Full Version: Do insurgents get a pass on Torture and murder?
The latest example of insurgent atrocities: Kids targeted and murdered.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A car bomb exploded near a park west of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 18 boys, police said.
The blast occurred in central Ramadi, a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency, near an area popular for soccer. The victims were boys aged 10 to 15, police said in the city, about 70 miles west of Baghdad.
The bomb-rigged car blew apart at about 4:15 p.m. local time while the boys were playing, police said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254860,00.html
Questions for the debate
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A car bomb exploded near a park west of Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 18 boys, police said.
The blast occurred in central Ramadi, a hotbed of the Sunni insurgency, near an area popular for soccer. The victims were boys aged 10 to 15, police said in the city, about 70 miles west of Baghdad.
The bomb-rigged car blew apart at about 4:15 p.m. local time while the boys were playing, police said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254860,00.html
Questions for the debate
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
1.Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
To answer yes to that is to say we should break the Geneva convention to fight people that commit horrible acts by doing the same. I mean what would we get by breaking them? The ability to torture people, well we have been doing this now for sometime, thus the controversy.
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Yes, they report that terrorists, or insurgents target and blow up children, I would call that negative press.
3.Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
We try to embolden ourselves and the pinnacle of success and morality, it would be a bit hypocritical of us I think to simply abandon all of that. I mean if standards only apply when they are ok to be complied with then why even have the standards, it’s a benchmark as to gauge why these people are so dastardly right?
To answer yes to that is to say we should break the Geneva convention to fight people that commit horrible acts by doing the same. I mean what would we get by breaking them? The ability to torture people, well we have been doing this now for sometime, thus the controversy.
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Yes, they report that terrorists, or insurgents target and blow up children, I would call that negative press.
3.Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
We try to embolden ourselves and the pinnacle of success and morality, it would be a bit hypocritical of us I think to simply abandon all of that. I mean if standards only apply when they are ok to be complied with then why even have the standards, it’s a benchmark as to gauge why these people are so dastardly right?
Ah, the wonders of a nice, unbiased neutral question to start a thread. 
1.Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Of course. Why shouldn't we? The Geneva convention is a set of rules the US agreed to act under when it signed them. Once there were ratified by the US, they became as US law. You don't get to pick and choose when you abide by these laws, and in fact the harder it is to do so, the more inportant it is to do so.
Besides, what is your point? 'Insurgents do evil things to each other, there for the US is allowed to do evil things if it wants to as well?' Is that really the standard you want to plant in the various invasions and occupations the US undertakes?
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Yes, routinely. Every major attack, bomb, suicide attack or whatever in Iraq is reported in the world's media, and every one describes them as 'horrible', devastating, ' strocious' and the like. Outrage in the Op-eds of the world is equally universal. You yourself started this thread by citing a story on Fox news. Are you trying to imply otherwise?
3.Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
Going out of your way to make those nice unbiased initial questions, aren't you?
So what is it exactly you want here Ted? As long as the US does not exceed the Insurgents in inhumanity and horror, it should get a free pass to do whatever it wants? That because some insurgents set of a bomb in a Park killing other Iraqis, therefore the US should be allowed to torture suspects? there isn't even any link between the events.
Torture is illgal. The fact that somebody else does it to somebody else does not make it any less illegal. And while we are dismissing your assertions, the Insurgents most certainly do NOT get away with it in the court of world opinion, that is an inane comment. Unless your war plan is to reduce yourself in terms of activity and morality to the lowest common denominator, then the basis of the question is silly.
1.Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Of course. Why shouldn't we? The Geneva convention is a set of rules the US agreed to act under when it signed them. Once there were ratified by the US, they became as US law. You don't get to pick and choose when you abide by these laws, and in fact the harder it is to do so, the more inportant it is to do so.
Besides, what is your point? 'Insurgents do evil things to each other, there for the US is allowed to do evil things if it wants to as well?' Is that really the standard you want to plant in the various invasions and occupations the US undertakes?
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Yes, routinely. Every major attack, bomb, suicide attack or whatever in Iraq is reported in the world's media, and every one describes them as 'horrible', devastating, ' strocious' and the like. Outrage in the Op-eds of the world is equally universal. You yourself started this thread by citing a story on Fox news. Are you trying to imply otherwise?
3.Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
Going out of your way to make those nice unbiased initial questions, aren't you?
So what is it exactly you want here Ted? As long as the US does not exceed the Insurgents in inhumanity and horror, it should get a free pass to do whatever it wants? That because some insurgents set of a bomb in a Park killing other Iraqis, therefore the US should be allowed to torture suspects? there isn't even any link between the events.
Torture is illgal. The fact that somebody else does it to somebody else does not make it any less illegal. And while we are dismissing your assertions, the Insurgents most certainly do NOT get away with it in the court of world opinion, that is an inane comment. Unless your war plan is to reduce yourself in terms of activity and morality to the lowest common denominator, then the basis of the question is silly.
QUOTE(BBC)
Iraqi police said most of the victims were aged 10 to 15 and had gathered to play football when a bomb went off.
US military spokesman Jeff Pool said he was unaware of a bomb attack in the city.
Link. US military spokesman Jeff Pool said he was unaware of a bomb attack in the city.
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Of course. We should measure our conduct by virtue of our laws, not the behaviour of terrorists.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Nope.
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
I feel that the USA is held to a higher standard of conduct and rightly so.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 27 2007, 02:54 PM) 
Questions for the debate
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
1. Yes. We're better than they are. Morally, Intellectually and Generally.
2. The Press should never be outraged. When they are they failed at their self appointed task.
3. Stay off of poli/blog websites and you won't hear that US is torturing anyone ever.
1.Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Yes we can and yes we should. And we do. The GC does address the expected protocol for confronting those types of combatants.
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
There is outrage, but I think it tends to be selective. The US government (and coalition forces) are held to higher standards as they should be, just as policemen are held to higher standards than the mob. However, I do react negatively when I see selective enforcement of the law.
For (rough) instance, Italy. I know I've brought them up several times in the past few days, but I'm pretty disgusted with them at the moment. Case in point....They prosecute a US soldier in absentia for "murder" because the car a journalist was in ran a checkpoint in Iraq, and the soldier shot at it, killing an agent in the car. Meanwhile other Italian journalists have died in Iraq, killed by terrorists (one was working with the Red Cross) and there are no trials for those murderers. How about trials for kidnappers and extortionists? Nope, the Italian government just pays them millions so they have more incentive to kidnap more Italian journalists. ( all Europeans who share their currency, you have my condolences) THAT is pure hypocrisy.
Yes we can and yes we should. And we do. The GC does address the expected protocol for confronting those types of combatants.
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
There is outrage, but I think it tends to be selective. The US government (and coalition forces) are held to higher standards as they should be, just as policemen are held to higher standards than the mob. However, I do react negatively when I see selective enforcement of the law.
For (rough) instance, Italy. I know I've brought them up several times in the past few days, but I'm pretty disgusted with them at the moment. Case in point....They prosecute a US soldier in absentia for "murder" because the car a journalist was in ran a checkpoint in Iraq, and the soldier shot at it, killing an agent in the car. Meanwhile other Italian journalists have died in Iraq, killed by terrorists (one was working with the Red Cross) and there are no trials for those murderers. How about trials for kidnappers and extortionists? Nope, the Italian government just pays them millions so they have more incentive to kidnap more Italian journalists. ( all Europeans who share their currency, you have my condolences) THAT is pure hypocrisy.
QUOTE
V
So what is it exactly you want here Ted? As long as the US does not exceed the Insurgents in inhumanity and horror, it should get a free pass to do whatever it wants? That because some insurgents set of a bomb in a Park killing other Iraqis, therefore the US should be allowed to torture suspects? there isn't even any link between the events
So what is it exactly you want here Ted? As long as the US does not exceed the Insurgents in inhumanity and horror, it should get a free pass to do whatever it wants? That because some insurgents set of a bomb in a Park killing other Iraqis, therefore the US should be allowed to torture suspects? there isn't even any link between the events
Did I say we should torture suspects? I DO say rough treatment is just fine and I do maintain that the bad press we got for our transgressions far exceeds that given to the monsters who intentionally blow up children.
What would you want to do to men who blew up you kids while they were playing soccer? Yes we have “reporting” of the atrocities but PLEASE show me the outraged statements by world leaders and the UN. Show me that they are outraged anywhere near the lever that has been heaped on the US for every misstep.
Is it right that these acts when against Americans are glorified on Arab TV.
News media hypocrites show U.S. abuses, but refuse to show Al Queia beheading
Show us the video, and show us the stills!
CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, PBS the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters and all you other hypocritical news media outlets that have gleefully aired and published pictures of the so-called abuse of prisoners in the Abu Grhaib prison in Iraq, show us the video of Nick Berg’s head being sawed off by the Al Queida monsters.
