Author
|
Topic: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle. (Read 2311 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« on: 2004-05-08 06:31:28 » |
 |
[Blunderov] Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld seems woefully ignorant of
the provisions of the Geneva Convention; he said 'My impression is that what
has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe is technically different
from torture. I don't know if it is correct to say what you said, that
torture has taken place, or that there's been a conviction for torture. And
therefore I'm not going to address the torture word.'
He should acquaint himself, preferably quite soon, with
<q>
Article 17. Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound
to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army,
regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent
information.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind
whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened,
insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
</q>
But do watch this space. I predict that the next move will be 'Well you see
these people that were 'abused' are not actually PoW's at all, what they are
is terrorists and, in spite of the fact that they were detained by the US
military during the course of the prosecution of a war, they do not qualify
for protection under the 3rd Geneva Convention. The fact that no proper
tribunal has yet been convened to determine their status, and the fact that,
under the convention, all such dubious cases are to be treated AS IF THEY
ARE in fact POWS until such a tribunal has made such a determination, is
neither here nor there. This provision is an archaic remnant of a former age
and is no longer appropriate to a world in which WMD may yet be found in
Iraq.'
The USA is a signatory, so far, to the 3rd Geneva Convention.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.56
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #1 on: 2004-05-08 06:56:55 » |
|
with a moron running the country, what do you expect from his cronies?
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.56
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #2 on: 2004-05-08 07:04:40 » |
|
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/60II/main614799.shtml
Why in God's name would you choose to air such a story at this time? This is something our country didn't need to know now. Everyone in this country is hanging on for dear life to support the troops, and you have taken all our faith in goodness away. How many more reports can we watch like this before support fades?
We are losing our fight with other countries to support us, and now you have just sealed it. ... We've just lost the goal of helping anyone over there because of this show, and God help us. You are no better then those who did these horrible acts. Your reports are bringing down this country.
--Betsy Berra
I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #3 on: 2004-05-08 07:40:52 » |
|
Mermaid
Sent: 08 May 2004 01:05 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/60II/main614799.shtml
Why in God's name would you choose to air such a story at this time? This is
something our country didn't need to know now. Everyone in this country is
hanging on for dear life to support the troops, and you have taken all our
faith in goodness away. How many more reports can we watch like this before
support fades?
We are losing our fight with other countries to support us, and now you have
just sealed it. ... We've just lost the goal of helping anyone over there
because of this show, and God help us. You are no better then those who did
these horrible acts. Your reports are bringing down this country.
--Betsy Berra
I rest my case.
[Blunderov] In a sense, Betsy Berra is correct. There really is blood in the
political water now!
And all thanks to the power of photography - it's not as if there have been
no grave ethical questions to consider before this.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #4 on: 2004-05-08 13:47:47 » |
|
[Blunderov] It seems to me that Rumsfeld has presented a good example of a
straw-man as his reason for not resigning; he said that he would resign if
he felt that he could not be effective.
To my mind this is not the issue at all. The question is rather whether he
can be trusted not use his position to suppress further evidence of his own
admitted culpability. A classic conflict of interest in fact, that renders
his position by definition untenable.
(I'm wondering whether he is not being retained as a patsy and is destined
to be thrown to the wolves closer to the polling date while Dubya quietly
avails himself of the nearest exit.)
Best Wishes
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #5 on: 2004-05-08 16:04:49 » |
|
[Blunderov] Sorry to belabor the point but subsequent to my previous post I
came across this interesting snippet which I think tends to back up the
point.
Best Regards
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=34891
<q>
The abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison includes more photographs and videos
that are potentially worse than the photos shown around the world of smiling
American soldiers next to naked Iraqi prisoners in humiliating positions,
U.S. officials said on Friday.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing, said there were many more photos and videotapes that had not been
published showing cruel and sadistic acts by U.S. personnel.
"I've said today that there are a lot more photographs and videos that
exist. If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make
matters worse. That's just a fact," Rumsfeld said.
"I mean I looked at them last night and they're hard to believe," he said.
"And if they're sent to some news organization and taken out of the criminal
prosecution channels that they're in, that's where we'll be. And it's not a
pretty picture."
