babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Arab TV Shows Captured American Soldiers (With Photo)

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Arab TV Shows Captured American Soldiers (With Photo)
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 23 March 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Pictures of captured U.S. soldiers taken from the footage aired by the Iraqi TV.

quote:
BAGHDAD - Al-Jazeera TV on Sunday, March 23, broadcast images of several dead bodies of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, along with five others captured, including two wounded, one of them a woman.


The bodies shown were wearing bloodstained camouflage uniforms and some appeared to have bullet wounds to the head.

Three of the captured soldiers said they were from Texas, including the woman who identified herself as Shauna, aged 30, and one, a sergeant who identified himself as James Reilly, from New Jersey, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

Both were from the 507th Maintenance Company.

The Arabic language television network said the soldiers were captured on the outskirts of Nasiriyah in central Iraq.

Peter C. Miller of Kansas was asked in English why he had come to fight the Iraqi people, with Iraqi television microphones in front of him.

"I didn't come here to kill anyone. I was told to shoot only if shot at," he said.

A soldier who gave his first name as Joseph and said he was from Texas told the journalists: "I follow orders."

Asked repeatedly if the Iraqi people he encountered greeted him with flowers or guns he replied: "I don't understand."

Another soldier named Edgar from Texas had a facial wound and said through an interpreter that he had arrived in Iraq from Kuwait.

Asked in Washington to comment on the videotape, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed that a small number of U.S. troops were missing and may have been captured by Iraq but said the tape was nothing but Iraqi propaganda.

"It seems to me that showing a few pictures on the screen, not knowing who they are and being communicated by Al-Jazeera, which is not a perfect instrument of communication, obviously is part of Iraqi propaganda," he told CBS television's "Face the Nation" program.

A grim-faced Rumsfeld said that the video would be a violation of international rules of war as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, a sentiment echoed by General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"This is just one more crime by the Iraqi regime," CNN quoted Myers as saying to reporters in a Pentagon corridor.

The Pentagon confirmed that about 10 U.S. soldiers reported missing in southern Iraq have been taken prisoner and has begun notifying their families, CNN reported.

The all-news network said the families had begun to be notified shortly after the videotape of interviews with men and women who appeared to be captured U.S. soldiers was broadcast.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon said that a plane reported missing by Rumsfeld on Sunday was a British Tornado accidentally hit by a U.S. missile and did not refer to speculation that a plane had been shot down over Baghdad.

Iraqi troops searched the sides of the Tigris River in Baghdad on Sunday amid reports that a U.S. or British plane had been shot down.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on one U.S. television channel that all U.S. and British planes had been accounted for.

But speaking on a different network, Rumsfeld said later "there has been a report that an aircraft that is missing." But he would not comment on images of Iraqi troops searching in Baghdad.

Colonel Catherine Abbott, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Rumsfeld was referring to the British Tornado that was mistakenly shot down over the Gulf by a U.S. Patriot missile.

She said no other coalition aircraft have been reported missing.

A report on Al-Jazeera television said two men had been captured, but they were not immediately seen on the screen.


Link to story.

Washington Post story.

drg


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 March 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah yeah. Cry me a river, Rumsfeld. Didn't hear you whining over the pictures of surrendering Iraqi prisoners of war all over American television.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 March 2003 04:48 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And BTW, don't you love how Bush and Rumsfeld are going on about the Geneva Convention? Yeah, and, um, who's going to enforce those rules regarding your soldiers? Oh yeah, the world court you refused to sign onto. Yeah.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 March 2003 05:25 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lest we forget


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mooose
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3439

posted 23 March 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for mooose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What is that ?
From: canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 23 March 2003 05:32 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"This is an outrage--it's an outage to all Americans and it will continue to shore up our resolve to win war."

-FoxNews Military Analyst Maj. Gen Burton Moore on the possible "execution style" killings of the US forces corpses shown on Arab TV.

So, America has attacked the country of Iraq in a war that much of the world has condemned as immoral and illegal, but if those pesky Iraqis dare to fight back dirty...whoa!...now that's just plain wrong, and there's gonna be some splain'n to do!

drg

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: drgoodword ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
CyberNomad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2926

posted 23 March 2003 05:45 PM      Profile for CyberNomad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
and there's gonna be some splain'n to do!

You can bet on that.

BTW, drgoodword, you do seem to be having a grand time out of this, no?