Show the American people who and what their enemies are so they will finally realize the this war on terrorism is no joke, that the monsters who flew screaming women and children into the World Trade Center and who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 are out to kill them.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticl...95&id=13989
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 27 2007, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE
V
So what is it exactly you want here Ted? As long as the US does not exceed the Insurgents in inhumanity and horror, it should get a free pass to do whatever it wants? That because some insurgents set of a bomb in a Park killing other Iraqis, therefore the US should be allowed to torture suspects? there isn't even any link between the events
So what is it exactly you want here Ted? As long as the US does not exceed the Insurgents in inhumanity and horror, it should get a free pass to do whatever it wants? That because some insurgents set of a bomb in a Park killing other Iraqis, therefore the US should be allowed to torture suspects? there isn't even any link between the events
Did I say we should torture suspects? I DO say rough treatment is just fine and I do maintain that the bad press we got for our transgressions far exceeds that given to the monsters who intentionally blow up children.
What would you want to do to men who blew up you kids while they were playing soccer? Yes we have “reporting” of the atrocities but PLEASE show me the outraged statements by world leaders and the UN. Show me that they are outraged anywhere near the lever that has been heaped on the US for every misstep.
Is it right that these acts when against Americans are glorified on Arab TV.
News media hypocrites show U.S. abuses, but refuse to show Al Queia beheading
Show us the video, and show us the stills!
CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, PBS the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters and all you other hypocritical news media outlets that have gleefully aired and published pictures of the so-called abuse of prisoners in the Abu Grhaib prison in Iraq, show us the video of Nick Berg’s head being sawed off by the Al Queida monsters.
Show the American people who and what their enemies are so they will finally realize the this war on terrorism is no joke, that the monsters who flew screaming women and children into the World Trade Center and who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 are out to kill them.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticl...95&id=13989
9-11 dominated and still does dominate in many ways the media. There was a syndrome I think in society for a time being where people were glued to media stations about this. Every aspect of 9-11 that was real or not real at the time was reported on and still is being reported on in the same fashion. Most anything the pentagon releases about Iraq is reported on. I was on cnn.com about a week ago and in the section dealing with Iraq for that day, I don’t know if all days had more links on U.S progress then it had links showing the negative reality of Iraq.
The media in America survives not only by selling a story but hooking viewers, this is true with everything not just the Iraq war. Heck every news station you could listen to or read from called the insurgency in Iraq acts of terrorism for a long time. I mean you would come to think that Iraq was populated by terrorists by the manor in which every news station portrayed it. Such has changed sense and yes I think even the military and the bushco empire would agree that an insurgency in Iraq exists just as much as terrorist operation.
I think it would have been remotely interesting to have a counter of every time 9-11 was mentioned, or terrorism in a news cast sense that fateful day, the number would be something that belongs in astrophysics I am sure.
If the news were purely biased, which I am sure news stations are biased, it does not take a genius to see this, you would never hear about much anything save for a specific angle. This is simply not the case overall.
I mean how do you know about the fact that terrorists, or insurgents blow up children in Iraq? Do you think the media is portraying them as positive nice people when they put out a story about them blowing up children?
Then again what are you asking for? Do you want the news to say we have to control or win in iraq because of 9-11? I simply dont understand I guess.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 27 2007, 09:14 PM)
I DO say rough treatment is just fine and I do maintain that the bad press we got for our transgressions far exceeds that given to the monsters who intentionally blow up children.
And I say you are completely wrong. Isn't asserting fun?
QUOTE
Yes we have “reporting” of the atrocities but PLEASE show me the outraged statements by world leaders and the UN. Show me that they are outraged anywhere near the lever that has been heaped on the US for every misstep.
OK, What would make YOU happy, Ted? If the leaders of every country came out and issued a condemnation of Insurgenct tactics after every single attack? Thats about 80 condemnations a day, so thats a far amount of time taken up. How about if they just gave one blanket condemation each day, say at noon? Would that please you? The UN HAS condemned the attld leaders. How often do they need to do it to please Ted? The media reports every single attack. The only reason they have slowed the reporting of every attack is because it had been happening every day for four years, and is barely even news anymore. Do you really think people aren't aware of what the Insurgents are doing? Do you really think people don't understand the level of horror that is going on in this civil war? Its in every newspaper, every day. Who are you trying to kid here?
QUOTE
News media hypocrites show U.S. abuses, but refuse to show Al Queia beheading
Show us the video, and show us the stills!
Show us the video, and show us the stills!
Now thats just ghoulish. The major media outlets didn't show the video, not because they didn't cover the story (which was front page news every single day for about 2 weeks) but because they didn't want to show a beheading on TV, oh yeah, and because that would have been against the FCC'#s regulations, and probably had their media licences pulled.
QUOTE
CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, PBS the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters and all you other hypocritical news media outlets
here we go. 'all these news agencies don't agree with my far-far0-right view of the world thus they are all hypocritical lying leftie commie porpaganda agencies just like Gobbels. Suuuuure.
QUOTE
Show the American people who and what their enemies are so they will finally realize the this war on terrorism is no joke, that the monsters who flew screaming women and children into the World Trade Center and who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 are out to kill them.
People know that Ted. they know that very well. Thats why they are all wondering why Bush Jr isn't hunting those men down any more, and decided to head into the total aside of Iraq and deprioritise the war on terror.
QUOTE
OK, What would make YOU happy, Ted? If the leaders of every country came out and issued a condemnation of Insurgenct tactics after every single attack?
No I would not expect that esp. from countries like France. Just a little bit less bashing of the good guys will do.
QUOTE
The major media outlets didn't show the video, not because they didn't cover the story (which was front page news every single day for about 2 weeks) but because they didn't want to show a beheading on TV, oh yeah, and because that would have been against the FCC'#s regulations, and probably had their media licences pulled.
Well you know there are ways to show still that would not be illegal. Certainly some of the Abugrabe photos were not very nice.
QUOTE
People know that Ted. they know that very well. That’s why they are all wondering why Bush Jr isn't hunting those men down any more, and decided to head into the total aside of Iraq and deprioritise the war on terror.
Well actually V we think a LOT of them are in Iraq – and hey THEY say they are in Iraq to beat us as well as Afghanistan but I guess from the far left Iraq is just not a front for these people.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 27 2007, 11:57 PM)
No I would not expect that esp. from countries like France. Just a little bit less bashing of the good guys will do.
Are you saying the french government has not condemned Al Qaeda, and not condemned the Insurgency in Iraq? I just want to make sure I get your words down, so when I show you all the times this has in fact happened, the lesson is not lost on you.
QUOTE
Well actually V we think a LOT of them are in Iraq – and hey THEY say they are in Iraq to beat us as well as Afghanistan but I guess from the far left Iraq is just not a front for these people.
No, NONE are in Iraq. Now because of the invasion, AQ has been able to recruit new members there, where there were no members before. Entirely because of the invasion of Iraq. Also because of the invasion, AQ has rebuilt itself to stronger than it has ever been, and the US is less safe than it was before the invasion.
The people of America know all about this Ted, they know that Americans are dying so the country can be less safe. Don't pretend its the media's fault.
QUOTE
No, NONE are in Iraq. Now because of the invasion, AQ has been able to recruit new members there, where there were no members before. Entirely because of the invasion of Iraq. Also because of the invasion, AQ has rebuilt itself to stronger than it has ever been, and the US is less safe than it was before the invasion.
First of all they were there and second you are right they sent more in (not recruited Iraqi’s ??? – you are kidding) But the bottom line is they are there now and it is a far better place to kill them than here.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 28 2007, 12:14 AM)
First of all they were there and second you are right they sent more in (not recruited Iraqi’s ??? – you are kidding) But the bottom line is they are there now and it is a far better place to kill them than here.
No, there were no AQ in Iraq, are you saying there were? Even Bush jr disagrees with you on that one.
Secondly, are you sure you want to stick with the argument that I am crazy about AQ recruiting Iraqis as their main strength? Cause once again, I would like to get that down in print so that I show you (with a 10 second Google search) how completely factually wrong you are. Much like your France comment, which i note you wisely retreated from...
The 'kill them there instead of killing them here' is so farcical it doesn't even pass the laugh test. There were no AQ there until Bush Jr, and now, thanks to him, they have killed or injured about 26,000 Americans they never could have otherwise. All the while, AQ internations sits back, gets stronger and stronger, and laughs its butt off.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Feb 27 2007, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE
CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, CNN, PBS the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters and all you other hypocritical news media outlets
here we go. 'all these news agencies don't agree with my far-far0-right view of the world thus they are all hypocritical lying leftie commie porpaganda agencies just like Gobbels. Suuuuure.