</q>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #6 on: 2004-05-08 16:46:33 » |
|
[Blunderov] Skip this if you're bored with the subject but I notice that
Rumsfeld is trying it on with the 'few isolated instances' ploy. This seems
doubtful in view of the following.
Best Regards
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/83834/1/.html
<q>
GENEVA : The international Red Cross says the abuse it found in Iraq's
US-run prisons was systematic and amounted to torture, adding that it first
raised concerns with the United States more than a year ago.
At a quickly-arranged news conference, the International Committee of the
Red Cross' director of operations, Pierre Kraehenbuehl, said US authorities
had broken international laws and their transgressions had been documented
in an ICRC report.
"The elements we found were tantamount to torture... There were clearly
incidents of degrading and inhuman treatment," he told reporters.
"There are elements... which refer to actions that were contrary to
international humanitarian law very clearly in that report," Kraehenbuehl
said.
The document, which was submitted to the US government in February,
summarized the findings of ICRC officials who visited coalition-run
detention centres in Iraq between March 31 and October 24 last year to
observe and conduct private interviews with prisoners.
It said Iraqis deemed to be of intelligence value to the United States were
at high risk of being subjected to "a variety of harsh treatments" ranging
from insults, threats and humiliations to both physical and psychological
coercion, "which in some cases was tantamount to torture," in order to force
cooperation with their interrogators.
Iraqis confined to US-run detention centers were frequently subjected to
hooding, which made their breathing difficult, and painful handcuffing, the
report said.
They were paraded in front of other prisoners naked, sometimes with women's
underwear over their heads, exposed to loud noise and music, handcuffed to
cell bars for several hours in humiliating or uncomfortable positions.
Prisoners were also stripped naked and held in solitary confinement for days
in an empty and completely dark cell that included a latrine, according to
the report.
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the
military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract
information or other forms of cooperation from persons who had been arrested
in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an
'intelligence value,'" the document said.
Officials from the Geneva-based agency discussed their discoveries with US
overseer in Iraq Paul Bremer and the head of US forces in the country
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez on February 26, Kraehenbuehl said.
But the Red Cross said elements had been talked about far earlier.
At the same time, Kraehenbuehl insisted that some progress had been made in
the treatment of prisoners since the ICRC first raised the alarm.
"There were in our most recent visits indications that the material problems
that we had noted had been addressed," he said.
"That is not to say that all of the problems went away... There is still a
lot of work to be done."
The Red Cross also had concerns about British-run prisons in southern Iraq.
"We did refer comments and findings also to the British contingent of the
coalition forces," said Kraehenbuehl.
"We had also in those instances referred to concerns and made
recommendations but we will not deal with them here."
The comments came as the British army faced new allegations of abuse in Iraq
after a reservist came forward to say that he personally witnessed no less
than four brutal beatings.
The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, commonly dubbed the
rules of war, and is charged with carrying out independent visits to check
on the conditions of detainees.
The four 1949 Conventions, which 191 countries including the United States
accept to apply, are aimed at protecting the sick or wounded combatants,
prisoners of war, and civilians in wartime or under occupation.
</q>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #7 on: 2004-05-13 05:07:12 » |
|
[Blunderov] Fresh red wrigglers. US policy is that Guantanemo Bay prisoners
are not PoWs and that Iraqi prisoners are.
Best Regards
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/politics/13MILL.html?th
<q>
General Took Guantánamo Rules to Iraq for Handling of Prisoners
By TIM GOLDEN and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: May 13, 2004
When Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller arrived in Iraq last August with a team of
military police and intelligence specialists, the group was confronted by
chaos.
In one prison yard, a detainee was being held in a scorching hot shipping
container as punishment, one team member recalled. An important
communications antenna stood broken and unrepaired. Prisoners walked around
barefoot, with sores on their feet and signs of untreated illness. Garbage
was everywhere.
Perhaps most important, with the insurgency raging in Iraq, there was no
effective system at the prisons for wringing intelligence from the
prisoners, officials said.
"They had no rules for interrogations," a military officer who traveled to
Iraq with General Miller said. "People were escaping and getting shot. We
tried to offer them some very basic recommendations."
