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

[ALEXRUS]

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.

 

[V Nura]

The Un charter wasnt' violated....


do yourself a favor



read resolution 687 and 1441.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[ALEXRUS]

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"?

 

[womanfish]

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.

 

[ALEXRUS]

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...

 

[womanfish]

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?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

 

[ALEXRUS]

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]

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.

 

[V Nura]

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.

 

[womanfish]

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.

 

[cloudimani]

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

 

[Dreadsox]

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...

This can be debated back and forth again and again.

There is a serious problem with the Security Council. People are more concerned with using language that does not define things to get votes. This is what is going to kill the Security Council.

Here is a Very Good Article about this very problem.

http://www.asil.org/ajil/lobel.htm


What I see now is who the do we turn to? Many in the UN view this war as illegal anyway. SO who the cares about the Geneva convention.

Peace

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

No it doesn't. I believe all Prisoners of War should be held in compliance with the Geneva Convention. The point I was making is that the US appears to consider itself above international law. Regardless of that though, all POWs should be held in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

 

[ALEXRUS]

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.

1. I am definitely not.

2. I believe you but do not speak on behalf of France. It has its own voice in UNSC.

3. I've never said I FAVOUR sanctions. I was always against the sanctions as well as my country. All the attempts by Russia to raise the issue of sanctions after 1991 were blocked by the US.

 

[womanfish]

Yeah France does have it's own voice, and it's voice says that it has trying to get rid of sanctions on Iraq for years (without removal of Saddam or WMD's) and it says that it supports very strongly the oil for food program. It also so happens that they make out quite well financially on this program, which is no big deal. Just saying that they have their reasons for wanting to keep it in place. This information is easy enough to look up with a little research.

You say you don't favor sanctions? well you seem to think that it would be better "serious consequence" then military action. To me, that means you favor it. I don't because sanctions end up killing more innocent people than military action does, and hopefully this military action will have a conclusion and that conclusion being the end of Saddam, where sanctions would go on forever with Saddam because he steals the oil for food money and lives fat and happy and lets his people die from the sanctions.

 

[joyfulgirl]

And please let everyone here know what conditions at Guantanamo are in violation of the Geneva Convention?

From an interview this morning with Robert Fisk, reporter for The Independent who is currently in Baghdad, with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:

AG: Can you talk about the POWs and television- the charge that they?re violating the Geneva Convention by showing them on television?

RF: Well, you know, the Geneva Convention is meant to protect children, and hospitals are full of civilians, including many children who?ve been badly wounded.

It seems to me that this concentration on whether television should show prisoners or not is a kind of mischief: it?s not the point. The issue, of course, is that both sides are taking prisoners, and that both sides want the other side to know of the prisoners they?ve taken. I watched CNN showing a British soldier forcing a man to kneel on the ground and put his hands up and produce his identity card and I?ve seen other film on British television of prisoners near Um Qasr and Basra being forced to march past a British soldier with their hands in the air. Well, they (the American soldiers) weren?t interviewed, it?s true, although you heard at one point a man asking questions, clearly to put any prisoner on air answering questions is against the Geneva Convention. But for many, many years now, in the Middle East television has been showing both sides in various wars appearing on television and being asked what their names are and what their home countries are.

And the real issue is that these prisoners should not be maltreated, tortured, or hurt after capture. When you realize that 19 men have tried to commit suicide at Guantanamo, that we now know that 2 prisoners at the US base Bagram were beaten to death during interrogation. To accuse the Iraqis of breaking the Geneva Convention by putting American POWs on television in which you hear them being asked what state they?re from in the states, it seems a very hypocritical thing to do. But one would have to say, technically, putting a prisoner of war on television and asking them questions on television is against the Geneva Convention. It is quite specifically so. And thus, clearly Iraq broke that convention when it put those men on television- I watched them on Iraqi TV here. But, as I?ve said, it?s a pretty hypocritical thing when you realize, this equates to the way America treats prisoners from Afghanistan- Mr. Bush is not the person to be teaching anyone about the Geneva Convention.

 

[nbcrusader]

Let's distinguish between two things here. The Geneva Convention's "no showing POWs on television" is a directive against parading POWs in front of cameras or subjecting them to ridicule or beatings from crowds.

