Text 18749, 179 rader
Skriven 2005-12-14 18:59:24 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 18652 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: The Gitmo hotel
=======================
 MV>>> If the US had *wanted* to follow the Geneva convention she would
 MV>>> not have been looking for loopholes and no one would know about
 MV>>> their existence.

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

No, I already replied to this  it seems to be missing here.

 MV> [..]

 >> 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.

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

Let's see.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the
effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from
the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military
operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are
situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an
armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a
combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to
meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall
forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be
given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of
war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes
protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third
Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any
offences he has committed.

OF couse we could hold them as spies, that'd be easier.


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

 MV> And you have not answered my question: why were they brought to Cuba
 MV> in the first place. If they were spies or war criminals, why not try
 MV> 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.

 MV> By the US....

Shows promise.

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

 MV> [..]

 >>>> 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
 MV>>> is allowed to speak to the prisoners. Not the Red Cross, not the
 MV>>> UN, not the independent press.

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

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

So? As civilians, and with the media in tow, they inspected the place.

 >> they brought the press along who could take pictures of

 MV> Surely these *American* reporters were thouroughly briefed.

Actually they were, they were advised they could take pictures of anyhting
they wanted except the faces of the prisoners, in accordance with  the Geneva
Convention...

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

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

It is when it's clear. the question of ar they allowed access to the IRC is
murky, as the combatants are not affiliated with a country who is responsible
for them.

 >> I've seen sevral uncensored pictures

 MV> How can you possibly know that they were not censored?

Becasue I know the sources, personally. You might not know I live close t the
major East Coast Marine base. Marines are at Guantanamo. they rotate out of
there. They bring pictures with them that do not get in the press.

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

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

All of which makes sense, doesn't it? the same thing would happe if you toured
one of our prisons here in the states. no one wants a press tream taken
hostage.

 MV> 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
 MV>>>>> about incidents where the US did not exactly respect human
 MV>>>>> 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.

 MV> Word games again. I spoke about incidents where the US did not exactly
 MV> 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.

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

Well, they're new at it, but rhis is what, the fourth election or so? so, they
are making a new tradition.

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

Possibly, we'll have to wait and see.

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

 MV> I don't see a way out.

For whom? we can pack up and go home, that's a way out.

I know it's not a good one t me, but even so  as you said and as we now that
area has been a riot in waiting for millenia.

R*

---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)