M, I don't think the USA would want to have too close a scrutiny of their handling of prisoners of war. The International Court of Justice sounds like a good idea. The USA is using it to threaten the Iraqi opposition, while not wanting to be subject to it themselves.
A skeptic wonders why that would be if they are not embarrassed by their actions or intended actions. Lt William Calley, who was mutilating civilians, not military people, got what as a punishment? Napalm and non-smart B52 bombing of civilians in Hanoi fitted into what category?
That friendly neighbourhood ally of the USA, General Dostum, is straight out of the Saddam mould. Handing POWs over to him was like Vichy France handing Jews to the Nazis for Dr Mengele's medical care.
Perhaps some POWs given to Dostum swapped sides, but apparently quite a lot ended up very dead, in containers and stuff.
The USA should enthusiastically support development of international law and civilization. That's the key to preventing terrorism. Draining the swamp is good in the meantime [as per in Afghanistan and now Iraq].
Trying to pretend that people in Guantanamo Bay or Afghanistan don't have human rights isn't a good look. The meeting with Hu Jintao, when King George II starts to lecture China about human rights, will have them rolling in the aisles. I think we won't be hearing about human rights in China any time soon.
Whining about American POWs being shown in news media, which is apparently bad, while Iraqi POWs are shown up close and personal, is hypocritical. The mutilated dead people shown [which I haven't looked at] isn't showing POWs - that's a demonstration of Iraqi barbarism.
I don't see why showing POWs is considered bad, but the rules of war are supposed to apply to both sides, not just Iraqis.
Mqurice |
