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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A. Geiche who wrote (384002)	4/2/2003 2:23:52 AM
From: A. Geiche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Exclusive: Geneva Conventions: Use and Misuse Abeer Mishkas, abeermishkhas@arabnews.com Pictures of captured American soldiers gave the US administration an excuse to begin talking about the Geneva Convention, which defines how POWs should be treated and forbids using POWs for propaganda. The point is valid and worthy of note by both Americans and all law-abiding governments. The showing of American POWs was a horrible sight to many who thought that it was all a stunt by Iraqi TV, broadcast out of vengeance. But a few days after Rumsfeld’s protest about the pictures of American soldiers, Reuters published a picture of 5 heavily-armed US Marines standing in a semi-circle behind two Iraqis who were blindfolded and kneeling handcuffed on the ground. Can that picture have been lawful? These pictures leave us with uneasy feelings about how much the Geneva Convention is being adhered to in this war. The Convention states in Article 4, section A, that the term “prisoners of war” applies to “members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.” In light of that, how can the British prime minister and the American president consider Iraqi soldiers “terrorists”. Tony Blair has even said that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Iraqi regime! How such a declaration can be squared with the Convention is beyond me. Unfortunately, nobody seems to care about the Convention until their own interests are supposedly violated. Looking at a world body where law is supreme, the UN agreed unanimously to a decision which allows Secretary General Kofi Annan 45 days of control of the humanitarian side of the UN program that uses Iraq’s oil revenues for food and medical supplies. But the former head of the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq and former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, criticized the decision which put Kofi Annan in charge of the program. Halliday explained that under legal obligations, the US/UK have to provide water immediately to the people of Basra where the water system is no longer functioning. “International law, specifically the Geneva Convention, requires the belligerent occupying power to take responsibility for the humanitarian needs of the civilian population under occupation. Thus, the US and the UK are responsible for all costs of emergency care, including food, medicine, and initial rehabilitation efforts,” he said. Yet it was that very same world body and the superpowers that created many of the humanitarian problems faced by the Iraqi people because of post-Gulf War sanctions. The water shortage in Basra, for example, is a direct result of those sanctions. The US in its capacity as a veto-wielding member of the Security Council’s 661 committee, whose approval is required for infrastructure contracts for the oil-for-food program, vetoed the procurement of critical water and sanitation supplies, despite pleas from UNICEF. According to reports from the Institute for Public Accuracy, “The US government unilaterally blocked or delayed urgently needed humanitarian contracts.” During war, even military targets are defined by international law. Thus, the bombing of the Iraqi TV station, according to Joel Campagna, program coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, is considered illegal. Campagna said “The broadcast media is civilian under the Geneva Conventions and cannot be targeted unless it is being used for military purposes.” On the other side of the conflict are the ordinary people who have knowledge of neither the Geneva Conventions nor international law. They have not previously seen any law in action except one which made their lives more difficult and denied them basic human dignity. They have been prevented from fleeing. Arab News war correspondent Essam Al-Ghalib wrote that he had met people cheering for Saddam out of fear. The people told him that Saddam’s Baath party henchmen were observing their reactions and listening to their comments and that they risked torture or possibly death if they voiced any opinion other than the official one. What can those people caught between the Iraqi regime and the invading military do? A friend said that those people lived a horrible life under Saddam and that they should be happy with these operations to “liberate” them. Point taken; there is no doubt that they have been oppressed and perhaps some will see these operations as an escape from oppression. At the same time, those who have lost — and will lose — family members in the bombing, will they really be happy that their lives will at last be free of Saddam if it is also free of loved ones, homes and familiar surroundings? Arab News Opinion 1 April 2003