From: St. Catharines ON | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 23 March 2003 06:04 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is a difference between an "imbedded" journalist filming a scene unfolding (ie. mass surrender of troops, no close-ups on any particular faces, as compared to shoving a microphone in the face of a captured person and getting them to make a humiliating statement.

It will be interesting to compare the treament of Iraqi POWS with American POWS.


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 23 March 2003 06:30 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
BTW, drgoodword, you do seem to be having a grand time out of this, no?

How so?

drg


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 March 2003 09:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This thread is happening here, too.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 March 2003 09:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But to respond to fatcalf: I didn't see or hear any humiliating statements. Most of them were asked to identify themselves and why they were there, and they all answered with respect and dignity, although it's true that the one woman from Texas looked pretty nervous. I also didn't see any signs of physical abuse and neither did the expert they had on Newsworld.

I saw lots of close ups on faces of the Iraqi men surrendering as they were coming in. They showed pictures of them, close up, being searched by "coalition" forces. You can talk all you like about "distinctions" but the truth is, those were shown on western media as a way of illustrating how the other side were surrendering in droves, and that is exploitative too. Not to mention how the "embedded journalists" are out on the battlefield shooting snuff films of enemy vehicles getting blown up live. So don't talk to me about distinctions and dignity and all that bullshit.

I also love how the "coalition", who are like a gigantic elephant going in to step on the metaphorical equivalent of not even a mouse but a paramecium when it comes to military might, whining about how the other side, who has absolutely nothing going for them, isn't "playing fair". Again, cry me a river. War is hell. That's what we anti-war types have been trying to say all along. Maybe we shouldn't have picked this fight if we didn't have the stomach for our own casualties and indignities. It's all fine for us to inflict them on the enemy, isn't it?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 23 March 2003 09:29 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bona fide prisoners of war merit a certain type of treatment as described in the Geneva Convention. I just hope both sides live up to this agreement.

Edit to add: And sorry, no, the treatment of Coalition prisoners as shown on AlJazeera was NOT the same as that meted out to Iraqi prisoners (as seen on CBC Newsworld).

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: fatcalf ]


From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 23 March 2003 09:37 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is that ?

That's a form of torture.

The British had a crude but effective means of torturing IRA soldiers. They forced them to lean rigid facing a wall with only their knuckles touching the wall, with black bags over their heads, while a generator blared away down the corridor. They were forced to remain like this for days.

Sensory deprivation. Torture.


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 23 March 2003 09:39 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heather
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 576

posted 23 March 2003 09:39 PM      Profile for Heather   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Iraq says 25 US, British troops killed in Nasiriyah battle.

Read it here.


From: Planet Earth | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 23 March 2003 09:40 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Those captives at Guantanamo are being tortured!!!
From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 23 March 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With an average low of 71 F, and an average high of 85 F, it doesn't sound too bad!
http://weather.lycos.com/?q=Guantanamo%2C+Cuba

From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
flotsom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2832

posted 23 March 2003 09:57 PM      Profile for flotsom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Goggles prevent them from seeing. Ear-covers block any sounds. Their hands and feet are taped together so they cannot move and their mouths are covered to deprive them of oxygen. Probably they are sleep-deprived as well. This is sensory deprivation. It is an extreme form of torture designed to shatter and destroy the human spirit.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: flotsom ]


From: the flop | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3154

posted 23 March 2003 10:09 PM      Profile for Cart     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
bah, that doesn't matter, they are obviously enemy combatant terrorists who aren't under the jurisdiciton of the geneva convetion.

Duh.


From: Camp X-ray | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 March 2003 10:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're right, fatcalf, it's not the same. I didn't see those coalition POWs forced into painful physical contortions the way those Afghan prisoners were.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fatcalf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3859

posted 23 March 2003 10:49 PM      Profile for fatcalf        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The coalition POWs may be dead as you speak.
From: vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 March 2003 10:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lots of people could be dead. What's your point?

I hope they're okay. I felt horrible for them. I'm just pointing out that it's the height of hypocrisy to whine about the Geneva Convention when there is so much footage of Iraqi POWs being shown on television.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 March 2003 11:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda... All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

Junior George Jan. 28 - State of the Union Speech


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Oyster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3374

posted 23 March 2003 11:35 PM      Profile for Oyster     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Al Jazeera coverage of the American POWs

Click the link to the left and below the first photo to watch the video that everyone's upset about.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Oyster ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 24 March 2003 02:06 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rumsfeld wants them to respect the Geneva conventions, which he does not respect himself, or else face war crime trials, which he also refuses to support.