Iraq violated this in 1991. They are violating the Convention again.

The fact that embedded reporters capture images of POWs as they are detained is quite different.


Frankly, I am getting tired of the spiritied, yet unsupported "well, the US is just as bad" posts when Iraq's clear violations are discussed. [/rant]

 

[womanfish]

Let's distinguish between two things here. The Geneva Convention's "no showing POWs on television" is a directive against parading POWs in front of cameras or subjecting them to ridicule or beatings from crowds.

Iraq violated this in 1991. They are violating the Convention again.

The fact that embedded reporters capture images of POWs as they are detained is quite different.


Frankly, I am getting tired of the spiritied, yet unsupported "well, the US is just as bad" posts when Iraq's clear violations are discussed. [/rant]

Very true,
in 1991, our POW's were raped, had their arms and legs broken with metal pipes, cut and punched, shocked with cattle prods, and I'm sure much more.

Joyfulgirl also fails to mention the at least 4 troops that are believed to have been executed, then in the video showed on Al Jazeera TV, a man comes into the room where the exectued bodies are piled up - picks a body up and while smiling puts the dead man up to the camera before throwing him back down on the pile.

But it's refreshing to know that we can always count on people to try and justify the mistreatment of coalition troops.

I give joyfulgirl credit for at least stating some stats from Guantamo Bay and not just using hearsay from others to boost an arguement. Any mistreatment of troops is bad on either side. But you don't see anyone here saying it's ok to beat or execute Iraqi POW's because they do the same to us.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Very true,
in 1991, our POW's were raped, had their arms and legs broken with metal pipes, cut and punched, shocked with cattle prods, and I'm sure much more.

Joyfulgirl also fails to mention the at least 4 troops that are believed to have been executed, then in the video showed on Al Jazeera TV, a man comes into the room where the exectued bodies are piled up - picks a body up and while smiling puts the dead man up to the camera before throwing him back down on the pile.

But it's refreshing to know that we can always count on people to try and justify the mistreatment of coalition troops.

I give joyfulgirl credit for at least stating some stats from Guantamo Bay and not just using hearsay from others to boost an arguement. Any mistreatment of troops is bad on either side. But you don't see anyone here saying it's ok to beat or execute Iraqi POW's because they do the same to us.

I quoted the article above because I heard it just this morning so it was fresh, and there was the mention of the two POWS beaten to death at the US base in Bagram, which no one ever mentions. In war, no one should be shocked by the fact that both sides are capable of mistreating their prisoners of war, as horrible as it is. We even had an American soldier lose it last week and send a grenade into his own comrades' tent, for God's sake. War is CRAZY. It makes people CRAZY. It makes good people CRAZY. It makes bad people CRAZIER.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Afghan Prisoners Beaten
To Death At US Base
Investigation 'Blunt Force Injuries' Cited In Murder Ruling
By Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
The Guardian - UK
3-6-3

Two prisoners who died while being held for interrogation at the US military base in Afghanistan had apparently been beaten, according to a military pathologist's report. A criminal investigation is now under way into the deaths which have both been classified as homicides.

The deaths have led to calls for an inquiry into what interrogation techniques are being used at the base where it is believed the al-Qaida leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is now also being held. Former prisoners at the base claim that detainees are chained to the ceiling, shackled so tightly that the blood flow stops, kept naked and hooded and kicked to keep them awake for days on end.

The two men, both Afghans, died last December at the US forces base in Bagram, north of Kabul, where prisoners have been held for questioning. The autopsies found they had suffered "blunt force injuries" and classified both deaths as homicides.

A spokesman for the Pentagon said yesterday it was not possible to discuss the details of the case because of the proceeding investigation. If the investigation finds that the prisoners had been unlawfully killed during interrogation, it could lead to both civil and military prosecutions. He added that it was not clear whether only US personnel had had access to the men.

***

War makes people CRAZY.

 

[womanfish]

I quoted the article above because I heard it just this morning so it was fresh, and there was the mention of the two POWS beaten to death at the US base in Bagram, which no one ever mentions. In war, no one should be shocked by the fact that both sides are capable of mistreating their prisoners of war, as horrible as it is. We even had an American soldier lose it last week and send a grenade into his own comrades' tent, for God's sake. War is CRAZY. It makes people CRAZY. It makes good people CRAZY. It makes bad people CRAZIER.

true.

