I mentioned this possibility in another thread, and the demand for proof was immediate, but it would have been off-topic there. This should certainly should provide food for thought. Here's an Amnesty International report entitled Iraq: Continuing failure to uphold human rights.

Here's a slightly longer report entitled Iraq Memorandum on concerns relating to law and order.

There are more examples, and a good discussion in the second document of what international law applies in the current situation.

So, the question for debate is: does the state of "war but not war" in Iraq justify the actions described in these documents? If international humanitarian law as referenced by Amnesty International do not apply, what standards - if any - do? Or does patriotism require that we just roll over and accept whatever Big Brother tells us is best?

No it most certainly does not justify torture by our side. In WWII, "they" treated "us" badly when we were captured by them, but we conspicuously did not return the favour (or were far more judicious and secretive in it's application - so much so that nobody found out about it).

Now, the fact that "they" aren't an army with uniforms does not justify ill treatment - German and Japanese spies behaved very similarly, and we certainly interrogated them, deprived them of sleep, and so on; but did we actually physically torture them? Did we imprison them without trial? No - if we caught them and had the time to do anything more than shoot them on the spot, we usually tried them in the civilian courts system. Did we beat them? Not as far as I know - in fact I recollect that if our troops did mistreated enemy prisoners, even if they were out of uniform, then it was OUR troops that got punished.

This seems to have been turned on it's head, not only in Iraq, but in Gitmo.

It's an uncomfortable precedent. To me it says "Our enemy are cunning and ruthless and have none of the sense of tolerance and fair play that make our civilisation great. They have threatened to damage our civilisation. To prevent this, we must suspend all of the tolerance and fair play that makes our civilisation great, and adopt the tactics of our enemy." I can't be the only one that sees it this way, or thinks that we're not only being hypocritical, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Absolutely we do not accept this. The fact that our government would sink so low as to torture people, guilty or not, is disgusting. And none of them have even been charged with a crime, these are just people off the street that *MIGHT* have done something wrong. We don't even know!

Granted there is some intense interrogation going in Iraq, some necessary and some unnecessary, but where was everyone on these issues in Iraq before all this started:

Decades of Abuse

If you go on a case by case investigation of everything soldiers have done in Iraq you would find numerous atrocities, and you will also find numerous acts of kindness by US and British soldiers.

You can focus on the negative if you like, but personally, I would like to focus on the positive. (If the media would ever report it).

Two wrongs still don't make a right, Sleeper.

I was not stating that it did.. Merely posing the question. Where was the outcry before?

Let's not let this topic stray. We already have established debate questions:

Let's stick to them

Oh God, consider the source. I can remember seeing Amnesty International constantly preach about the atrocities in Iraq until the moment a Republican president went to actually do something about it. I went to one of their lectures in State College, Pa, in the fall, of 2002, when Bush had just started talking about a regime change..I thought the lecture would be productive and intellectual, but it just turned out to be a Bush bashing session, where they suddenly stopped caring about the Iraqi people.

I know thats off the thread, but I have got to stop and point out that you might want to go to a more credible source, like Jayson Blair, or the BBC before taking such claims seriously.

If it is true by some coincidence, I think it is wrong, but unfortunately very forgiveable to most Americans.

Couple of points:

The war in Iraq is a war, I don't know why you are characterizing it as "war but not war".

We don't know WHY these people were originally detained except (in some cases) by the anecdotal evidence of their families. The families obviously are not going to portray them as resistance members or active participants, but as family-oriented, peace-loving, God-fearing individuals.

The activities in the POW camps was just that, POW camps:

I guess these guys should have checked their history into POW camps in Vietnam. What they had was luxurious in comparison. I doubt that the accommodations for our troops were much better than those of the prisoners.

The people "reporting" these activities should be examined. Of course, there is going to be a percentage of Iraqis who are vehemently anti-US (understandably), probably some that would be willing to "cry wolf" about the treatment they received. We need to examine the source of these allegations.