This guy needs to be a target of a "decapitation strike". I figure, if it's okay to dish it out you should be able to take it.

As to whether they should show these images on television, of course they should. Bush's desire not to show them stems from the possibility that Americans will see that war does have consequences, not from any concern for the soldiers. I think Bush would prefer it if they had been killed. That would be easier news to manage.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Veronica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2370

posted 24 March 2003 02:41 AM      Profile for Veronica        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle - I totally agree with your viewpoints. Not one single Iraqi person has ever killed an American and yet they are being invaded. Of course they will fight back and take prisoners - the Iraqis are defending their country - their soil, their culture, from invaders. (no matter how evil their leader is) And anyone who defends their own country from an invasion, is entitled to fight any way they can - they don't have a hope in hell but they are trying. (Bush won't attack North Korea because he KNOWS they have weapons of mass destruction - just start with the weak ones first and maybe scare some of the other countries they plan to invade into obeying.

Reminds me (the feeling of being invaded) of the stories my dad told about Russians attacking Finland and they were outnumbered 10 to one. The Finns fought desperately to save their country from this invasion. Russia thought they could take over in a week or so but it took an entire winter with high casualties from each side.

And what the hell are they whining about Geneva Conventions stuff. America attacked another country without a vote from the Congress and violated their own constitution. Then they violated the UN charter.

They thumbed their nose on many international treaties (land mines, Kyoto protocol, international war crimes tribunal, etc.) and then they tried to bribe UN members and other countries to join them in this attack. They called it "financial incentive". I call it a bribe. Is nothing sacred when a country tries to bribe members of the United Nations?

They are hypocrites!

I'm getting upset just writing this. All this is so obvious - why isn't the whole world outraged?


From: Victoria | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 24 March 2003 10:12 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since we're discussing the treatment of POW's, er, illegal combatants:

America admits suspects died in interrogations

quote:
American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".


It sounds like the short version is - they were beaten to death.

Edited to add: but you have to admit we never saw them on TV.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 24 March 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
HYPOCRITES OF AMERICA CRYING FOUL

quote:

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld screamed "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!" at the Iraqis for showing footage of US soldiers taken on the battlefield.

He thundered that the film was "video propaganda" which violated their rights as prisoners of war under international law.

How two-faced can you get?

Rumsfeld is the warmonger who ignored international legalities when the UN refused to back the invasion of Iraq.

And he ruled that PoWs captured by the Americans in Afghanistan more than a year ago have NO rights, and can be caged like animals at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Footage of 300 PoWs airlifted out of Kabul - with bags over their heads and chains on every conceivable part of their body - was jubilantly shown on American TV. The pictures were posted on the Pentagon's website.


quote:

At least the relatives of Edgar from Texas and James Reilly from New York know where their loved ones are. At least they can hope for their release as part of any deal to end hostilities.

The families of the lost legion of Camp X-Ray have no such hope. Only the expectation that the Pentagon will keep their loved ones in barbaric conditions, in clear defiance of the Geneva Convention - until they rot.



From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 24 March 2003 03:59 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hypocrisy does not negate justice.

Do two wrongs make a right?

Are we going to be Jane Fondas here, and use the POWs to score political points at home?

The Geneva Conventions are in order to protect POWs and civilians. If the POWs are being mistreated, it is a crime.

We can sympathise with both Iraqi POWs and Coalition POWS, just as we can civilians.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 24 March 2003 04:06 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But isn't this a very good reason for why the americans should be treating the residents of camp X-Ray within the bounds of the Geneva Convention. You can't go ignoring the parts of a convention that you don't agree with and then complain when another nation does the same thing.
From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 24 March 2003 04:08 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought I'd add this clarification, in response to deadeye:

Remember, however, that under strictly the Geneva Conventions, Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to the privledges. Because they are classified as unlawful combatants (terrorists) and not soldiers.

Taliban fighters, however, ARE entitled to Geneva rights, being soldiers in the employ of the de facto legitimate government of Afghanistan.

The key difference, is that Al Qaeda and Taliban ARE different, regardless of various media spin.

