( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
 

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:33 -0400, John H wrote:


From the first source: "The information contained in this report is based
an allegations collected by the ICRC in private interviews with persons
deprived of their liberty during its visits to places of internment of the
Coalition Forces (CF) between March and November 2003."

Of course, all these persons deprived of their liberty are upstanding,
trustworthy folk, right?


Whew, thank you for pointing this out to me. The International Committee
of the Red Cross is now totally discredited in my eyes. I can now rest
easy knowing that *no* prisoner abuse happened under the coalition forces.

( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap
about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them
realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the
other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or
elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to
the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated
according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will not
show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor
in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e
those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply. Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this, are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

If they're armed, they're not lawful combatants.



Well, they ARE armed, and our government has huge contracts with the
companies which provide these mercanaries. I don't necessarily have a
problem with that, but don't claim that "unlawful combatants" come only
from
evil sources, OK?


I didn't.

( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
 

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:14:39 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:20:33 -0400, John H wrote:


From the first source: "The information contained in this report is based
an allegations collected by the ICRC in private interviews with persons
deprived of their liberty during its visits to places of internment of the
Coalition Forces (CF) between March and November 2003."

Of course, all these persons deprived of their liberty are upstanding,
trustworthy folk, right?


Whew, thank you for pointing this out to me. The International Committee
of the Red Cross is now totally discredited in my eyes. I can now rest
easy knowing that *no* prisoner abuse happened under the coalition forces.


Good. Much better than blindly accepting anything a prisoner says without
question. I wonder how many prisoners in *any* prison would say their captives
are a bunch of great guys?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out (Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap
about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them
realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the
other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or
elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory to
the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated
according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will
not
show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the favor
in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e
those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's
not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam, and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply.
Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this,
are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

If they're armed, they're not lawful combatants.



Well, they ARE armed, and our government has huge contracts with the
companies which provide these mercanaries. I don't necessarily have a
problem with that, but don't claim that "unlawful combatants" come only
from
evil sources, OK?


I didn't.



So, if these mercanaries are dragged through the streets behind trucks, or
beheaded on videotape, you'll keep your mouth shut, right? RIGHT?

( OT ) Pentagon torture memo
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Rick" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
At least most of it -- many parts blacked out
(Requires
Acrobat)



http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf




Did you happen to catch much of the AG's testimony? He
so
typifies
the
mindlessness of Bush. Neither of them really give a crap
about
what
happens to US soldiers as a result of their policies.

I think the more accurate analysis is that both of them
realize
that
our
abiding by the rules of law will have no effect on how the
other
side
treats
our POW's.

Tell me this...
What good did our signature do on the articles of the
Geneva
Convention
when
our soldiers and/or citizens in Somalia, Fallujah, or
elsewhere
were
captured? Not one damned bit of good.

We need to amend our policy. If the enemy is a signatory
to
the
articles
of
the Geneva Convention, then their POW's will be treated
according
to
the
rules of war. If not, then we must assume that they will
not
show
retraint
with our troops if captured...and we should return the
favor
in
kind.

But I believe the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers, i.e
those
in
uniform,. not those that act as terrosits dressing in
civilian
clothes
and
hiding in civilian buildings.

Get used to it. This is the nature of modern warfare, and it's
not
going
to
change anytime soon. It began in WWII, continued in Vietnam,
and
it's
here
to stay.

Then the articles of the Geneva Convention no longer apply.
Thanks
for
pointing that out, Doug!

"Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining
a
clear
separation between combatant and noncombatant groups - and thus
endanger
the
civilian population - are no longer protected by the Geneva
Convention."

http://www.genevaconventions.org/



So, how do the 'contractors' we have over in Iraq fall into this,
are
they
not also 'unlawful' combatants?..

If they're armed, they're not lawful combatants.



Well, they ARE armed, and our government has huge contracts with the
companies which provide these mercanaries. I don't necessarily have a
problem with that, but don't claim that "unlawful combatants" come
only
from
evil sources, OK?


I didn't.



So, if these mercanaries are dragged through the streets behind trucks, or
beheaded on videotape, you'll keep your mouth shut, right? RIGHT?


Absolutely not. As much as I abhor what happened to those guys, I
understand *why* the enemy did it in such a public way. They were hoping
for a repeat of Vietnam, Somalia and Beirut...where terrorists were able to
inflict enough damage to the American psyche that America just cut and ran.

I favor psy-ops (but non-physical and non-lethal) "torture" to get any info
out of the enemy that might be useful in saving American lives. *That* is
the difference. Non-lethal and non-physical.

You could argue that the enemy was "torturing" and killing our POW's for the
same *reason*...to save more lives on their side. However, I'd argue that
should either side torture, kill, mutilate, etc. POW's, they better be
prepared to to reap what they sow.

The easiest way to see that our guys are never killed and then chopped up
and burned in public is to take away the incentive for doing such a thing.
In other words, Americans need to show more resolve in the face of even the
most gruesome enemy propaganda...rather than cower in the face of it.