"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
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.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same
interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on
nothing
more
than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single
person?

"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.

No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the
greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly
advise us
both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of
the
Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees? Why did nobody
in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about
cleaning up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and
became
public knowledge?

Since February 2004? Maybe because by that time we were already in the midst
of our own investigations, had already releived the Abu Ghraib MP
leadership, and were developing criminal charges against involved personnel?

If you are referring to the *original* ICRC concerns, from *last* year, then
yeah, we are guilty...of forcing PW's to sit in unlighted cells? Gosh, now
that *is* nasty...given that 90 plus percent of the *rest* of the Iraqi
population was also without benefit of electric lighting at that time.
Beyond that we don't know very much about what the specific concerns of the
ICRC were, though we know they were none too happy with our detainee policy,
etc., in general (who'd have thunk it?).


Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that
any
large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General
Miller was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the
detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

Where do you see that?

This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to
which both
the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
Party to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(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;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Nice, but that would only apply to the former members of the Iraqi armed
forces, or the local populace, not external insurgents; note that Article 3
also applies only to "conflict not of an international character" (i.e., a
civil war). You get an "A" for effort, but a "D" for applicability to the
posited case of the Saudi fighter captured in Iraq. You might want to peruse
Article 4:

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the
conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this
territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following
conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.

Note that the four requirements must *all* be met, in addition to the bit
about being a memeber of "a party to the conflict". Sorry, but the posited
Saudi insurgent does not seem to fit that mold, either. So,,,nope, he is not
entitled to PW status.


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.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look -
if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not
they
were soldiers.

Not necessarily. See Article 4. Itappears that you obviously HAVE read only
those portions of the GC that (appear at first glance to) suit your
preconceived notions.


Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
the
Geneva Conventions?

You've never heard of "CYA"? Maybe it's been a while since he looked at
the
Fourth Convention; anyway, anybody who can read par. (1)(c) of the
Convention
(look above) wouldn't be saying that.

Again, read both the preamble to the Article 3 and the entire Article 4. If
you can do so with an open mind (doubtful, I am afraid, given your past
track record), you will see that the case can definitely be made that the
external sourced insurgents don't meet the PW criteria, and that activities
of some of the former Iraqi military personnel who have since retaken up
arms puts them outside the purview of Article 4.

Brooks


Does this mean they
should be treated as they were in Abu Gharib? Hell no, but lets not
confuse
the
issue with dubious "facts".

You're practically a shill for the Bushies. You typically stay well away
from
the facts.

Walt