So strictly in the case of Al Qaeda fighters, what the US is doing in Guantanemo isn't necessarily in conflict with the Geneva Conventions (I'm not sure if they have Taliban soldiers or not), it is, regardless, unethical and inhumane.

But it is important when discussing these complicated matters (especially when we start pointing fingers) to be accurate.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: wei-chi ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 24 March 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Remember, however, that under strictly the Geneva Conventions, Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to the privledges. Because they are classified as unlawful combatants (terrorists) and not soldiers.

Taliban fighters, however, ARE entitled to Geneva rights, being soldiers in the employ of the de facto legitimate government of Afghanistan.


But who gets to decide which is which? Al Qaeda fighters were defending Afghanistan as were Taliban fighters, but because of the organization one is a terrorist and the other is not?

If you catch someone in a terrorist act then yes the would be unlawful combatants, but taking prisoners during an invasion means they are soldiers.

Otherwise what is to stop Saddam from declaring that the US troops are unlawful combatants because the US is violating international law in his opinion.

It has to be up to an independant third party to make the decision, and I haven't seen one regarding Afghanistan.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: DeadEye ]


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 24 March 2003 04:28 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It may seem very silly to outside observers, but the fundamental rules in war are well established.

I'll try to be as straightforward as I can.

Only a 'state' may use violence. If you think about why terrorism is illegal in the first place, it is because terrorists don't represent a state, but some political faction. Hence the problem of separating the 'freedom fighters' from the 'terrorists' - technically, they are the same under the Conventions. But as the Conventions apply particularly to international conflict (ie a war between two or more legal states) the Conventions aren't applicable in Civil War anyway.

Once you understand this principle (which you may disagree with), you can see how soldiers representing a state (US and Iraq soldiers) are protected under the Convetions, and other (unlawful) combatants are not.

So as long as the soldiers are clearly identified as belonging to a state's army, then they are entitled to protection, legally, under the Conventions.

For example, if a soldier decides he is going to dress up in a burka, undercover as it were, he may not be eligible for protection, because he may not be identifiable as a state soldier (either Iraqi or American).

The act is there to protect soldiers and civilians from war crimes. And the underlying assumption is that war activity is legimate, in general (ie killing the enemy's soldiers in battle is legal).

This last concept may be unacceptable to some people's morality, but it is, nonetheless, the way the Conventions work.

(Note: many states have ignored the Conventions in their wars, Japan in WWII was notoriously poor at respecting the rights of POWs.)


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 24 March 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm thinking just now that the justification for holding Taliban prisoners in the same state as Al Qaeda might be this:

The new national government in Kabul probably signed some sort of peace treaty with the US. Therefore, technically Afghanistan is at peace with the US. And because most governments around the world have recognized the new regime in Kabul as the legitimate government, this effectively outlaws the Taliban. So because the Taliban no longer represent the de facto government, then they are 'terrorist' forces too, not accepting the international peace.

It is quite complicated.

This is only applicable, of course, to the Geneva Conventions. And let's not misuse the Conventions. They serve an important role.

Whether or not holding prisoners in such a state is legal outside of the Conventions is another, and VERY important, issue.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: wei-chi ]


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 24 March 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Guineapigs is a harrowing description of the "soft torture" techniques being used on the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. The forgoing book (available online) describes the use of kidnapped Irish civilians as guinea pigs for the British Army to evaluate the effectiveness of these methods of torture. They were perfected in the 1940's and 1950's, are, in refined form, currently used against the Palestinians by Israel and by Saudi Arabia against hapless foreigners whose mistreatment benefits the House of Saud. When properly applied, they leave no physical marks, can break a person just as well as any other techniques and can be applied indefinitely without a high probability of causing death.

Ain't progress grand?

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2003 06:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I tried not to laugh too hard 15 minutes ago when Jason Kenney was talking about the wonderfully humane treatment the prisoners in Guatanamo Bay and Afghanistan are getting. Made me wish I'd phoned in. But my phone-in days are over.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 March 2003 06:45 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I could be wrong but I remember the US stating (after the uproar of not applying the Geneva convention to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners) that they would, in fact, apply the Geneva Convention rules on POWs to captured Taliban fighters, but Al-Queda fighters would continue to be classified as unlawful combatants. So the "they don't follow the rules themselves" argument is a bit of a red herring. Don't have time to find a link, sorry.