According to information from a classified interview with the senior
military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib prison, General Miller's
recommendations prompted a shift in the interrogation and detention
procedures there. Military intelligence officers were given greater
authority in the prison, and military police guards were asked to help
gather information about the detainees.
Whether those changes contributed to the abuse of prisoners that grew
horrifically more serious last fall is now at the center of the widening
prison scandal.
General Miller's recommendations were based in large part on his command of
the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he won praise from the
Pentagon for improving the flow of intelligence from terrorist suspects and
prisoners of the Afghanistan war.
In Iraq, General Miller's team gave officers at the prisons copies of the
procedures that had been developed at Guantánamo to interrogate and punish
the prisoners, according to the officer who traveled with him. Computer
specialists and intelligence analysts explained the systems they had used in
Cuba to process information and report it back to the United States.
General Miller also recommended streamlining the command structure at the
prisons, much as was done when military intelligence and military police
units were merged when he took command of Joint Task Force Guantánamo in
November 2002.
But to at least a few of the officers who met General Miller in Iraq, the
Abu Ghraib crisis was partly rooted in what they described as his
determination to apply his Guantánamo experience in Iraq. Senators raised
similar concerns on Tuesday at the Armed Services Committee.
General Miller and some of his former aides have dismissed the notion that
his visit to Iraq helped unleash the abuses. They argue that if his
prescriptions had any link to the problems there, it was because they were
misinterpreted by ineffective commanders in a chaotic environment.
"When you don't have rules and you let lower-level people decide things on
an arbitrary and capricious basis, you're going to have problems," the
officer who accompanied General Miller said. "Our reference to techniques
was to say, `You need a policy.' "
A Democratic Senate aide who reviewed General Miller's report on the Iraqi
prisons said he had sought to revamp the intelligence apparatus in Iraq
primarily to improve the collection and transmission of broader, strategic
information about the insurgency that was particularly important to senior
military officials.
To those officials, the work at Guantánamo by General Miller, a former
paratrooper from Menard, Tex., made him an obvious candidate for Iraq.
By the time he took over in Cuba, most of the detainees there had been in
custody for nearly a year. Still, General Miller was credited by Pentagon
officials with using interrogations there to produce a valuable historical
account of the workings and financing of terrorist training camps in
Afghanistan, among other subjects, officials said.
His hard-charging attitude has also raised questions that go beyond
interrogation methods. He was the official most responsible for pressing a
case last year against a Muslim chaplain at the base, Capt. James J. Yee,
that was initially billed as a major episode of espionage. In March, the
military announced that it would drop all charges.
</q>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #8 on: 2004-05-13 06:49:35 » |
|
[Blunderov]
"Oh, what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive"
(Alexander Pope)
More or less as previously predicted...
Best Regards
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinion/13DOWD.html?th
<snip>
In a public relations move that cheapens the heroism of soldiers, the
Pentagon merged the medals for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, giving the
G.W.O.T. medal, for Global War on Terrorism, in both wars to reinforce the
idea that we had to invade Iraq to quell terrorism...
...Officials blurred the lines to justify ideological decisions, calling
every Iraqi who opposed us a "terrorist"; conducting rough interrogations,
perhaps to find the nonexistent W.M.D. so they would not look foolish;
rolling all opposition into one scary terrorist ball that did not require
sensitivity to the Geneva Conventions or "humanitarian do-gooders," to use
the phrase of Senator James Inhofe, a Republican.
</snip>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #9 on: 2004-05-17 18:18:40 » |
|
[Blunderov]The buck stops where?
Best Regards
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20040517033311&Title=B%20R%20
E%20A%20K%20I%20N%20G%20%20%20%20N%20E%20W%20S&Topic=301&
<Excerpt>
By January 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by 'Newsweek,' it was
clear that President Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions
did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or al-Qaeda.
In the memo written to Bush, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales laid out
the argument that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete in the new paradigm.
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales
wrote to Bush and concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new
paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of
enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
</Excerpt>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.26
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #10 on: 2004-05-17 20:08:04 » |
|
Hi B,
I must say I agree with the general. A convention is something regarded as a
normative example or a formal agreement between country leaders, politicians
or states on a matter which involves them all.