If you could provide a link to any news reports of the incident in Bagram, I would appreciate it. I haven't heard anything.

 

[Rono]

No it doesn't. I believe all Prisoners of War should be held in compliance with the Geneva Convention. The point I was making is that the US appears to consider itself above international law. Regardless of that though, all POWs should be held in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Are the prisoners on cuba POW ? I remember that the US politicians said, those prisoners are terrorists and not POW. Thats why they do not fall under the Geneva Convention,...but i could be wrong.

 

[womanfish]

even faster than I could ask for it. thanks joyfulgirl.

 

[Rono]

even faster than I could ask for it. thanks joyfulgirl.

Another one,...


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/afgh-m10.shtml

 

[BVS]

But it's refreshing to know that we can always count on people to try and justify the mistreatment of coalition troops.

I am so sick of people on this board taking such extremes. People are loosing their abilities for deductive reasoning here. No one here is trying to justify this behavior. Some are just cleary stating that we can't rush to judgement about a group of people when it's happening in our own backyard as well. We're just cleary stating that war creates monsters out of people from both sides. You can't look at things just as an American, we're asking for you to look at things as a human being. I'm not pointing this just at you Womanfish. This rant is for everyone who somehow concludes that you're pro Saddam or anti-American if you're anti-war, or that you validate certain despicable acts just because you can understand why. This goes for both sides of the spectrum also. I'm just floored by all these individuals who can state sources and flame you when you can't hand them a statistic, but leap to such extremes when they can't understand why people don't stare through the same red, white and blue tinted glasses as they do.

End of rant.

 

[womanfish]

I am so sick of people on this board taking such extremes. People are loosing their abilities for deductive reasoning here. No one here is trying to justify this behavior. Some are just cleary stating that we can't rush to judgement about a group of people when it's happening in our own backyard as well. We're just cleary stating that war creates monsters out of people from both sides. You can't look at things just as an American, we're asking for you to look at things as a human being. I'm not pointing this just at you Womanfish. This rant is for everyone who somehow concludes that you're pro Saddam or anti-American if you're anti-war, or that you validate certain despicable acts just because you can understand why. This goes for both sides of the spectrum also. I'm just floored by all these individuals who can state sources and flame you when you can't hand them a statistic, but leap to such extremes when they can't understand why people don't stare through the same red, white and blue tinted glasses as they do.

End of rant.

My deductive reasoning is working just fine. when U.S. POW's are captured tortured and executed and then shown being questioned on TV before families are even notified that is upsetting. then to come in here and see someone post this excerpt from an article:

>AG: Can you talk about the POWs and television- the charge that they?re violating the Geneva Convention by showing them on television?

RF: Well, you know, the Geneva Convention is meant to protect children, and hospitals are full of civilians, including many children who?ve been badly wounded. <

yes in my mind justifying that because civilians have been injured from bombing in Baghdad that it's ok to not follow the rules of treatment of POW's.


I have never said that being anti-war is being pro-saddam. But in my opinion, this conflict will bring the end of thousands of people dying under Saddam's control every week. That is the HUMAN side of me talking. I could give a shit about George Bush, I didn't vote for him and I most likely won't in 2004, but almost a million and a half innocent Iraqi citizens have died in the past twelve years, and Saddam needs to go. Bill Clinton also stated many times that Saddam needed to be removed and even fired missles on Baghdad during his presidency. This is not about me being American (or British or Australian or Spanish or Japanese for that matter) and it's not about my political stance, as I am a left leaning liberal guy. It's about what has to stop in Iraq.

And yes, call me crazy, but I do like it when people can back up their statements and accusations with fact, or even sources that are investigating a report.

I know your post was not directed totally at me, and this one is not directed totally towards you. You say you are sick of people saying that if you are anti-war you are pro-Saddam, well I am sick of people saying that if you are for the use of military action that you are pro-death. That we are bent on killing the Iraqi people. It is the exact opposite of that. I want the killing, and torture, and rape and humiliation of innocent Iraqis to stop.