US POWs in Iraqi hands would only be so lucky to be put through those "harrowing" soft torture techniques, judging from what other Iraqi prisoners have reported about their captivity.

This thread does bring up some interesting thoughts though. Do people really believe that soldiers who discard their uniforms, dress in civilian clothing and continue to fight ought to to be covered as lawful combatants under the Geneva convention?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 March 2003 06:56 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bush and Rumsfeld made it quite clear weeks ago that they intend to prosecute the entire Iraqi high command for crimes against humanity. Now we're supposed to act all shocked that they're not following the Geneva Convention particularly closely? They have zero incentive to, so they're not.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 24 March 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This thread does bring up some interesting thoughts though. Do people really believe that soldiers who discard their uniforms, dress in civilian clothing and continue to fight ought to to be covered as lawful combatants under the Geneva convention?
I thought discarding your uniform for civilian dress while fighting was itself a war crime under the convention. I don’t know the technicalities of whether or not the convention applies to even those who violate its conditions (wei-chi seems to suggest not) but the Taliban v Al Qaeda distinction seems to have some merit, academically anyway. I also thought the Red Cross was all over Git-Mo and that their reports as to treatment were favorable.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2003 09:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I think you are not allowed to fight in civilian clothes.

I have a question though, that is probably a bit of a side issue. The Geneva Convention, if I'm not mistaken, was drafted after a war where there wasn't such a huge discrepancy in firepower between the combatants. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that because one country is totally outclassed that they should start committing war crimes.

But seriously, let's think about this situation. It's so obviously an unfair fight - it's like Mike Tyson getting into the ring with a 5 year-old. The Iraqis don't stand a chance in hell following conventional rules for conventional warfare. Not to mention that the US is constantly redefining what the rules are anyhow (oh, it doesn't count when WE take pictures of prisoners and kill them in custody while trying to get information out of them). I realize that it is illegal under international law for the Iraqis to do the sort of tactics that they're doing, but I think the question of morality is more of a grey area if we get out of the legalistic arguments. I mean, if we want to talk about "fair fighting", how fair is this fight anyhow? The Geneva Convention seems to me to be like trying to apply schoolboy fight ethics to a type of warfare entirely removed from the era that the Convention was crafted during.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 March 2003 09:47 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought discarding your uniform for civilian dress while fighting was itself a war crime under the convention.

Ha, ha, ha. More wide eyed right wing naivete! You think the Iraqi's care? After 10 years of sanctions: "No, no, no, not fair that not everyone has a nice new dessrt storm uniform."

Wakey, wakey its a war.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 March 2003 09:49 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Still and all, Michelle, who's gonna get prosecuted for violations? Won't be the Americans, anyway.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2003 10:23 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I know that, Doc. I was just going off on a question of ethics. Occupational hazard. I know that in practice, the Geneva Convention will be applied in favour of whomever wins this war - gee, who will that be, I wonder?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
CanadianAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1219

posted 24 March 2003 10:35 PM      Profile for CanadianAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just imagine though, the shock that went through those young 20-something US Marines heads as they fell to the ground, after having naively accepted the surrendering Iraqis white flag as a cease fire. They clearly believed in the stated conventions of war and lost their lives for it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2003 10:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's true. On the other hand, did we expect to sustain no casualties at all in this war? Is it fair to expect the Iraqis to bear all the casualties in a situation where they are completely outclassed in terms of military might? I agree with you, that it's a totally dirty trick. But in a case where there is absolutely no way to win except dirty tricks, wouldn't you consider doing the same? Isn't it dirty fighting for an adult to fight a 5 year old child?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 24 March 2003 11:04 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Geneva Convention seems to me to be like trying to apply schoolboy fight ethics to a type of warfare entirely removed from the era that it was crafted during.
Solid statement, Michelle. Much could be said of the UN structure. But I thought – and I admit to not having studied this stuff for decades – that the conventions were about protecting innocent victims and POWs from undue suffering. Who was going win on the battlefield was open to warfare. Executing POWs, as the Iraqis appear to have done, is a clear violation regardless of who’s winning or who’s more capable.
quote:
Ha, ha, ha. More wide eyed right wing naivete! You think the Iraqi's care? After 10 years of sanctions: "No, no, no, not fair that not everyone has a nice new dessrt storm uniform."
Wakey, wakey its a war.
Geez Moredreads, I was simply stating a matter of technical fact as I understand it. Of course I don’t expect the Iraqis to care; sanctions or no. (Scratches head. Sanctions? What the…?)
Whatever. We can all babble on while Iraqi POWs are receiving medical treatment aboard the USS Sanctuary and US POWs have bullet holes between their eyes. And then we can offer a token bitch about Git-Mo as we accept our Oscar and retreat to our Malibu mansion.
quote:
I agree with you, that it's a totally dirty trick. But in a case where there is absolutely no way to win except dirty tricks, wouldn't you consider doing the same?
Consider maybe, but do, probably not. I wouldn’t involve innocents and children to advance my cause. I’d surrender. And I'm generally a tough customer when it comes to deal making.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 March 2003 11:08 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Geez Moredreads, I was simply stating a matter of technical fact as I understand it. Of course I don’t expect the Iraqis to care; sanctions or no. (Scratches head. Sanctions? What the…?)