Well in fairness to Ted CBS, AP, NYT and al Reuters have all recently screwed up really bad in the getting the facts straight department. And he listed FOX.
QUOTE
The 'kill them there instead of killing them here' is so farcical it doesn't even pass the laugh test. There were no AQ there until Bush Jr, and now, thanks to him, they have killed or injured about 26,000 Americans they never could have otherwise
What I said is that they CAME there and if you are trying to tell me they didn’t and were all recruited there I can do the google search as well.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/10/...main/index.html
Abu Zaid al-Suri, also known as Abu Zaid the Syrian, was arrested in Rawa, a city about 270 kilometers northwest of Baghdad in Anbar province, Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari told CNN.
Al-Suri is believed to be one of al Qaeda's leaders in Iraq, al-Askari said.
The al-Qaeda jihad organization in the Land of the Two Rivers (تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين, transliteration: Tanẓīm Qā‘idah il-Jihād fī Bilād ir-Rāfidayn), more commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, is the Mujahideen network formerly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born
JTJ was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, other Foreign Al-qaeda members, and local sympathizers. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian
The goals of the Al-Qaeda network have shifted considerably over the years. The organization gradually became more globalized and, following the fall of Baghdad to American forces, Iraq clearly became the main focus. The stated goals of JTJ are to force a withdrawal of U.S-led forces from Iraq, topple the Iraqi interim government and assassinate collaborators with the "occupation," marginalize the Shiite Muslim population and defeat its militias, and to subsequently establish a pure Sunni Islamic state. Presumably, if and when those goals are achieved, the global jihad would continue to establish a pan-Islamic state and remove Western influence from the Muslim world.
For months, it appeared as though two separate wars were being conducted in Iraq. One was a militant campaign, largely conducted by foreign jihadis, of high-profile suicide bombings, assassinations, and kidnappingshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention. Yes. Said protection is much more limited than it is for uniformed combatants. Uniformed combatants who deliberately engage in such attacks can and will be tried as war criminals. "Irregular" combatants who engage in such attacks have fewer post-capture protections, and I believe that the war crimes should be applied to them. I personally believe that "irregular" combatants should be treated the same as spies on the battlefield.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Because the US and world press expect nothing more than barbarity from the "Islamic militants", so when the terrorists engage in barbarity, no outrage of confounded expectations.
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
I don't "feel" it, its an obvious fact.
If so why?
Big Dog vs. Underdog, anti-Americanism, reflected anti-Semitism, and different expectations. More is expected of America, very little is expected of the terrorists.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Because the US and world press expect nothing more than barbarity from the "Islamic militants", so when the terrorists engage in barbarity, no outrage of confounded expectations.
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
I don't "feel" it, its an obvious fact.
If so why?
Big Dog vs. Underdog, anti-Americanism, reflected anti-Semitism, and different expectations. More is expected of America, very little is expected of the terrorists.
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Yes, because how you treat other people (especially enemies) is a yardstick of your level of sophistication and civilisation, not theirs.
Behaving better towards them than they do towards you is what makes you better than them.
Saying you're better than them then behaving just as they do just proves that you're no better than they are. The USA is exactly as good as the things it does, and no better. The "court of world opinion", like all courts, operates on the assumption that we are what we do. Not "whatever we say we are". Not "divinely endowed" with self-evident truth.
We.
Are.
What.
We.
Do.
It's like that old joke about the shepherd.
"I killed all the wolves that came last winter, and saved all the flocks of the whole village, but do they call me 'Jones the Wolf-Killer'? No!
Then last year, I dove into the river and saved little Johann who had fallen in and was drowning. But do they call me 'Jones the Child-Saver'? No!
But, you sleep with one sheep..."
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Yes, but it doesn't make the lead story, because nobody really expects backward, culturally retarded, bloodthirsty lunatics to behave any other way.
It is not news that the Pope is a Catholic, or that a female spider eats her mate. That's what they do. Therefore it is not really news that a terrorist does terrible things.
What is shocking enough to make the headlines is when the country that paints itself as leader of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the land of the free, home of the brave et cetera tortures, imprisons without trial, abducts, maims and kills. Just as would a Jewish or Muslim Pope. Pope Chaim or Pope el-Said would be a news story to provoke headlines, and at least some outrage, in the press all over the place.
Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
The court of world opinion has tried the enemy and found them guilty. Indeed, they've never really protested their innocence; instead they've "done a Saddam" and refused to recognise the court at all.
The USA, on the other hand, not only loudly proclaims its superior moral values (with much, but not infinite, justification), but wants the "court of world opinion" to find them not guilty. Heck, America wants everyone to agree with them.
To continue the courtroom analogy, the court of world opinion is not accusing America of being a bad country, then saying that this causes the US to do bad things. It is accusing them of doing bad things. Just like in an ordinary court, the case for the prosecution does not rest on proving the accused is a bad person, just that he did the bad thing of which he is being accused.
And America's defence - which, in courtroom terms, is mostly a defence of provocation - is not really a defence designed to secure a not guilty verdict, but one designed to mitigate the sentence.
"Yes, I killed Mr X because he was about to kill me" is simple self defence, and is likely to result in a not-guilty verdict if the facts bear it out.
"Yes I killed Mr X because he kidnapped and tortured my wife and family" is severe provocation, and probably knocks it down to manslaughter, but the immediacy of self-defence isn't there, so you're still down for some form of unlawful killing.
"Yes, I killed Mr X because he looked a bit shifty and everyone at the time thought that he was going to try and buy a gun, and at some point he might then have been coming to get me or my friends" is just delusional, and you'd rightly be found guilty of murder.
In all cases, it doesn't much matter how nice a guy you were before the crime was committed. Or how much you insist you were justified. If it's criminal, you're going to be tried, and if the evidence doesn't match what you say, you're going to go down.
Yes, because how you treat other people (especially enemies) is a yardstick of your level of sophistication and civilisation, not theirs.
Behaving better towards them than they do towards you is what makes you better than them.
Saying you're better than them then behaving just as they do just proves that you're no better than they are. The USA is exactly as good as the things it does, and no better. The "court of world opinion", like all courts, operates on the assumption that we are what we do. Not "whatever we say we are". Not "divinely endowed" with self-evident truth.
We.
Are.
What.
We.
Do.
It's like that old joke about the shepherd.
"I killed all the wolves that came last winter, and saved all the flocks of the whole village, but do they call me 'Jones the Wolf-Killer'? No!
Then last year, I dove into the river and saved little Johann who had fallen in and was drowning. But do they call me 'Jones the Child-Saver'? No!
But, you sleep with one sheep..."
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Yes, but it doesn't make the lead story, because nobody really expects backward, culturally retarded, bloodthirsty lunatics to behave any other way.
It is not news that the Pope is a Catholic, or that a female spider eats her mate. That's what they do. Therefore it is not really news that a terrorist does terrible things.
What is shocking enough to make the headlines is when the country that paints itself as leader of the free world, the shining light on the hill, the land of the free, home of the brave et cetera tortures, imprisons without trial, abducts, maims and kills. Just as would a Jewish or Muslim Pope. Pope Chaim or Pope el-Said would be a news story to provoke headlines, and at least some outrage, in the press all over the place.
Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
The court of world opinion has tried the enemy and found them guilty. Indeed, they've never really protested their innocence; instead they've "done a Saddam" and refused to recognise the court at all.
The USA, on the other hand, not only loudly proclaims its superior moral values (with much, but not infinite, justification), but wants the "court of world opinion" to find them not guilty. Heck, America wants everyone to agree with them.
To continue the courtroom analogy, the court of world opinion is not accusing America of being a bad country, then saying that this causes the US to do bad things. It is accusing them of doing bad things. Just like in an ordinary court, the case for the prosecution does not rest on proving the accused is a bad person, just that he did the bad thing of which he is being accused.
And America's defence - which, in courtroom terms, is mostly a defence of provocation - is not really a defence designed to secure a not guilty verdict, but one designed to mitigate the sentence.
"Yes, I killed Mr X because he was about to kill me" is simple self defence, and is likely to result in a not-guilty verdict if the facts bear it out.
"Yes I killed Mr X because he kidnapped and tortured my wife and family" is severe provocation, and probably knocks it down to manslaughter, but the immediacy of self-defence isn't there, so you're still down for some form of unlawful killing.
"Yes, I killed Mr X because he looked a bit shifty and everyone at the time thought that he was going to try and buy a gun, and at some point he might then have been coming to get me or my friends" is just delusional, and you'd rightly be found guilty of murder.
In all cases, it doesn't much matter how nice a guy you were before the crime was committed. Or how much you insist you were justified. If it's criminal, you're going to be tried, and if the evidence doesn't match what you say, you're going to go down.
