Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (88608)	4/1/2003 1:58:17 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

U.S. Shows Hypocrisy on Prisoner Treatment March 27, 2003 This is why it matters. Americans are outraged that U.S. prisoners of war in Iraq might not be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Pictures of captured soldiers tell the story behind the slogan, war is hell. These are a violation, we shout. Much of the rest of the world snickers back at us. The administration says mistreatment of American POWs might constitute a war crime. The loquacious defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, declared that it's "illegal" to humiliate prisoners. OK, Mr. Secretary. How about homicide? That is the cause of death listed by U.S. military coroners for two prisoners in American custody at the Bagram air base, north of Kabul. The coroners found the men had been beaten; one had a blood clot in his lung. The investigation is continuing. How about standing naked, hooded and shackled - kept immobile for long periods and deprived of sleep? Former detainees have described their detentions this way. Unnamed administration officials have boasted to The Washington Post that upon capture in Afghanistan some are beaten and confined to tiny rooms, blindfolded and thrown into walls, bound in painful positions and kept awake. Then there are the "renderings." This is what can happen to those deemed uncooperative. They are sometimes sent to countries - Jordan, Egypt and Morocco are favorites - where torture is practiced. For example, here is what the State Department has to say, in its own human rights report, about Egypt: "In combating terrorism, the security forces continued to mistreat and torture prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain prisoners, hold detainees in prolonged pretrial detention and occasionally engage in mass arrests." Why did we believe it would never matter? Why do we think we, and we alone, can flout the rules of international conduct and somehow not be sneered at when we correctly - and inevitably - seek to have these very standards applied to our own? A year ago the Bush administration announced, flatly and emphatically, that the United States would not abide by the Geneva Conventions at the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where hundreds of Afghan fighters who defended the Taliban government and suspected members of al-Qaida are imprisoned. President George W. Bush reversed himself only after shocked complaint from the world community and grousing from Colin Powell. Then the administration decided to pick and choose just which parts of the conventions it wants to apply. It said it would apply the conventions only at Guantanamo but not at detention centers in Afghanistan. And so the International Red Cross and others have said food, medical care and other basics are available at Guantanamo. But no observer has been allowed to peek inside the Afghan centers. None of the thousands we've swept up in the war on terror has been granted POW status, not even Taliban fighters who were conscripted to defend what was the Afghan government. Those who were handed over to U.S. authorities by regional warlords have not been given hearings to determine what, exactly, their status is. Some claim to be taxi drivers or farmers or students who never fought for anyone. Eighteen apparently innocent Afghans were released from Guantanamo earlier this week, after months in the pens. The Geneva Conventions say that in cases of doubt about a prisoner's status a "competent tribunal" must be convened to decide it. The United States held more than 1,000 such tribunals during the first Persian Gulf war. "The U.S. government has never before balked at this very straightforward requirement of the Geneva Conventions," said Wendy Patton, director of U.S. advocacy at Human Rights Watch. Tony Blair was pressed in Parliament about American hypocrisy - how can pictures be such a horrible breach, when Guantanamo is not? The British prime minister replied that eventually "the situation" at Guantanamo will have to end. The White House has no such plans. We can say, as we so often do, that the United States is always right and the international nitpickers wrong. But this has fattened a very large chicken. It comes home, now, to roost. newsday.com

To: Neeka who wrote (88608)	4/1/2003 4:42:46 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

Why don't you Google, "Geneva convention toilet paper." That should get you as much useful info as anything else BJ has posted. :>)

To: Neeka who wrote (88608)	4/2/2003 12:37:50 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Could you give me some suggestions to use for a Google search please? If this was an honest inquiry (which it isn't), you would have obviously done a Google search for Gauntanamo and Geneva. Here is the first hit: Geneva Conventions Apply to Guantanamo Detainees hrw.org Some more detail on the 15 articles of the Geneva Convention that are currently being violated in Guantanamo: georgemonbiot.com <<< ... The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this re-definition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (Al Qaeda) must be regarded as prisoners of war. Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing sixteen of them demanded a court hearing, the US Court of Appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light ... >>> Tom