Text 18783, 163 rader
Skriven 2005-12-16 16:41:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18749 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: The Gitmo hotel
=======================
Hello Raymond,

 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.

Yes, you replied. I disagreed with you. Seems we have to agree to disagree on
this...

 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:

I do not see how this prevents the US from recognisong them as prisoners of
war. If they dod not distinguish themselves from the civilian population why
were they picked up in the first place?

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

I don't think so. They were not arrested on US territory were they? They were
arrested in Afghanistan, their own country. So how could they be spying against
the USA?

 MV>> Had the US *wanted* to follow the Geneva Convention, they could
 MV>> have 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?

And you are still not answering that question...

 >>>>>>> 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.

For whom?


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

 MV>> [..]

 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.

No, of course not. That country does not exist any more: Afghanistan under
Taliban rule.

 >>> 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.

So?

 > Marines are at Guantanamo. they rotate out of there. They bring
 > pictures with them that do not get in the press.

Surely they would not show anything the censor would not approve.

 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?

Only if one has something to hide.

And wrt to filming prisoners: I have difficulty to believe this really applies.
Yes, the GC says the *captors* may not publish pictures of POW. But I have some
difficulty with the POV that this also aplies to the free press for pictures
taken with permission of the prisoners.

In fact just a few messages back you tried to defend the showing of Iraqi POW
on US television by saying that the footage was shot by reporters and not by
the military.

 > the same thing would happe if you toured one of our prisons here
 > in the states. no one wants a press tream taken hostage.

That sounds like an excuse...


 >>> 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.

It means little if not all parties are willing to follow the outcome, assemble
a stable government who's authority is accepted by the vast majority of the
people. And that is able to control those who don't.

 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.

I am afraid I am not optimistic.

 MV>> If the US military stays, there will be someone fighting them. If
 MV>> they 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 don't think George Bush is ready for the humuliation of a second Vietnam.

If he is smart, he stays in Iraq till the next elections and sees to it that
they are won by the democrats. That way he can blame them for the inevitable
defeat... ;-)

 > 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.

It would have been better if the western world hadn't been meddling with it for
ages....

Cheers, Michiel

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