QUOTE(Julian)
Yes, but it doesn't make the lead story, because nobody really expects backward, culturally retarded, bloodthirsty lunatics to behave any other way.
So how about educated, urbane, young British men? How do we expect them to behave? The idea that the media doesn't feel its 'news worthy' to treat Islamic terrorism on a par with American transgressions of stated values tells me that the media has a clear and obvious bias. You only need to read what they're writing to see this.
look at this article by the BBC for an example of what I mean. There can be no doubt that the hostage take and massacre of so many children at Beslan was the work of terrorists. This is what terrorism is, by definition. It is one of the most horrendous examples of terrorism that I have ever encountered and yet the BBC does not even refer to the terrorists as such. Instead they are described as 'rebels', 'gunmen' and 'warlords'. Neutral words that play down the stigma of terrorism and replace it with an assumed laissez faire.
I especially find it odd that the BBC uses the word 'militant' to describe these people since this is a word often used to describe hard core left wing political activists in the UK. The assumption can hardly be missed. As far as the BBC is concerned, Islamic terrorists are no more dangerous than Scargill's activicists were. The fact that the article I quoted deals with the blame being shifted onto the Russian authorities for incompetence only strengthens the underlying message: That there is no reason to fear Islamic militants.
But lets get back to the notion of backward, culturally retarded, bloodthirsty lunatics. Your own country saw nine suicide bombers attack the tube trains in London. Only four were successful in their attempt, but those four managed to kill a significant amount of people nonetheless. Are they generally referred to as 'terrorists' in the British media? Not in my experience. Are they ever referred to as culturally retarded, bloodthirsty lunatics? Nope. In fact it seems they are as apt to be regarded as misguided young Britons whose actions are near always described, even justified in some cases, against the backdrop of British foreign policy.
And these middle class 'misunderstanders of Islam' are hardly alone either.
QUOTE(Telegraph)
Twenty-four terrorist suspects being held last night over an alleged plot to blow up as many as 10 transatlantic jets include middle-class, well-educated young men born in Britain. At least one of them converted to Islam only recently.
As Britain remained on a "critical" level of alert, it emerged that among those arrested were the white son of a former Conservative Party worker, the son of an architect and an accountant and a heavily pregnant woman. Some had studied at university and came from families that owned several properties or ran their own businesses.
Anti-terrorist police were continuing to search properties in High Wycombe, Bucks, Walthamstow, in east London, and Birmingham. Sources said they had found "a number of things that are causing interest". Many of those being questioned are believed to be Britons of Pakistani origin, although police have not confirmed that.
Link.As Britain remained on a "critical" level of alert, it emerged that among those arrested were the white son of a former Conservative Party worker, the son of an architect and an accountant and a heavily pregnant woman. Some had studied at university and came from families that owned several properties or ran their own businesses.
Anti-terrorist police were continuing to search properties in High Wycombe, Bucks, Walthamstow, in east London, and Birmingham. Sources said they had found "a number of things that are causing interest". Many of those being questioned are believed to be Britons of Pakistani origin, although police have not confirmed that.
It seems to me that the real reason why Islamic terrorist atrocities do not receive the same attention in the media that US transgressions do (and a day does not go by without a US critical story on the main page of the BBC news site) is because there is a fear of stating the obvious truth, that Islam promotes extremism and violence towards the kuffar and the reason for that fear is all to plain to see: Moral cowardice.
QUOTE(Guardian)
One of Britain's top police officers will today warn that anti-terrorism laws are discriminating against Muslims and law enforcement agencies are running a "real risk" of criminalising ethnic minorities.
Tarique Ghaffur, assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police, will also call for "an independent judicial review" of why some young British Muslims turn to extremism. He warns that more work is needed to stop the "flight, fright or separation" of British Muslim communities after the July 7 2005 bombings in London.
Link.Tarique Ghaffur, assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police, will also call for "an independent judicial review" of why some young British Muslims turn to extremism. He warns that more work is needed to stop the "flight, fright or separation" of British Muslim communities after the July 7 2005 bombings in London.
QUOTE(Times Online)
The Home Secretary was dismayed that his address to Muslim families was overshadowed by the extremists’ display. A Home Office spokeswoman said that although Abu Izzadeen had not been invited it was “an open community meeting”. She added: “All appropriate security arrangements were in place on the day. There was no question of the Home Secretary’s safety being compromised at any time.” But witnesses said that neither police nor Home Office officials knew who the intruder was. Abu Izzadeen was apparently not searched as he pushed his way into the hall. Mr Reid’s appearance was not listed on the Home Office diary of events for the week and details were only given to the media on Tuesday afternoon. Waltham Forest council said that planning for the event began “about a week ago” and it drew up the guest list from among local community leaders, students and Muslim families.
Mr Reid faced a second protest from Anjem Choudary, the leader of another banned Muslim group, who is also facing investigation over his alleged remarks at the weekend that the Pope deserved to be killed for his comments about Islam
Link.Mr Reid faced a second protest from Anjem Choudary, the leader of another banned Muslim group, who is also facing investigation over his alleged remarks at the weekend that the Pope deserved to be killed for his comments about Islam
QUOTE(Daily Mail)
A serving Army officer was banned from entering Harrods on Remembrance Day in case his uniform upset other shoppers. Lieutenant Daniel Lenherr had just taken part in a parade honouring Britain's war dead when the London department store turned him away at the door.
The security guard told him other customers might be intimidated by the uniform. The 26-year-old soldier, who serves in the 1st regiment of the Royal Horse Artillery, had been at commemorations in Hyde Park Corner last weekend when he decided to visit the shop with his wife Michelle and their one-year-old son. Mrs Lenherr, who lives in Tidworth, Hampshire, said: "We were horrified when we were refused entry on a day when we honoured the men who sacrificed so much for our freedom. I find it sad this can happen."
Link. The security guard told him other customers might be intimidated by the uniform. The 26-year-old soldier, who serves in the 1st regiment of the Royal Horse Artillery, had been at commemorations in Hyde Park Corner last weekend when he decided to visit the shop with his wife Michelle and their one-year-old son. Mrs Lenherr, who lives in Tidworth, Hampshire, said: "We were horrified when we were refused entry on a day when we honoured the men who sacrificed so much for our freedom. I find it sad this can happen."
QUOTE(NY sun)
Something similar happened at this year's Hay-on-Wye festival, sponsored by the Guardian, where a five-person panel discussed "Are there are any limits to free speech?" One of the Muslim panelists said if anyone offended his religion, he would strike him. A lawyer, Anthony Julius, responded that Jews had lived as minorities under two powerful hegemonies, Christian and Muslim, and had been obliged to learn how to deal nonviolently with offense caused to them by the sacred scriptures of both. He started by referring to an anti-Semitic passage in the New Testament — which passed without comment. But when he began to list the passages in the Koran that denigrate Jews, describing them as monkeys and pigs, the panelists went ballistic. One of them, Madeline Bunting of the Guardian, put her hand over the microphone and said words to the effect, "I am not going to sit here and listen to any criticisms of Muslims." She was cheered, and not one of the journalists in the audience from right or left uttered a word about free speech — not hate speech, mind you, but free speech of a moderate nature.
Link.QUOTE(ICSSA)
Al-Jazeera.net: Do you fear a Holocaust against Muslims similar to what happened to the Jews?
Aziz Duwaik, professor of urban planning at the Najah University of Nablus: Why not? The Holocaust was committed by human beings, not by citizens of another planet, and Germany, where Nazism thrived, was probably the most culturally advanced European country in the 1930s and 1940s.
Al-Jazeera.net: But Europe is now democratic, unlike Nazi Germany?
Aziz Duwaik: Yes, but who told you those democracies don’t commit genocide? America is a democracy, but we saw recently how this democracy invaded and destroyed two small and weak countries based on lies, while most Americans were duped into believing that Bush was doing the right thing.[1]
Link.Aziz Duwaik, professor of urban planning at the Najah University of Nablus: Why not? The Holocaust was committed by human beings, not by citizens of another planet, and Germany, where Nazism thrived, was probably the most culturally advanced European country in the 1930s and 1940s.
Al-Jazeera.net: But Europe is now democratic, unlike Nazi Germany?
Aziz Duwaik: Yes, but who told you those democracies don’t commit genocide? America is a democracy, but we saw recently how this democracy invaded and destroyed two small and weak countries based on lies, while most Americans were duped into believing that Bush was doing the right thing.[1]
edited for spelling.
QUOTE
moif
The idea that the media doesn't feel its 'news worthy' to treat Islamic terrorism on a par with American transgressions of stated values tells me that the media has a clear and obvious bias. You only need to read what they're writing to see this.