Cool, I'm just tired of people standing for moral positions and then only applying them to those they are against. I see it a lot, perhaps I overeacted.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 24 March 2003 11:09 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Remember, however, that under strictly the Geneva Conventions, Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to the privledges. Because they are classified as unlawful combatants (terrorists) and not soldiers.

Under strictly the Geneva Conventions, Al Qaeda fighters are a textbook example of "irregular forces", and entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Also, violation of the Geneva Conventions does not eliminate the protection of the convention(unless explicitly indicated in the conventions). The decision on whether a violation has occurred shouldn't be made at the whim of one side in the midst of combat.

And, the International Committee of the Red Cross has apparently objected to both sides broadcasting pictures of POW's. In addition, the ICRC has requested access to POW's on both sides.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 24 March 2003 11:16 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cool, I'm just tired of people standing for moral positions and then only applying them to those they are against. I see it a lot, perhaps I overeacted.
No problem, easy misunderstanding.

From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 March 2003 11:26 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Iraq shows off 'downed US pilots'
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 24 March 2003 11:45 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CNN vs Al Jazeera on airing pictures
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 24 March 2003 11:57 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Andrewtgsadler, that’s good stuff. If memory serves the Red Cross played a big role in the formation of Geneva Conventions. Do you know what those exclusions are that remove the applicability?

I'm going to bed now...take your time...


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tyler S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3631

posted 25 March 2003 12:30 AM      Profile for Tyler S     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, I've breezed through this thread and I haven't seen any mention of the video depicting dead U.S. soldiers (same unit as the POW's). I think this was the big issue in the States that sparked the U.S. government's outcry. The pentagon asked the major networks not to air the footage, and all of them complied.

I was watching City TV @ 6:00pm and they had some "media expert" on saying that it was good that we could see the footage in Canada and it was bad that the U.S. was censoring it. She said that they didn't show it Stateside because the U.S. Gov't doesn't want it's people and supporters to think negatively of the war: I think that it is only a part of it. I beleive the Pentagon acted accordingly here because if I were a relative or close family member of those soldiers, I wouldn't want to see my son/brother/father/daughter....etc laying dead in a pool of their own blood, and riddled with bullet holes. I beleive that this was more of an act of decency than anything else. Likewise, I haven't seen any images on U.S. TV of dead Iraqi soldiers. Seeing tanks and buildings blow up is one thing, seeing mangled bodies is another.

I was hearing that it appeared that a few of the dead soldiers had bullet holes to their foreheads, a classic sign of an execution, so maybe that is why Bush is asking the POW's to be treated the same way Iraqi POW's are.

One last thing: Some people view this incident as a sign that the U.S. Army isn't as invincible as we thought, I disagree. Those soldiers were from a mechanic/technician unit and don't get anywhere near the amount of combat training that an infantry soldier would, afterall, their specialty is fixing things, not killing people. The U.S. and England will win eventually, it's just a matter of how many casualties there will be.

Tyler


From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 25 March 2003 12:38 AM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After Gulf War I which looked like a video game on American tv and the Afghan war which was fought on the ground by proxies, this is the first major US action since Vietnam where American soldiers are on the ground and finding resistance and I think that's what's really upsetting people down south. This war isn't going according to script, it's not the clean, anti-septic event Americans have come to believe war is and I think people are genuinely shocked that American troops aren't being welcomed as liberators and that most Iraqi soldiers haven't been waving white flags and surrendering.

