On 13 May 2004 10:49:43 -0700, (Emmanuel
Gustin) wrote:

It also comments on the limitation of that policy to a selected group;
what about that group? Or do they simply get air-brushed out of the
equation when it comes time to deliver verdicts on US policy towards
detainees as a whole?

You mean, is it relevant who the abused detainees are?

No. I mean acknowledging the extent of the abuse amongst all
detainees, without fear or favour: where it exists, and, just as
importantly if you have any pretence to objectivity, where it doesn't
exist or has been dealt with.

I don't think it is.

Good for you. Nice straw man, by the way.

Most courts take a dim view of attempts to excuse
a crime by throwing mud on the victims.

Good for them. This has nothing to do with my question on the
representative nature of the recorded US abuse. If you want to spend
time answering my posts, either ask for clarification of my point or
answer it rather than introduce your own straw men.

You are, as I understand it, critiquing US policy towards Iraqi
detainees. A commonly-acceptable starting point for that would be to
acknowledge what US policy was and what the involved in the treatment
of *all* detainees, and not just selected groups of them actually was.
For example, your approach is as meaningful in terms of characterising
the approach of US forces to all detainees as Rumsfeld parading a
group that the US forces had treated with kid gloves and then claiming
this was characteristic of the experience of detainees as a whole.
What is missing is any sense of proportion and any pretence to
objectivity.

I see, so now ittle evidence of "wait and see" is now required, you
can - where it suits you - jump to conclusive characterisations of how
the ICRC report is about to deal a "fatal blow" to US Iraq policy.

You are right, I do not think we need to wait much longer to
judge this.

Clearly, you don't.

How is any future Iraqi government going to be able
to work with the USA, with this millstone around their necks?

Pretty much how the German government works with the USA despite the
millstone of American force's war crimes and occupation crimes against
the local population. With any luck any future Iraqi government will
restrain their desire to announce how the latest case of American
crime or misdemeanour is characteristic of flaws in the American
government or character, and instead demand and receive due process of
legal justice on the suspects as individuals. You know, pretty much
like any other country might, without indulging the more hysterical
elements of anti-American hysteria. You can leave the conspiracy
theories and the generalised axiomatic assumptions until they are
demonstrably provable.

Really? I suggest holding individual soldiers - Belgian or American -
responsible for any immoral or illegal acts they commit, through the
normal process of military and civilian justice, is an essential
prerequisite for maintaining the rule of law and military discipline.

I fully agree with that, as long as this involves fair and
measured sentences based on sound evidence and a correct
assesment of the environment these people had to live and
work in.

Good. Now start applying this to every case involving US soldiers in
Iraq using physical or lethal force in the course of their duties,
rather than jumping to assumptive judgements apparently based on their
nationality alone.

And as long as sentences and procedures are not
influenced by any considerations of political convenience.

I'm quite happy for larger issues or political "convenience" in the
case of maintaining public order in Iraq to informn legal proceedings,
at least to some extent, e.g. delaying al-Sadr's trial for murder, or
accelerating courts-martial for the soldiers involved in the abuse at
Abu Ghraib.

how contingent it is upon your preconceptions and their status
and rank.

You are right that I believe that politicians who make their
decisions from a comfortable chair thousands of miles away,
should be judged more rigourously than footsoldiers who break
the law in a highly stressful situation.

Good, now demonstrate the Rumsfeld was a party to the breaking of the
law by soldiers in Abu Ghraib. You seem to know this for a fact
already, so you should have no problem sharing the evidence that
convinced you of this.

Oh, so that's OK then. Would you tolerate such a response - an
internal inquiry followed by internal procedural change and then an
assertion that "everything is OK now" - from the US army?

Actually, yes, on condition that the new policy is indeed an
effective and rigorous approach to banning and preventing
abuse of prisoners.

The problem is proving that. Public judicial proceedings are an
essential element towards that end. An internal and invisible army
process is unacceptable.

You should take a
close look at where your assertions in this thread materially move
beyond those points, and where you apparently adhere to a double
standards in regard to the nationality of soldiers alledged to have
commited human rights abuses on active service.

No double standard is involved.

I beg to differ. You've convicted Rumsfeld already, and indicted US
policy by selective example alone.

If the US military court of
justice judges in fairness that some of the charges against
the guards of Abu Ghraib are unproven, and that lenient
punishment for the other charges is appropriate considering
the circumstances, I see no fundamental reason to object.

Given that the soldiers are being arrested, charged and are apparently
set for trial, I question your understanding of their conduct of DoD
"policy".

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En