It seems to me that the real reason why Islamic terrorist atrocities do not receive the same attention in the media that US transgressions do (and a day does not go by without a US critical story on the main page of the BBC news site) is because there is a fear of stating the obvious truth, that Islam promotes extremism and violence towards the kuffar and the reason for that fear is all to plain to see: Moral cowardice.
The idea that the media doesn't feel its 'news worthy' to treat Islamic terrorism on a par with American transgressions of stated values tells me that the media has a clear and obvious bias. You only need to read what they're writing to see this.
It seems to me that the real reason why Islamic terrorist atrocities do not receive the same attention in the media that US transgressions do (and a day does not go by without a US critical story on the main page of the BBC news site) is because there is a fear of stating the obvious truth, that Islam promotes extremism and violence towards the kuffar and the reason for that fear is all to plain to see: Moral cowardice.
I could not agree more with you here moif and I thank you for the analysis.
IMO there is also another dynamic working in the press – especially the US press and that is political bias. Papers like the NYT, that are unabashedly against the war, Bush and everything to do with the current administration IMO downplay the atrocities of the enemy so as to dampen public support for the war – or to avoid enflaming people over the issue. This is also seen in the over-reporting of all things bad from Iraq (and there is plenty) to the exclusion of any good news.
But of one thing you can be very sure. When/if a bomb goes off in the US planted by terrorists and killing children the reaction will be dramatic.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 28 2007, 10:00 PM)
QUOTE
moif
The idea that the media doesn't feel its 'news worthy' to treat Islamic terrorism on a par with American transgressions of stated values tells me that the media has a clear and obvious bias. You only need to read what they're writing to see this.
It seems to me that the real reason why Islamic terrorist atrocities do not receive the same attention in the media that US transgressions do (and a day does not go by without a US critical story on the main page of the BBC news site) is because there is a fear of stating the obvious truth, that Islam promotes extremism and violence towards the kuffar and the reason for that fear is all to plain to see: Moral cowardice.
The idea that the media doesn't feel its 'news worthy' to treat Islamic terrorism on a par with American transgressions of stated values tells me that the media has a clear and obvious bias. You only need to read what they're writing to see this.
It seems to me that the real reason why Islamic terrorist atrocities do not receive the same attention in the media that US transgressions do (and a day does not go by without a US critical story on the main page of the BBC news site) is because there is a fear of stating the obvious truth, that Islam promotes extremism and violence towards the kuffar and the reason for that fear is all to plain to see: Moral cowardice.
I could not agree more with you here moif and I thank you for the analysis.
IMO there is also another dynamic working in the press – especially the US press and that is political bias. Papers like the NYT, that are unabashedly against the war, Bush and everything to do with the current administration IMO downplay the atrocities of the enemy so as to dampen public support for the war – or to avoid enflaming people over the issue. This is also seen in the over-reporting of all things bad from Iraq (and there is plenty) to the exclusion of any good news.
But of one thing you can be very sure. When/if a bomb goes off in the US planted by terrorists and killing children the reaction will be dramatic.
Just to clarify when you say war, which war are you talking about? As far as I know yes, America in general is biased against the conflict in Iraq, thus the vote that gave democrats power on many levels because they put forward a message of change regarding iraq.
What is the good news the media misses reporting on all the time. They report when people die, regardless of side when they have the info, they also report when insurgents or terrorist happen to be captured, and basically anything else that ahs to do with Iraq. Maybe, just maybe it does not seem all dandy because there reality of Iraq simply does not equate into a positive news story. Yet just like what you claim the media being wrong for, which is reporting on and dealing with subjective thoughts, such as the world will fall to radical Islam if we don’t win in Iraq there is a major divergence in opinion over that war, which the news also has to cover. Fox news is die hard support for it, maybe the NYT does not hold such a position, and maybe, just maybe were you sit in agreement or disgust with either side rests on your own particular opinion of how things should go?
I don’t agree with Iraq in any instance. I never thought we should have started that war and feel moreover its done nothing but harm in regards to our nation and combating radical Islam to many other angles such as tearing our military apart to facilitating an environment in which we really cant respond to say crazy people in Iran attempting to make nukes, or North Korea for that matter? Should I claim bias because the news does not represent my stance constantly?
I mean when it comes down to it, news media to our government hardly plays the stick to the facts game I wish it would? Yet we have all that difference pointing fingers in regards to personal agendas and claiming ill behavior and wrong doing, I simply don’t understand why more people just don’t snap out of it and become aware of that quagmire.
QUOTE
1.Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Yes, abiding by time tested international laws and rules that we helped to create are what differentiates us from them. Acting lunlawfully doesn't win you any favors, it makes you no better than them in all reality.
QUOTE
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
If you are talking about the bombing that killed eighteen children-yes. I first read about it on CNN's online site. They even had it before Fox.
MSNBC also reported on a recent car bombing. To me, they are covering all sides of the conflict. I'm not certain if I necessarily want to read "outrage" from a major news source. That is editorializing the news and is unfit for something that should just be about reporting the news. Funny how a certain news company states that's what they do, despite their editorializing through the news. QUOTE
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?[/b] If so why?
No, we prosecute and convict those who are guilty. That shows the populations of other countries that we are serious about the ideals of democracy and justice. In glossing over any and all abuses, we give a truly shallow picture as to what we are about and what we are trying to accomplish.
Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Yes/yes.
Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
I don’t. We gradually shifted from nervously hoping things would turn out okay to accepting the carnage. On a more cynical note moral indignation just doesn’t seem to be a spur of the moment thing in American politics any more. Incidents like these don't make the headlines unless a politician pounds the pulpit telling us what we should think about Iraq, or, ironically, it doesn’t get the public’s attention unless the “liberal media” annoys conservatives enough to claim the media is too focused on the atrocities. Zeyad over at Healing Iraq, one of the smart and lucky Iraqis who got the hell out, sneers at our pop culture attention span:
Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture
Accused? We are engaging torture. Is the U.S. going to bring itself to court? Is the International Court of Justice going to make us answer for our crimes?
that the enemy practices it
Because they’re insurgents and terrorists operating above the law. They have always operated above the law. We operated within the law until recently. Which is more likely to galvanize public opinion?
and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
The world cares about Iraqis as much as we care about Gitmo.
P.S. The report that inspired this debate is now disputed by our military:
Yes/yes.
Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
I don’t. We gradually shifted from nervously hoping things would turn out okay to accepting the carnage. On a more cynical note moral indignation just doesn’t seem to be a spur of the moment thing in American politics any more. Incidents like these don't make the headlines unless a politician pounds the pulpit telling us what we should think about Iraq, or, ironically, it doesn’t get the public’s attention unless the “liberal media” annoys conservatives enough to claim the media is too focused on the atrocities. Zeyad over at Healing Iraq, one of the smart and lucky Iraqis who got the hell out, sneers at our pop culture attention span:
QUOTE(HI)
Can you imagine the scene? Try. Think of your own schools, your own college campuses. Think of how you would feel if your own son or daughter had to go to school in the hell that is called Iraq. Think of what you would do if you heard the news that the school was bombed.
Eyewitnesses said cell phones were still ringing urgently in pockets and purses lying around human body parts. Try to imagine the person on the other line.
A man searched for his son and finally found his head and torso, but no legs. “Where is his other half?” he asked, before he started shaking with violent sobs.
Over here, the above scenes elicit a 20-second sound bite in the news, perhaps immediately followed by dog food or deodorant commercials. At best, politicians would use it in talking points, to justify even more bloodshed and destruction.
Sucked up in a sectarian vortex they can never escape, students in Iraq face enemies from all sides. Sadrist militias took over this particular university a long time ago. Posters of religious symbols filled lecture halls. A black religious flag flew above the university’s main tower. Girls were told to cover up, not just in veils, as was the case last year, but in ‘abayas, or full Islamic body garb. College texts were tampered with. Student unions became fronts for militiamen, who replaced former Ba’athist unions and threatened students and professors alike for any reason. Professors were kicked out, because they were of the wrong sect or political ideology, and many were abducted and assassinated. Just days ago, there were rumours that three female students from the university were kidnapped, tortured and raped before they were killed by militiamen. However, some students insisted to complete their studies, even though attendance rates in Baghdad have fallen to less than 30%. Dozens of academics were abducted and went missing in one recent incident when gunmen in police uniform stormed an educational institution.
Eyewitnesses said cell phones were still ringing urgently in pockets and purses lying around human body parts. Try to imagine the person on the other line.
A man searched for his son and finally found his head and torso, but no legs. “Where is his other half?” he asked, before he started shaking with violent sobs.
Over here, the above scenes elicit a 20-second sound bite in the news, perhaps immediately followed by dog food or deodorant commercials. At best, politicians would use it in talking points, to justify even more bloodshed and destruction.
