wrote:

A leading military newspaper said that US Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone for the prisoner abuse scandal
in Iraq by refusing to give captives rights due prisoners of war under
the Geneva Conventions.

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing more
than the opinion of a single person. Hardly a news worthy item. Hell, I can
submit an editorial next week refuting everything this guy says. If they print
it does that make it true?

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set the tone early in this war by
steadfastly refusing to give captives the rights accorded to prisoners
of war under the Geneva Convention," it said.

"it" was wrong. OIF differed substantially from OEF until a few months ago.
From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention. It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry. A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting Americans in
Iraq.

From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights. Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva. Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not confuse the
issue with dubious "facts".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"