I know some people will accuse me of defending the US position here, but what I say is that we need to give the US the benefit of the doubt. If physical torture is being utilized (I do not consider all of the things described as "torture" fit into the popular definition of torture), then by all means that must be stopped, and people need to be held responsible. I do not accept that we need to stoop to the level of those we oppose.

aquapub - care to discuss the topic AT ALL? If you don't like Amnesty International as a source, say so and then state which ones you do find credible in relation TO THIS TOPIC. Going on ad naseum about them is unconstructive.

DEBATE THIS:

I don't believe civilian combatants (if there were any) were tried until after the war was over, Julian. Things have certainly not settled down in Iraq. My Italian grandfather was a POW during WWII in England. He came home looking very fit and brandishing chocolate. The family was on the verge of starving and most had never seen chocolate before. I am willing to bet that, even under those circumstances, he was probably forced into sit or stand in some uncomfortable positions for a while. He probably didn't always get his chow on time, might have been thirsty, and I'm sure they didn't give him a private toilet. I saw no reference to beatings in the first article (I haven't read the second yet).

I wouldn't be surprised if some soldiers go over the line here. The problem is context. I remember amnesty international and other humanitarian rights groups complaining that we were making the Afghanistan combatants shave their beards. This was, according to them, unnecessary and shameful to their religion. But, of course, they were hording weapons in their beards.

Being 'forced' to stand or sit in uncomfortable positions might be necessary if the prisoner is hostile, or potentially so. Iraqi prisoners don't get to wash, or always have adequate water, but neither do our soldiers. We simply don't know the situation.

Edited to add: I notice amnesty uses some really strong language and appears to try and create a problem, in certain cases, where there is none. An example:
In this case, 'flagrant breach of law' is defined as the proper military response for detainees. Await the authority of the commanding officer before releasing. Such a statement (IMO) presents an obvious one sided spin and compromises the validity of the rest of their position.

Perhaps because of the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. Congress has not declared war. The ongoing invasion of Iraq may be a "war" by the general definition of armed conflict, but despite whatever resolutions Congress may have passed, this is not a legal, Constitutional war - any more than it is a justified or necessary war. It is a large-scale act of unwarranted aggression which, of itself, is war crime - by definition.


Here I would agree. Obviously, anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. I would also agree that what I've seen described so far doesn't quite fit my definition of "torture" either - though I do think that "'cruel, inhuman or degrading'' applies. And it doesn't quiet take bamboo splints under the fingernails or being broken on the rack to constitute a human rights abuse. Another example of this is the story of Danish engineer, Qais al-Salman - and the other civilian detainees at Camp Cropper with whom he shared his quarters.

Regarding Amnesty International, I have been following their work for years and, indeed, worked with them for a while in Ireland. I have never known of them to intentionally distort, never mind invent, stories about anyone. The important thing to remember about Amnesty is that they investigate everyone (as evidenced by their Annual Reports). Without them, we would probably know little about the much touted abuses of Saddam Hussein over the past decade or so. If they do "spin" stories at all, it is to err on the side of protecting human rights. They do not have a political agenda per se and no one who treats their fellow humans with respect - and within the law - has anything to fear from their "bashing" (despite aquapub's having attended a lecture once in State College, PA ).

If you ever get the chance to go through Aviators survival school in the military, I suggest you will probably change your mind somewhat about what torture consists of! We no longer need bamboo shoots and electric shock or drugs to torture poeple, we have taken our tactics right from the north koreans. Much easier to deny harm if there are no marks right? Being "restrained" for hours with no sleep, usually days without sleep, is torture. Go through it sometime, and you will agree! It is all very "humane", but I wouldn't want any family member of mine to have to go through it!

I am sorry, but I have no doubt that our forces over there are using torture, and doing it in exactly in the manner Amnesty Int. says it is used.

It is wrong, period. We are supposed to be the good guys, we should act like it!

But doesn' t this count: Oct. 2002: Congress Approves Use Military force to confront Iraq

Congress basically gave Bush permission to go to war with Iraq because they passed this bill

See highlighted phrase in the post you quoted. Congress' abrogation of their perogative does not make this "war" any more legal - or constitutional.

I have to disagree. To me, the Congressional approval is akin to someone granting another person power of attorney.

How might the two be different?

M L Iserman