Sucked up in a sectarian vortex they can never escape, students in Iraq face enemies from all sides. Sadrist militias took over this particular university a long time ago. Posters of religious symbols filled lecture halls. A black religious flag flew above the university’s main tower. Girls were told to cover up, not just in veils, as was the case last year, but in ‘abayas, or full Islamic body garb. College texts were tampered with. Student unions became fronts for militiamen, who replaced former Ba’athist unions and threatened students and professors alike for any reason. Professors were kicked out, because they were of the wrong sect or political ideology, and many were abducted and assassinated. Just days ago, there were rumours that three female students from the university were kidnapped, tortured and raped before they were killed by militiamen. However, some students insisted to complete their studies, even though attendance rates in Baghdad have fallen to less than 30%. Dozens of academics were abducted and went missing in one recent incident when gunmen in police uniform stormed an educational institution.
Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture
Accused? We are engaging torture. Is the U.S. going to bring itself to court? Is the International Court of Justice going to make us answer for our crimes?
that the enemy practices it
Because they’re insurgents and terrorists operating above the law. They have always operated above the law. We operated within the law until recently. Which is more likely to galvanize public opinion?
and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
The world cares about Iraqis as much as we care about Gitmo.
P.S. The report that inspired this debate is now disputed by our military:
QUOTE(CBC)
A senior U.S. military official has denied reports of a car bombing that allegedly killed 18 Iraqi children on Tuesday. Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a U.S. military spokesman, said Wednesday "the allegation was false" and suggested the confusion stemmed from a controlled detonation monitored by U.S. forces on Tuesday.
QUOTE
Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture
Accused? We are engaging torture. Is the U.S. going to bring itself to court? Is the International Court of Justice going to make us answer for our crimes?
that the enemy practices it
Because they’re insurgents and terrorists operating above the law. They have always operated above the law. We operated within the law until recently. Which is more likely to galvanize public opinion?
and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
The world cares about Iraqis as much as we care about Gitmo.
P.S. The report that inspired this debate is now disputed by our military:
Accused? We are engaging torture. Is the U.S. going to bring itself to court? Is the International Court of Justice going to make us answer for our crimes?
that the enemy practices it
Because they’re insurgents and terrorists operating above the law. They have always operated above the law. We operated within the law until recently. Which is more likely to galvanize public opinion?
and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
The world cares about Iraqis as much as we care about Gitmo.
P.S. The report that inspired this debate is now disputed by our military:
I agree we are not Lilly white and have taken the hits for it but it bothers me that the enemy as you say “is above the law” - Do you mean they are literally beyond reproach and punishment? They get little of the former and unless we kill them none of the latter.
And regardless if the particular story I posted happened or not thousands of men women and CHILDREN have been blown to pieces or tortured and mutilated by the enemy and you think they are “above the law”.
Well remember that if and when the bombs go off here and the pictures on TV won’t be Iraqis and US soldiers being killed but American civilians – as in 9/11.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Feb 27 2007, 06:29 PM)
1. Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention. Yes. Said protection is much more limited than it is for uniformed combatants. Uniformed combatants who deliberately engage in such attacks can and will be tried as war criminals. "Irregular" combatants who engage in such attacks have fewer post-capture protections, and I believe that the war crimes should be applied to them. I personally believe that "irregular" combatants should be treated the same as spies on the battlefield.
2. Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
Because the US and world press expect nothing more than barbarity from the "Islamic militants", so when the terrorists engage in barbarity, no outrage of confounded expectations.
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion?
I don't "feel" it, its an obvious fact.
If so why?
Big Dog vs. Underdog, anti-Americanism, reflected anti-Semitism, and different expectations. More is expected of America, very little is expected of the terrorists.
I am curious then BD- so those non-uniformed folks in "security" in Iraq- is it okay for them to be treated the same as the insurgents?
On the subject of these human offal that blow up children- BTW- they were recognized as Human offal in Russia when they killed those children in Russia- in fact, the muslim men there protested and offered to take thier place in a number of 10-1 when they took those children hostage- funny you never heard about THAT in the US media- well, our media certainly reports this stuff, nearly daily- in fact- I believe what one person called it was "outrage overload" over the atrocities commited over there.
Of course we hold ourselvews to a higher standard WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS- but we really haven't been the good guys in a very, very long time.
I think BD is mostly dead on here- we EXPECT the pope to act pope-ish (in a good way) and we EXPECT Ted Bundy to be a monster- so, when the pope doesn't act very pope-ish- we all notice- but when another victim of Ted is found- are we suprised?
1.Can/should we accord an enemy that is willing to do horrendous acts such as this the full protection of the Geneva Convention.
Yes, abiding by time tested international laws and rules that we helped to create are what differentiates us from them. Acting lunlawfully doesn't win you any favors, it makes you no better than them in all reality.
Actually what we are doing is NOT abiding by the lawes we set up under the geneva convention, and anyone who has ANY knowledge of the GC understands that ...
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
If you are talking about the bombing that killed eighteen children-yes. I first read about it on CNN's online site. They even had it before Fox. MSNBC also reported on a recent car bombing. To me, they are covering all sides of the conflict. I'm not certain if I necessarily want to read "outrage" from a major news source. That is editorializing the news and is unfit for something that should just be about reporting the news. Funny how a certain news company states that's what they do, despite their editorializing through the news.
funny how you don't seem to mind the outrage when it is pointed at those on our side .... but i digress...
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
No, we prosecute and convict those who are guilty. That shows the populations of other countries that we are serious about the ideals of democracy and justice. In glossing over any and all abuses, we give a truly shallow picture as to what we are about and what we are trying to accomplish.
If that were true then why were we crucified for Abu Grahib andf the english had quite a bit of outrage over pictures that were not even real...but the slaughter of daniel pearl was kind of treated as "ho hum"
Yes, abiding by time tested international laws and rules that we helped to create are what differentiates us from them. Acting lunlawfully doesn't win you any favors, it makes you no better than them in all reality.
Actually what we are doing is NOT abiding by the lawes we set up under the geneva convention, and anyone who has ANY knowledge of the GC understands that ...
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
If you are talking about the bombing that killed eighteen children-yes. I first read about it on CNN's online site. They even had it before Fox.
MSNBC also reported on a recent car bombing. To me, they are covering all sides of the conflict. I'm not certain if I necessarily want to read "outrage" from a major news source. That is editorializing the news and is unfit for something that should just be about reporting the news. Funny how a certain news company states that's what they do, despite their editorializing through the news. funny how you don't seem to mind the outrage when it is pointed at those on our side .... but i digress...
3. Do you feel that while the US is constantly accused of Torture that the enemy practices it and worse on a daily basis and gets away with it in the court of world opinion? If so why?
No, we prosecute and convict those who are guilty. That shows the populations of other countries that we are serious about the ideals of democracy and justice. In glossing over any and all abuses, we give a truly shallow picture as to what we are about and what we are trying to accomplish.
If that were true then why were we crucified for Abu Grahib andf the english had quite a bit of outrage over pictures that were not even real...but the slaughter of daniel pearl was kind of treated as "ho hum"
QUOTE
Actually what we are doing is NOT abiding by the lawes we set up under the geneva convention, and anyone who has ANY knowledge of the GC understands that ...
Could you elaborate on that? An ad hominem attack doesn't prove the point.
2.Do you see/read outrage in the US and world press. If not why?
If you are talking about the bombing that killed eighteen children-yes. I first read about it on CNN's online site. They even had it before Fox.
MSNBC also reported on a recent car bombing. To me, they are covering all sides of the conflict. I'm not certain if I necessarily want to read "outrage" from a major news source. That is editorializing the news and is unfit for something that should just be about reporting the news. Funny how a certain news company states that's what they do, despite their editorializing through the news. QUOTE
funny how you don't seem to mind the outrage when it is pointed at those on our side .... but i digress...
What specifically in my addressing of the issue of the media covering the bombing do you take issue with? Please be specific as appeals to emotion truly addresses nothing.
QUOTE
If that were true then why were we crucified for Abu Grahib andf the english had quite a bit of outrage over pictures that were not even real...but the slaughter of daniel pearl was kind of treated as "ho hum"
"We" weren't crucified, all rhetoric aside.
Lynndie England was convicted of one count of conspiracy, four counts of mistreatment, and one count of indecency. Likewise, Cpl. Garner was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I don't identify with them and I don't believe anyone should. they do not represent what this country is about, they only represent the "wrong" that can and does occur if power, even in a run down prison, remains unchecked. Could you provide a specific example as to how the execution of Daniel Pearl was not covered in the media?
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 2 2007, 04:56 PM)
I agree we are not lilly white and have taken the hits for it but it bothers me that the enemy as you say “is above the law” — Do you mean they are literally beyond reproach and punishment?
No.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 2 2007, 04:56 PM)
They get little of the former and unless we kill them none of the latter.
