think I mentioned the word, " barbarian". Hey, I am not saying that the U.S. does not have cause for whatever methods they are using, but canadian troops are now in Afghanistan and are handing over prisoners to the states and it makes me slightly nervous if they are not being treated as per the Geneva Convention - but I guess that issue has been addressed.

I would never presume that these are easy decisions to make.:(

Maybe Dengen, you could consider a topic not related to the current Afghan war, although you did try with the governmental system and the form of government - for what it's worth I am a fan of utopian socialism and the democratic system. I also used to want to go and live on a commune but am too cranky. i can barely handle having neighbors!!

What about something like divorce, or legalization of marijuana or forgiving third world debt?
Any ideas?

And Grond, sorry if I was insensitive.:(

daisy

[Grond]

Again I am guilty of getting into a discussion where I know I shouldn't be expressing opinions. My apologies to all for doing exactly what I said I wasn't, earlier in the thread. :)

[daisy]

But your opinions are important and welcome, even if others don't agree. Just because you are now a moderator does not mean we do not want to hear your views.

daisy

:)

[greypilgrim]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by daisy
"I am just freaked by the blindfold, earmuff, surgical mask, shackle stuff going on in sunny Cooba"

daisy, other countries would afford them much less treatment, and they are being held humanely and in safe quarters. THINK!!
torture, starvation, beatings, rape, and filthy cells are NOT the situation, and why aren't their own people crying out against the alleged "inhumane" treatment by the u.s. government?
because they are getting an easy ride, that is why, and they know it.

[Snaga]

Does anyone know either:
- Which provision(s) of the Geneva convention the US government has chosen deny them
- Which provision(s) beyond this are allegedly being denied?

I can't claim to be an expert on international law, but, surprisingly, in all of the coverage that I've seen noone has actually addressed this! It then starts to look like empty rhetoric on both side. US Gov: 'They don't fight according to the rules of war, so they have no right to something whatever that may in fact be.' Human rights people: 'You are denying them something, whatever in fact that turns out to be.'

[ReadWryt]

Assuming that these people being blindfolded are suspected of being al-Qaida members then one must assume that they are TRAINED TERRORISTS and would seek any oportunity to cause whatever trouble they could, on a Military flight especially!.

The al-Qaida folks are not Military Personel of any Government, and so are not covered under the Geneva Conventions. Unless someone can pull out the original documents from the Geneva Conventions and display where al-Qaida signed them and what the Geographic Borders are of the nation of al-Qaida then there is no reason to treat them as we would any signator to the Conventions, or any nation recognised by the U.N.. To do so would be foolish and only demostrate a lack of respect for the Governments we have treaties with currently and promote the view of our "Weakness" to Bin Laden and those like him.

There are, in the US Navy, more then thirty Muslim Chaplains and most of them are in Cuba right now. When the prisoners asked for copies of the Khoran in their own languages, the head of the detainment facility got them to the chaplains...when they asked for Prayer Rugs...the same happened. When they wanted to have a "Call to Prayer" 5 times a day, the officer in charge of the facility brought in a P.A. system and had several chaplains record calls to prayer so that they could have that.

Most of them are eating better then they had in Afghanistan, they get to shower more often and they are recieving better medical attention then they have had in years. I don't understand what the foreign press is so mad about outside of the fact that we won't let them near the place and so they have their noses out of joint that, once more, the U.S. is excluding them from the action.

[Gloer]

ReadWryt:

So if foreign press is not let in then american press is? Is this the fact? Why? Because the american press is friendly and tells what they are told to tell?

To answer the question what is denied from the people in Guantanamo:
a legal status.
According to the USA those people are not P.O.W. according to Geneva conventions. Neither the citizens of Afghanistan that are held in Guantanamo are given the status of P.O.W. nor the citizens of other countries. USA decided to give the prisoners a status of "illegal combatant". That is something which bases on the fact that afghan fighters do not wear western military uniforms. I must say this is funny since they women also dress strangely. Understandably it is as difficult to indentify afghan women as women under their dress. For mr. Rumsfeld it is as hard to identify an afghan soldier in his rags as a soldier.

Nevertheless:
1. USA is not at war.
2. There is legally no war. Only a "police operation".
3. USA never acknowledged Taliban as legal representatives of Afghanistan.
4. People regardless of nationality (including al-quaida) that fought under the Taliban did not fight under a government that USA acknowledges or for a country that USA was in war with legally or factually.

All prisoners in Guantanamo are then civilians and should be tried in civilian federal courts.

