Text 18459, 224 rader
Skriven 2005-12-12 10:58:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18370 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: Copyright
=================
 MV>>>> Ask the "guests" at the Gitmo hotel....

 >>> Who fall in te cracks of the Convention,

 MV>> Cracks created for the purpose by the US interpreters....

 > No, cracks that existed when the thing was drafted.

Well, the words were there of course. But they were not recognised as a
loophole at the time of writing. If they would, the loophole would have been
fixed then and there.

The loophole did not become a loophole until the US interpreted it as such. And
of course the interpretation was never tested against that of an independent
authority. The US does not recognise any such authority.

If the US had *wanted* to follow the Geneva convention she would not have been
looking for loopholes and no one would know about their existence.

So for all intents and purposes the cracks *were* created by the US.


 >>> AFAICT. Esle they'd be treated differently as it is, they
 >>> receive the benifits accorded to POW's.

 MV>> No they don't. They are denied visits from the representatives
 MV>> of the Red Cross.

 > Which they do not get beacuse they are not POW's, other than
 > that...

For teh "other than that" we only have the word of the captors....

That is why access to the prisoners by the Red Cross is essential.

 >>> OK, so presume that they are Prisoners of War. That means we
 >>> get to keep them until the war's over, right?

 MV>> They should have been released nearly two yeras ago when George Bush
 MV>> declared that armed hostilities had ended and that the war was over.

 > You sure that's what he said?

Yes, definitely. Of course he does not repeat that nowadays. But he surely DID
say it at the time.

 >>> we don't have to have hearings and tribunals, we just get to
 >>> house them until one of two thngs happen, a ending of the war, or
 >>> a prisoner echange.  So, where's the problem?

 MV>> 1) That according to your president the war IS over.
 MV>> 2) That some of them are denied visits from the Red Cross.
 MV>> 3) These ever increasing rumours about torture.

 > Rumours are rumors, as has ever been.

Persistent rumours have the nasty habit of becoming more than just rumours. Aby
Graib comes to mind. And don't tell me the responsible parties have been
brought to trial and convicted. Those methods come out of the bag of Donald
Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Nobody here believes that Donald Rumsfeld was unaware
of it.

 > If the war is over who are we shooting at, still?

Obviously your president spoke prematurely when he said the war was over. he
said it nevertheless.

 MV>>>> But they do not, they play judge in their own case and simply
 MV>>>> rule that the Geneva convention does not apply. The Geneva
 MV>>>> convention was meant to protect the weaker party - the prisoner
 MV>>>> - against the captor abusing his power. What good is that if the
 MV>>>> captor can unlateraly set it aside at will simply by labelling
 MV>>>> the prisoners as "illegal combatants"?

 >>> And yet, they get the /exact/ treatment that would if the were
 >>> POW's.

 MV>> No, they don't.

 > Aside from IRC visits, they are, I've seen the pictures, both
 > before and after Camp Delta. They are treated very well.

How do you know? Nobody is allowed to make pictures without a US censor
standing behind him. No one except US military personnel is allowed to speak to
the prisoners. Not the Red Cross, not the UN, not the independent press.

We only have the word of the captors that they are treated well.

Add to that that the few who were released tell a different story..

The indications that methods of interrogation are used at Guantanomo Bay that
violate international agreements and US law are pretty strong. Why did these
prisoners have to go to Cuba in the first place? The answer seems pretty
obvious: because methods are used that when used on US territory would be a
violation of the law.

Personally I think using torture and denying it is pretty stupid. Eventually
the truth will come out. It always does...

 MV>>>> And of course Guantanomo bay is noit the one and only example of
 MV>>>> the US ignoring the Geneva Convention. When the Iraqies showed
 MV>>>> the captured amercican soldiers on TV, you screemed bloody
 MV>>>> murder. Two weeks later, the US did the same with captured Iraqi
 MV>>>> soldiers...

 >>> OK, I can buy that. but . was the media state-run, or allowed
 >>> to show that video? there's a difference.

 MV>> The footage was shot by US "embedded" journalists. IOW with knowledge
 MV>> and approval of the US army.

 > Knowledge, Perhaps, I'm not sure about approval. I'll look
 > that one up.

O c'mon, those embedded journalists operated under strict censorship of the US
military. Dutch journalist Wouter Kurpershoek after one day of "embedment"
decided to do without the "protection" of the US military and de-embedded
himself. he said he could not properly do his job as independent reporter while
embedded.

 >>>>> It wasn't about numbers, Michiel, it was about tactics.

 MV>>>> Hmmm... why do I get the feeling that this "tactics" are in
 MV>>>> violation of the Geneve Convention...?

 >>> Beats me, as it was't. I can see why you would think that way,
 >>> but that's perhaps just not having enough information?

 MV>> Or because recently a LOT of information has come aviable about
 MV>> incidents where the US did not exactly respect human rights....

 > Such as?

How about Abu Graib for starters?

 >>>>> They had a tactical doctrine that worked,

 MV>>>> If it worked, what was stopping the other side from using the
 MV>>>> same tactic? Outnumbered again...

 > Using conventional troops as a guerilla force does not
 > historically work well.

As the US found out.

How about guerrilla troops against guerrilla troops?

 >>> And yet, they were successfull until they were withdrawn..

 MV>> If they really were succesfull, why were they withdrawn? And
 MV>> you didn't asnwer the question: what stopped the enemy from
 MV>> using the same tactic?

 > That was a command decision by MACV. they were making the
 > regulars look bad, and were considered "cowboys"

Or maybe they were not as successful as you say.

 > and "Gone native" two no-no's at the time.

Maybe they *had* gone native. maybe fighting the same way as they VC, they
started to see things their way too. It happens you know....


 MV>>>> Why would the NVA be forced to use the "losing" tactics? I am
 MV>>>> afraid I do not follow you.

 > See above re conventional forces, they do not have the training.

What stopped them from giving the same training to their special units?

I still don't see how the US had a lasting advantage.

 >>> Simple it would have been Conventional forces against
 >>> guerillas, with the NVA being the conventional forces.

 MV>> How would that stop /their/ guarillas?

 > It's a matter of training guerilla tactics, to be effective
 > take specialised trainig, which is what the Special Forces do.

Again what stopped them from doing the same?

 > NVA had similar units that trained the VC. they also had very few of them.

What stopped them from getting more?

 >>> You are awre of the difference between the NVA and th VC,
 >>> correct? Vietnam was a lot more than a guerilla war.. there
 >>> were conventional units employed on both sides.

 MV>> So what your tactic amounts to is the US side *also* started to employ
 MV>> guarilla tactics. That *still* does not give them the advantage.
 MV>> /Their/ guarillas wre still fighting on their own territory.

 > And so were ours, as I stated, with the Hmong, the mountain
 > people.

So both parties employed guerrilla tactics. I still don't see the advantage.

 MV>>>> You can't free a fish from water...

 >>> You've not seen the ones you can, have you?  Not all cretures
 >>> in the water are fish.

 MV>> True. But those that have never lived outside the water can not live
 MV>> without it.

 MV>> The people of Iraq have never lived in a democracy.

 > Neither did we prior to 1776.. that arguement fails.

Same here. Different date of course. We however did not get it imposed from
outside. We grew into it all by ourselves. And it took a long time.

Yes, a fish can evolve into an animal that can live outside the water. But you
can not forcebly "free" it from water.

Democracy can only come from inside.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)