I have a feeling they get what’s coming if not more from watching Iraqi security handle suspected insurgents in custody. I don’t think everyone they catch should be in police custody, though. Iraqis know someone who knows someone who was kidnapped. Everyone is armed to the teeth. If I was stuck in a Baghdad neighborhood I’d probably kill “outsiders” and dump their bodies on sidewalks where the trash piles up as a precaution, too. If Iraqi security forces broke into my house I’d shoot to kill them in self-defense.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 2 2007, 04:56 PM)
And regardless if the particular story I posted happened or not thousands of men women and CHILDREN have been blown to pieces or tortured and mutilated by the enemy and you think they are “above the law”.
A poor turn of phrase on my part. They obviously think they’re above the law but it is a statement of fact that criminals operate outside the law. My slip and your understandable but unwarranted anger are interesting because as far as I can tell you support torturing insurgents/terrorists. This is also outside the law. Your justifications and excuses do not erase the line you’re willing to cross. I won’t understand how war supporters willing to match the unlawful ruthlessness of the criminals they claim to despise can cavalierly ask the men and women doing the dirty work to damn their souls more than is already necessary.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 2 2007, 04:56 PM)
Well remember that if and when the bombs go off here and the pictures on TV won’t be Iraqis and US soldiers being killed but American civilians — as in 9/11.
I think about a bomb going off every time I take campus transportation. I think I can go berserk if I catch someone doing something funny, but I won’t know until or if it happens. That’s life, Ted. I wouldn’t have it any other way if, as you seem to believe, likeminded people like yourself are right about Americans dying in droves if we don’t sink to the terrorists’ level. I wouldn’t ask our soldiers to sacrifice more than life and limb for me. I have no right.
4th GC Section 1
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
QUOTE
A poor turn of phrase on my part. They obviously think they’re above the law but it is a statement of fact that criminals operate outside the law. My slip and your understandable but unwarranted anger are interesting because as far as I can tell you support torturing insurgents/terrorists. This is also outside the law
I don’t support anything of the kind and have said so. On the other hand I don’t think we have the obligation to make them comfortable either – or to give them lawyers or color TV…..
……. Tough questing and uncomfortable quarters is fine and one hell of a lot more than our guys get.
QUOTE
I won’t understand how war supporters willing to match the unlawful ruthlessness of the criminals they claim to despise can cavalierly ask the men and women doing the dirty work to damn their souls more than is already necessary
Very nice idea and I tend to agree although you should know that no army in the history of war including ours has ever been as clean and non ruthless as the US military in Iraq. Go grab a history of the war in the pacific (WWII) and see.
QUOTE
I think about a bomb going off every time I take campus transportation. I think I can go berserk if I catch someone doing something funny, but I won’t know until or if it happens. That’s life, Ted. I wouldn’t have it any other way if, as you seem to believe, likeminded people like yourself are right about Americans dying in droves if we don’t sink to the terrorists’ level
AGAIN please stop putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is attitudes change the closer to home the barbarous acts occur Lesly. Trust me if you (heaven forbid) get blown up by terrorists you can bet that if you parents were feeling at all sympathetic about the poor innocent murderers at GITMO that this sentiment would surely vanish.
QUOTE
I wouldn’t ask our soldiers to sacrifice more than life and limb for me. I have no right
Soldiers are not asked to do more and never have been - not now – not ever.
QUOTE(Ted)
I don’t support anything of the kind and have said so. On the other hand I don’t think we have the obligation to make them comfortable either – or to give them lawyers or color TV…..
……. Tough questing and uncomfortable quarters is fine and one hell of a lot more than our guys get.
……. Tough questing and uncomfortable quarters is fine and one hell of a lot more than our guys get.
So let me get this straight... in other words, you don't condone us using techniques that you do not believe are torture. That's a relief. And yeah, no lawyers, right on! After all it would be quite... awkward if any of these guys were put through some sort of judicial process and found to be innocent. Best to not bother, so we can make sure everyone still thinks they are all killers.
...and one hell of a lot more than our guys get.
Interesting. What does this have to do with our own conduct? Oh yeah, nothing. To even hint that our behavioral guidelines should be based on some sort of least-common denominator ideal is reprehensible. Other people's bad behavior never justifies our own. That would seem to be a conservative position, really. Self-responsibility and all, right?
QUOTE
Very nice idea and I tend to agree although you should know that no army in the history of war including ours has ever been as clean and non ruthless as the US military in Iraq. Go grab a history of the war in the pacific (WWII) and see.
Wow, how long did you research that one? NO armies in the HISTORY OF WAR? Wow. What is your source? What are your measurements? Oh wait, that's right, you made it up.
QUOTE
AGAIN please stop putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is attitudes change the closer to home the barbarous acts occur Lesly. Trust me if you (heaven forbid) get blown up by terrorists you can bet that if you parents were feeling at all sympathetic about the poor innocent murderers at GITMO that this sentiment would surely vanish.
So what? None of this is, or should be, about our feelings. Demanding due process, demanding humane treatment, do not require us to feel sympathy or abhorrence for anyone. They require us to believe in the ideals of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel)
funny how you don't seem to mind the outrage when it is pointed at those on our side .... but i digress...
Would you mind showing us some examples? Not editorials, which may show outrage at whatever, but actual news stories that are steeped in "outrage at our side" from the mainstream media? I'm sure we would love to get a clearer idea of what you consider "outrage." Or is this the same old conservative polemic, to infer that by even reporting stories implies outrage and, dare I say, Hatred of America?
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Mar 2 2007, 07:28 PM)
4th GC Section 1
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions, furthermore:
QUOTE
The treatment of detainees in an armed conflict is governed by international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war. Most relevant are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which most states, including the United States and Afghanistan, are party. (Two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1977, have not been ratified by the United States, but many of their provisions are considered to be indicative of customary international law.) The Geneva Conventions set out a comprehensive legal framework aimed at protecting captured combatants and civilians during armed conflict.
The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
The protection and treatment of captured combatants during an international armed conflict is detailed in the Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. All detainees fall somewhere within the protections of these two Conventions; according to the authoritative Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): "nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm
And...
QUOTE
The Geneva Conventions presume that a captured combatant is a prisoner of war, unless a competent tribunal determines otherwise on a case by case basis. While members of al-Qaeda would probably not meet the Geneva Conventions' requirements for POW status, members of the Taliban's armed forces mostly likely would. For the purposes of determining POW status, U.S. recognition of the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan is irrelevant-despite assertions to the contrary by some Adminstration officials.
U.S. Official misinterpret Geneva Conventions
Are you INTENTIONALLY trying to be obtuse?
this is not an ad hominem. you asked me to provide concrete evidence as to WHY
they are SPECIFICLLY excluded from the third because they do not fit with
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
and they are EXPRESSLY denied protection of the 4th because of what i cited above....
remember these conventions were set in place to protect civilian populations, and injured or captured soldiers.... the terrorists by nature go against EVERYTHING the GC stands for and as such according to the 3rd GC can be delt with very very harshly indeed....
I would ask that you read all four GCs
The avalon project at yale has all of them ready to read as is without commentary ... BTW Human Rights Watch is not a neutral party in this debate and unless you can back up the agruement with something in the GCs themselves opinion pieces follow the "Anal Sphincter Method" everyone has one and they all stink ...
Avalon Project
Edited to add.....
We are talking about the terrorists not POWs or whatever else at gitmo... two completely different debates...
this is not an ad hominem. you asked me to provide concrete evidence as to WHY
they are SPECIFICLLY excluded from the third because they do not fit with
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
and they are EXPRESSLY denied protection of the 4th because of what i cited above....
remember these conventions were set in place to protect civilian populations, and injured or captured soldiers.... the terrorists by nature go against EVERYTHING the GC stands for and as such according to the 3rd GC can be delt with very very harshly indeed....
I would ask that you read all four GCs
The avalon project at yale has all of them ready to read as is without commentary ... BTW Human Rights Watch is not a neutral party in this debate and unless you can back up the agruement with something in the GCs themselves opinion pieces follow the "Anal Sphincter Method" everyone has one and they all stink ...
Avalon Project
Edited to add.....
We are talking about the terrorists not POWs or whatever else at gitmo... two completely different debates...
I didn't realize it in my last post, but debating the merits of coverage of the Geneva Conventions is really not at stake here. No one can seriosly maintain that the torture and improper actions at Abu Ghraib in any where were allowable. Obviously the Afghans at the facility were covered under some international laws and standards of behavior as the guards were convicted. how could Lynndie England be convictedif the detainees had no rights? 
In regards to the expression of "outrage," I don't believe that it's the media's role to express "outrage." Editorializing and going off about the news isn't what the proper role of a news organization that is concerned about the facts. Talking about how bad a certain event is beliees the obvious, people aren't stupid.