[greypilgrim]

i have the old-school train of thought. i think that any captured terrorists should be hauled through the streets of new york and........oh wait, i couldn't say that here!!

[Bill the Pony]

Daisy, I'm no legal expert or anything, but here is what the dutch newspaper has to say about the 'why not POW' thing.
This newspaper claims that the US does not want to call the Taliban fighter POW because:
1. POW do not need to say anything but their name and rank. So the US can not interrogate them about future (terrorist) plans
2. POW have to be returned without delay to their home contries at the end of conflict. One exception is if they are suspects of a crime. Then they can be tried and punished if proven guilty. According to this newspaper, that's the problem. Proving the guilt of many of the prisoners in 'terrorist activities'. They probably did so, but it will be very difficult to prove such a thing.

So, better not to give them the POW status, so that the prisoners can be interrogated and kept in prison for as long as US thinks necessary, without all people shouting that it's a violation of their rights.

And, at least the dutch newspapers are not so much troubled by the fact that the US decided not to treat the Taliban as POW, since that might well be the correct decision, but they are troubled by the fact that de US decided to do so, without following the Geneva Convention. It is stated in article 5 (according to this dutch newspaper, I would not know) that in case of doubt about the status of prisoners, their status will be determined by 'a competent tribunal'. Since the US is so sure their decision about the status of the prisoners is the right one, I see no problem assigning an international tribunal to confirm this decision. Obviously in Europe there is doubt. So why not, just to shut them up, install such a tribunal to determine the status of the prisoners?

[Gloer]

The best current affairs magazine printed in english is probably The Economist.

Here is a very good view on the developement of the international law and war tribunals from a little longer time period than the recent months.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=984611

The next important thing to happen is the trial of the alledged war criminal Slobodan Milosevic in Hague.

Now I will quote and comment what the insightful columnist writes about what USA has taken international law in the past few years and right now:

" But in the past few years, the move towards the wider implementation of international law has stumbled, mostly because of American ambivalence.The United States, under President Bill Clinton, had been instrumental in setting up the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, and backed them strongly. It had also originally supported the idea of a permanent international criminal court. But it balked at this when other countries—including its NATO allies—insisted that the court be independent of UN Security Council control and refused to give America itself an absolute exemption from its jurisdiction."

- Surely USA does not need an exemption. Why would it? History shows nothing but good will since 1776, right?

" President George Bush’s administration has been even more hostile to the idea of the court. And the Bush administration, although invoking international law on occasion as all previous administrations have done, is signally unenthusiastic about the constraints of international treaties, casting doubts on the future of a number of arms control treaties, for example."

- USA does not like arms control any more than Iraq.

"Its reluctance to apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan, and the brushing aside of protests about this from European allies, have also raised doubts about its respect for international law, never mind its willingness to countenance any extension of it. Even many of those who back the world criminal court, and want to see law applied more widely, wonder if this will now be possible while the world’s sole superpower behaves in this way, or if it becomes unrelentingly hostile to the idea. The UN’s decision this month to give up on plans to co-operate with Cambodia on planned trials of surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge because it found the Cambodians too intransigent could be one sign that small, and still undemocratic, countries already sense which way the wind is blowing."

- USA shows all those nasty little Iraqs, North Korea's and Iran's an example: get done with underdog enemies while you have them pinned down by force. Trials are waste of time and risk the final solution of the terrorist problem.

" Into this volatile mix comes Mr Milosevic’s trial, the highest profile such court case since Nuremberg. Mr Milosevic will do everything he can to disrupt the proceedings, and to brand his prosecutors and judges as tools of NATO and America, and the charges against him as part of a political vendetta. If he succeeds, the losers will not only be the tens of thousands of victims and their families in the Balkans, but also all those who had hoped that the restraining hand of law, as well as the bomb and the bullet, might play a greater role in international relations."

[Chymaera]

The POW's have been moved from Camp X-ray to new Camp Delta. No press, no news, no rights, These prisoners have to be charged and put on trial. If the US goverment can not find the evidents to convict these people after almost a year then the evidents was not there to begin with!

Or just execute them and live with the guilt.:mad:

[Gloer]

I would like to know how these old posts suddenly jump up in a tnew thread. Yjree of them were mine and I am not all too happy to see them suddenly appear again and out of the old context.
:confused:

Same words might get a new meaning if sited again in a new situation.
At least there are dates in the posts.:rolleyes:

I think if old messages are deleted they should remain deleted.
If a thread must be divided, then it should be done at once so that all the messages that are not deleted remain continuously available somewhere.
...or have I just missed something...again?