If the enemy does not hold to the convention, in fact flouts it, the
convention is void. There is no agreement unless both parties agree.
Sometimes conventions become obsolete or changes render them meaningless.
Sometimes they need to be updated. In the case of the Geneva Conventions,
the last of which was updated over 50 years ago, we may need some changes.
Even under the current rules, we cannot know if the Geneva Conventions apply
to the recently made famous prisoners or the Insurgents. After all they need
to satisfy the following criteria:
Those entitled to prisoner of war status include:
4A(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfil
the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war.
4A(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government
or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4A(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without
having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they
carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Furthermore the convention make it clear that signatories to the conventions
are still bound by the conventions, until that is the "non-signatory no
longer acts under the strictures of the convention".
In my opinion this certainly frees Israel from it's obligations in its war
against Palestinian and other Islamist terrorists. It also frees the United
States of its obligation vis-à-vis the current Insurgents.
The Geneva Conventions apply to those who respect them. This includes
parties who discover and punish inevitable breeches within their ranks. It
does not apply to the systematic and deliberate flouting of the conventions
- especially by non-signatory against a signatory.
Kind regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 17 May 2004 23:19
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
[Blunderov]The buck stops where?
Best Regards
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEL20040517033311&Title=B%20R%20
E%20A%20K%20I%20N%20G%20%20%20%20N%20E%20W%20S&Topic=301&
<Excerpt>
By January 25, 2002, according to a memo obtained by 'Newsweek,' it was
clear that President Bush had already decided that the Geneva Conventions
did not apply at all, either to the Taliban or al-Qaeda.
In the memo written to Bush, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales laid out
the argument that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete in the new paradigm.
"As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war," Gonzales
wrote to Bush and concluded in stark terms: "In my judgment, this new
paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of
enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."
</Excerpt>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #12 on: 2004-05-18 02:07:27 » |
|
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 18 May 2004 03:47 AM
True, a convention is only applicable to the parties that are following it.
---
[Blunderov] Quite. The USA has no right to expect its own forces to be
protected by the Geneva convention anymore. After all, they have themselves
disavowed the rules of war.
Open season now.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542
Reputation: 7.26
Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #13 on: 2004-05-18 07:30:48 » |
|
Oh no! Does this mean that they will lose the "protections" of having their
captives beheaded, enemy combatants disguised as civilians, the enemy firing
from holy places and the enemy using false surrender to launch attacks? Now
I pity them!
Of course I am just gently ribbing you B, but there is a serious point here.
Firstly in this war they have never been protected by the conventions anyway
because the enemy simply did not operate under their constrictions. White
flags used as tactical ruses and the beating (and murder) of captives was
and is routine. These breaches have not been disavowed by the enemy
leadership nor were they exceptional. This cannot be said of the US breaches
which have been exposed, denounced and the miscreants are in the process of
being punished. The USA is a signatory of the conventions and overwhelmingly
accepts and applies the provisions of those conventions.
Can anyone show me where the current Insurgents have signed up? Can anyone
show me where they have ever respected these conventions?
Seems to me a bit like saying to a guy obeying Queensbury rules in a boxing
match "Uh oh, one of your punches landed low, your opponents gloves are
coming off!" whilst his opponent has been wearing knuckdusters and kicking
for the groin all along.
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Blunderov
Sent: 18 May 2004 07:07
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 18 May 2004 03:47 AM
True, a convention is only applicable to the parties that are following it.
---
[Blunderov] Quite. The USA has no right to expect its own forces to be
protected by the Geneva convention anymore. After all, they have themselves
disavowed the rules of war.
Open season now.
Best Regards
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.86
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
|
|
Re: virus: The Rumsfeld wriggle.
« Reply #14 on: 2004-05-18 08:48:02 » |
|
<Jonathan Davis>
Skipping over your arguments to an important point:
Can we, at COV, agree to stop using the word “insurgents” or “rebels” or “terrorists” to describe the people in Iraq that are fighting the US.
I mean, clearly they have been living there longer than we have.
“Iraqi fighters”, “Iraqi natives”, or “Iraqi defenders” might be appropriate, but not “Iraqi insurgents”
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
