UN Charter can be violated, Geneva Convention on POWs not? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-24-2003, 11:45 AM   #1
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:47 PM
UN Charter can be violated, Geneva Convention on POWs not?

First. I do hope that everything will be all right to all the POWs taken in this war.
Second. I do hope this war will be over soon.

Now. What occured to me is the obvious contradiction between the words of SOME people in US administration who have recently said they don't care about UN, UNSC, inspections etc (implying "US is strong. US knows what it does. US can do it alone and will do it alone. We need no advice from others who just don't understand...") and immediate references to international law (Geneva Convention on POWs) made by the same people just several days later. What do you think? Is it right to cite international law after having committed the most glaring violation of this law before? Is it right to demand from Iraq to treat US POWs correctly when US itself indulges in violating the same convention in case of Guantanamo. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am not anti-American, I' not pro-American. Just facts.
Thanks everybody for answering.
__________________

__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:54 AM   #2
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 03:47 PM
The Un charter wasnt' violated....


do yourself a favor



read resolution 687 and 1441.
__________________

__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 12:07 PM   #3
Acrobat
 
cloudimani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 483
Local Time: 02:47 PM
first of all 1441 doesnt allow for war as a "Serious Consequence", which was the only reason it was passed

As far as I know the military action in 687 is explicitly linked to Iraqi incursions into Kuwait, which of course hasnt happened

So yes this war is not in fact backed by a UN resolution. Why do you think they wanted to pass another one?
__________________
cloudimani is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 12:07 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Well, the US has held several hundred men prisoner in Guantanamo Bay for over a year now. They've been held in conditions which clearly violate the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then as soon as US soldiers are taken prisoner, the US demands that they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Obviously the US thinks itself to be above international law, but wants all other countries to abide by it regardless.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 12:25 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Well, the US has held several hundred men prisoner in Guantanamo Bay for over a year now. They've been held in conditions which clearly violate the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then as soon as US soldiers are taken prisoner, the US demands that they are treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Obviously the US thinks itself to be above international law, but wants all other countries to abide by it regardless.
This appears to validate the torture or killing of US POWs based on your conclusion that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are held in conditions in violation of the Geneva Convention.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:26 PM   #6
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


This appears to validate the torture or killing of US POWs based on your conclusion that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are held in conditions in violation of the Geneva Convention.
1. Any report of killing or torture of US POWs? I've heard in the news that Iraqi authorities promised they WILL abide by the Convention.

2. Playing with words: detainees or POWs? Even if those in Guantanamo are detainees, they are not human beings?

3. Should I understand your answer to my question as "yes", "US administration is right to behave like that"?
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:29 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cloudimani
first of all 1441 doesnt allow for war as a "Serious Consequence", which was the only reason it was passed

As far as I know the military action in 687 is explicitly linked to Iraqi incursions into Kuwait, which of course hasnt happened

So yes this war is not in fact backed by a UN resolution. Why do you think they wanted to pass another one?
This bothers me. People against the use of force say that they know what "serious consequences" means. The resolution was drafted by the U.S. They KNOW what it means. And so did the members of the Security Council. They just backed out when push came to shove, probably thinking that with a deadline and threat of force Saddam would comply this time.

So what do you think "serious consequences" means? Drafting a 17th resolution? Wow, if that's the case I'd hate to see them get really tough.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:33 PM   #8
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V
The Un charter wasnt' violated....


do yourself a favor


read resolution 687 and 1441.
I can only repeat that if 1441 authorised the war, it would have never been voted unanimously. If you insist that it does authorise use of force, it is strange that the countries that supported 1441 oppose the war. It is strange that US administration does not include Russia, France etc in "the coalition" of Solomon Islands, Uganda, US, UK...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:38 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


1. Any report of killing or torture of US POWs? I've heard in the news that Iraqi authorities promised they WILL abide by the Convention.

2. Playing with words: detainees or POWs? Even if those in Guantanamo are detainees, they are not human beings?

3. Should I understand your answer to my question as "yes", "US administration is right to behave like that"?
Have you seen any news reports the last 2 days!?!?!?!?!

Up to seven POW's were tortured and executed (shot in the head) and 4 others were taped while being interrogated and experts concluded that from their wounds and answers given that they were also tortured before the questioning.

And please let everyone here know what conditions at Guantanamo are in violation of the Geneva Convention?
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:53 PM   #10
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,435
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


I can only repeat that if 1441 authorised the war, it would have never been voted unanimously. If you insist that it does authorise use of force, it is strange that the countries that supported 1441 oppose the war. It is strange that US administration does not include Russia, France etc in "the coalition" of Solomon Islands, Uganda, US, UK...
you're right... that is strange... i guess russia, france and the likes thought that "serious consequences" meant that saddam had to go stand in the corner and take a time out.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:31 PM   #11
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish


Have you seen any news reports the last 2 days!?!?!?!?!

Up to seven POW's were tortured and executed (shot in the head) and 4 others were taped while being interrogated and experts concluded that from their wounds and answers given that they were also tortured before the questioning.

And please let everyone here know what conditions at Guantanamo are in violation of the Geneva Convention?
I did. I have not seen CNN today though. If you saw what you're saying about POWs tortured and executed, I take my first item back. I never heard nor seen anything about tortures and extrajudicial ececutions of the US POWs. I guess our media are silencing that.

Once again, I am not a teacher of international law
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:36 PM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


you're right... that is strange... i guess russia, france and the likes thought that "serious consequences" meant that saddam had to go stand in the corner and take a time out.
They meant exactly what is written there. For those lacking imagination or those who believe "serious consequences" equals "war" I give options of what it may be: "sanctions", "cancellation of Oil for Food programme" etc.
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:43 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cloudimani
first of all 1441 doesnt allow for war as a "Serious Consequence", which was the only reason it was passed

As far as I know the military action in 687 is explicitly linked to Iraqi incursions into Kuwait, which of course hasnt happened

So yes this war is not in fact backed by a UN resolution. Why do you think they wanted to pass another one?
as far as you'd know..you'd be wrong


any act preventing disarmement of iraq ...is a violation of the cease fire..and can call for resumption of war.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:50 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,195
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ALEXRUS


They meant exactly what is written there. For those lacking imagination or those who believe "serious consequences" equals "war" I give options of what it may be: "sanctions", "cancellation of Oil for Food programme" etc.
I really, really hope you are kidding with this one.

France has been trying to get the sanctions on Iraq dropped for many years, and France makes a lot of money from the oil for food program with Iraq. So believe me, these were definitely not serious consequences that France would have signed on for.

And it's interesting that you would favor more sanctions instead of the use of force. 15 times the number of people that were killed in the first Golf War have died because of the sanctions against Iraq. And I believe that's a conservative estimate. These are sanctions that could have been lifted any time over the last 12 years if he would have complied with resolutions. But we know now that would never have happened without the use of force.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 03:21 PM   #15
Acrobat
 
cloudimani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 483
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arun V


as far as you'd know..you'd be wrong


any act preventing disarmement of iraq ...is a violation of the cease fire..and can call for resumption of war.
my mistake, the resolution that did authorise force was 678, but this was explicitly linked to ejecting Iraq from Kuwait.

In any case, its academic picking and choosing from previous resolutions to justify war, when its clear that the majority of the Security Council including 3 veto-wielding nations does not consider war an acceptable course of action
__________________

__________________
cloudimani is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com