In regards to the expression of "outrage," I don't believe that it's the media's role to express "outrage." Editorializing and going off about the news isn't what the proper role of a news organization that is concerned about the facts. Talking about how bad a certain event is beliees the obvious, people aren't stupid.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 3 2007, 03:31 PM)
Guardian-Are you seriously maintaining that there are peopel out there whom we can torture with impunity? Th Abu Ghraib scandal did not even produce anything of substance, if the "torture" was ever to do so, it was never elaborated what it produced in terms of eing helpful to the war effort.
1) No, but just becuase they are not afforded protectiions does not mean they will / are being tortured with impunity.
BYW ... if this is being tortured... then i have been guilty of much worse than this against american soldiers being trained... Aljezeera's thoughts of torture... we were actually allowed to and in quite a few case do "rough up" pilots and soldiers during SERE training
this is psychological conditioning for questioning... breaking down their defenses... i saw absolutely nothign that I would equate to torture....
2) I doubt anyone outside of milint will ever know what came out of gitmo.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 3 2007, 03:31 PM)
In regards to the expression of "outrage," I don't believe that it's the media's role to express "outrage." Editorializing and going off about the news isn't what the proper role of a news organization that is concerned about the facts. Talking about how bad a certain event is beliees the obvious, people aren't stupid.
So, are you for or against editorial comment?
because you express opinions in both directions...
the job of the news it to present what happened... not whythey think it happened, not what they think about. just what happened.
QUOTE
1) No, but just becuase they are not afforded protectiions does not mean they will / are being tortured with impunity.
Sorry, but they were tortured. It was why a ton of people paid the price for their reprehensible and unjustifiable actions against their fellow human beings. From the Wikipedia section on Abu Ghaib:
QUOTE
Col. Thomas Pappas was relieved of his command on May 13, 2005 after being administratively punished for two instances of dereliction, including that of allowing dogs to be present during interrogations.
Spc. Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[2]
Cpl. Joshua Lee Betts, of the 321st MI BN, Det 9, pled innocent on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and numerous violations of Geneva Convention, and human rights violation. Cpl. Joshua Lee Betts was later cleared of all charges due to lack of evidence.
Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private. [3]
Sgt. Javal Davis pled guilty February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
Spc. Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.[4]
Spc. Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[32]
Spc. Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.[5]
Spc. Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.[6]
Pvt. Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.[7]
Sgt. Santos Cardona was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault, the equivalent of a felony in the U.S. civilian justice system. He served 90 days of hard labor at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. He was transferred to a new unit and was promoted to Sergeant. He is currently assigned to the 23rd MP Company that is presently staged in Kuwait as of November 2006. He has arrived in Kuwait with his unit and has been selected to train Iraqi police.[8]
Spc. Roman Krol pled guilty on February 1, 2005 to conspiracy and maltreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. He was sentenced to ten months confinement, reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.[9]
Spc. Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, is under investigation but has not been charged and has testified against other soldiers.
Sgt. Michael Smith was found guilty on March 21, 2006 of two counts of prisoner maltreatment, one count of simple assault, one count of conspiracy to maltreat, one count of dereliction of duty and a final charge of an indecent act, and sentenced to 179 days in prison, a fine of $2,250, a demotion to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
Spc. Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.[2]
Cpl. Joshua Lee Betts, of the 321st MI BN, Det 9, pled innocent on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and numerous violations of Geneva Convention, and human rights violation. Cpl. Joshua Lee Betts was later cleared of all charges due to lack of evidence.
Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private. [3]
Sgt. Javal Davis pled guilty February 4, 2005 to dereliction of duty, making false official statements and battery. He was sentenced to six months in prison, a reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
Spc. Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.[4]
Spc. Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[32]
Spc. Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.[5]
Spc. Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.[6]
Pvt. Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.[7]
Sgt. Santos Cardona was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault, the equivalent of a felony in the U.S. civilian justice system. He served 90 days of hard labor at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. He was transferred to a new unit and was promoted to Sergeant. He is currently assigned to the 23rd MP Company that is presently staged in Kuwait as of November 2006. He has arrived in Kuwait with his unit and has been selected to train Iraqi police.[8]
Spc. Roman Krol pled guilty on February 1, 2005 to conspiracy and maltreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. He was sentenced to ten months confinement, reduction in rank to private, and a bad conduct discharge.[9]
Spc. Israel Rivera, who was present during abuse on October 25, is under investigation but has not been charged and has testified against other soldiers.
Sgt. Michael Smith was found guilty on March 21, 2006 of two counts of prisoner maltreatment, one count of simple assault, one count of conspiracy to maltreat, one count of dereliction of duty and a final charge of an indecent act, and sentenced to 179 days in prison, a fine of $2,250, a demotion to private, and a bad conduct discharge.
These people don't represent "us" in any way. They all earned their punishment, a punishment mind you, which was based on factual testimony, pictures, and standard operating procedure. This is a good thing actually, we punish those amongst us who break the rules and who as a whole, don't represent what we stand for. That is what separates us from Al-Qaeda and others of their ilk.
once again, the debate question of the media expressing "outrage" is somewhat flawed in that the media's role is to report the news, not to editorialize. Just today, the New York Times reported on a blast that killed a soccer player and that the bodies of sixteen police officers were retrieved. The media is reporting on the barbarous actions of our enemy, and they are continuing to do a stand up job in that regard.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 3 2007, 03:31 PM)
I didn't realize it in my last post, but debating the merits of coverage of the Geneva Conventions is really not at stake here. No one can seriosly maintain that the torture and improper actions at Abu Ghraib in any where were allowable. Obviously the Afghans at the facility were covered under some international laws and standards of behavior as the guards were convicted. how could Lynndie England be convictedif the detainees had no rights?
nice edit after the fact.
she was convicted of not following army regulation. the army cannot try for violations of the GC ... that would be the hague...
At her retrial, England was convicted on September 26, 2005 of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. Along with a dishonorable discharge, England received a three-year prison sentence on September 27. The prosecution had asked the jury to imprison England for four to six years. Her defense lawyers asked for no time.
QUOTE
nice edit after the fact.
I plead guilty to that.
Actually, I edited and re-edited five times. One of those things where it's best to get up for awhile and let thoughts congeal. My previous post sums it up perfectly. Torture did occur, we do hold people accountable, the news is being reported. Hot-headed "editorializing" lacking none of the less.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 3 2007, 04:28 PM)
QUOTE
nice edit after the fact.
I plead guilty to that.
Actually, I edited and re-edited five times. One of those things where it's best to get up for awhile and let thoughts congeal. My previous post sums it up perfectly. Torture did occur, we do hold people accountable, the news is being reported. Hot-headed "editorializing" lacking none of the less.
But her "crimes' were violations of Army Regulations about the treatment of those we have detained.
while these regulations are based on the GC they are broader in their protections and more restrictive in our actions than the GC...
one can easily violate US Army protocols and not the GC
edited to add...
what happened to these people was not torture... College hazings get rougher than what happened here.
Should it have happened, no of course not but to characterize it as torture is to play into the enemies hands.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Mar 3 2007, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Mar 3 2007, 04:28 PM)
QUOTE
nice edit after the fact.
I plead guilty to that.
Actually, I edited and re-edited five times. One of those things where it's best to get up for awhile and let thoughts congeal. My previous post sums it up perfectly. Torture did occur, we do hold people accountable, the news is being reported. Hot-headed "editorializing" lacking none of the less.
But her "crimes' were violations of Army Regulations about the treatment of those we have detained.
while these regulations are based on the GC they are broader in their protections and more restrictive in our actions than the GC...
one can easily violate US Army protocols and not the GC
edited to add...
what happened to these people was not torture... College hazings get rougher than what happened here.
Should it have happened, no of course not but to characterize it as torture is to play into the enemies hands.
So with what’s the need for secret facilities to hold prisoners operated in nations outside of the spheres of influence of various laws and operated by the CIA?
If they capture someone like say osama bin laden, well I don’t really care what happens to that guy, but just any person that has anything that ties them to the GWOT rushed off to some secret facility? We cant really debate at lengths about these places or what they do with whom because there is no real data on them. Thus who has oversight or control in regards to what happens to someone’s life that for some reason is deemed to be rendered to such a facility? We cant know this either.
QUOTE
Gordo
So with what’s the need for secret facilities to hold prisoners operated in nations outside of the spheres of influence of various laws and operated by the CIA
So with what’s the need for secret facilities to hold prisoners operated in nations outside of the spheres of influence of various laws and operated by the CIA
Any prison not surrounded by guard towers and heavily armed men would have to be secret or it would be attacked. Our laws against torture don’t have a “sphere of influence” – it is illegal everywhere. Other countries have laws as well. I posted the reason some prisoners are sent bac to their home countries
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.