Text 18652, 118 rader
Skriven 2005-12-14 11:04:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18635 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: The Gitmo hotel
=======================
 MV>> If the US had *wanted* to follow the Geneva convention she would not
 MV>> have been looking for loopholes and no one would know about their
 MV>> existence.

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

[..]

 > un-uniformed combatants. This was prior to the variaous
 > Resistance groups of course. NOw, the Geneva convention does
 > treat unlawful combatants differently we knnow this, so it's
 > not creating a loophole as trying to bridge an existing
 > gap. For all intents and purposes the gaps were there to stars
 > with, we certianly did not create thm.

Still, it is only the interpretation of the US that labels them as unlawful
combattabts. An interpretation that will probably not stand up in an
international court should it ever come to that.

Had the US *wanted* to follow the Geneva Convention, they could have done so.

And you have not answered my question: why were they brought to Cuba in the
first place. If they were spies or war criminals, why not try them on US soil?

 >>>>> 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...

 > Since allowed.

By the US....

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

[..]

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

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

 > BUt, this is not so. several members of Congress were invited
 > down there for a tour and inspection,

Ray, members of congress are *Americans*. They are the captors.

 > they brought the press along who could take pictures of

Surely these *American* reporters were thouroughly briefed.

 > anyhting at all, save for the prisoner's faces. in accordance
 > with the Geneva Convention.

Ah, now all of a sudden it is convenient to follow the GC.

 > I've seen sevral uncensored pictures

How can you possibly know that they were not censored?

 > on othe sites i trust, as well. The lawyers talk to them on
 > a reagular basis, (their defense lawyers) so, there you go.

That is not what *I* have seen. Reporters from Dutch televison were only
allowed to film in the parts were "cooperating" prisoners were held. They were
not allowed to film the prisoners themselves, they were not allowed to speak to
prisoners. They were not allowed to go near the parts were "uncoperative"
prisoners were held.

The sources that I trust obviously *were* censored.

 >>>>> 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?

 MV>> How about Abu Graib for starters?

 > That's not tactics is it? Even at it's best as an interrogation,
 > that's not tactics.

Word games again. I spoke about incidents where the US did not exactly respect
human rights. Abu Graib is such an incident.

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

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

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

 > Iraw is growing into it currently , we'll see how the elections go.

Elections do not mean very much if there is no vested tradition of following
the outcome.

I don't see an outcome that can be acceptable to all three main parties, the
Kurds, the Sunnites and the Shiites. So whoever feels he is short changed will
take up arms.

If the US military stays, there will be someone fighting them. If they leave,
they will start to fight each other.

I don't see a way out.

Cheers, Michiel

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