The Americans will ultimately win but if this war ends up dragging for months things won't look so good for the military or George W and Americans might think twice before supporting the Pentagon's next adventure.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 25 March 2003 06:38 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What really matters isn't the fine points of international law, but what the soldiers on the ground think.

If you want your soldiers treated in a certain way if captured, then it's advisable to treat POW's in your control well.

We may not see Al Queda prisoners as POW's, and the Geneva convention may not see them as POW's, but in the emmediate circumstance of capture, it's what the Iraqi officer thinks that is of main import.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 March 2003 07:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Illegal combatants" my foot! That argument has pissed me off for the last year and a half!

I know, let's declare a war on a concept, and then when we capture the people we're going after in this "war", we'll claim they're not warriors at all so that we don't have to call them prisoners of war.

Fuck that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 25 March 2003 09:00 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Regarding uniformed soldiers or lack thereof, a couple of historical examples.

1) Minutemen. Admittedly pre-Geneva convention, but these wonderful American patriots tkept a column of British soldiers under fire for the duration of their march from...Concord to Boston? They shot from behind rocks and trees, they didn't form a line, and they didn't wear uniforms. In short, they were men defending their homes and what they considered their country, and today they're heroes.

2) Partisans and Maquis. Various irregular groups of fighters appeared in German-occupied land in WWII. They didn't wear uniforms, and they were universally brutally treated by the Nazis. Now they're heroes.

3) Closer to home, there's abundant footage of American Special Forces troops in Afghanistan in civilian dress. I'm thinking especially of that situation at the prison where a number of Al-Qaeda/Taliban fighters tried to break out and wound up under siege. Should they maybe be punished for wearing civilian clothes in a combat situation?

As a fourth, imagine someone was invading your country. Imagine there was no chance you could fight them straight out. Wouldn't you use dirty tricks? I know I would, conventions be damned.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 25 March 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damn straight. I wish people wouldn't buy this "unlawful combatant" nonsense. The Bush administration just made that up. Like in all other things, they assume rules don't apply to them when it's inconvenient.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 25 March 2003 10:52 AM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
aRoused:
Yes, but they were all on the winning side.

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: DeadEye ]


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 25 March 2003 11:08 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Damn straight. I wish people wouldn't buy this "unlawful combatant" nonsense. The Bush administration just made that up. Like in all other things, they assume rules don't apply to them when it's inconvenient.

Ha! The Geneva convention spells out clearly who is a lawful combatant and who isn't. And the poor dopes down in Guantanamo clearly fall on the wrong side of the convention. Yet you still claim they're being treated wrongly. So who's ignoring the "rules" out of convienience now?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 25 March 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You'd be hard pressed to find a regime - "democratic" or otherwise - that didn't support the use of torture. The US devoted an entire school to the training of sociopaths in the effective use of torture as an interrogation tool, in Fort Benning Georgia. Soldiers, especially Special Forces, are trained to kill people. Remember what the Canadian Airborne did to that Somali boy?

As a journalist, I saw alot of documentation of horrific torture around the world, and I'll never get those images out of my head. The things people do to each other ... they may have refined methods of torture, but they still commit the same kinds of atrocities people did thousands of years ago.

Rules of engagement, UN Conventions, Human Rights Statutes, etc., it's all a tissue-thin layer of civilization that evaporates during war. War, by definition, is barbaric. To expect it to be free of barbaric acts is to delude one's self. The best we can do is hope that it eventually becomes an outmoded tool of foreign and civil policy, and rail against it in the meantime.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Youngfox
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3750

posted 25 March 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Youngfox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am amazed that Iraq using guerilla tactics and employing propaganda offends Americans. What the hell did they expect? The U.S. has introduced dozens of self-serving terms into the lexicon of preemptive invasion and utilized "embedded" pictures of Iraqi soldier's face down in the dirt with guns to their heads on CNN. Those images are potent propaganda when played by the Compliant News Network broadcasting into Iraq. The whole idea of "in-bedding" journalists with American forces is controlling which images make it into the media. I did not see any Americans in the field telling the press to shut off the cameras because these images of capitulation serve their needs all too well. The only reason these captured Iraqis aren't being interviewed is none of the high school dropouts in the field speak Arabic languages. Much like the VC in Vietnam, the underdog Iraqis realize that personalizing the war for the couch potatoes in America causes them to have to question why these illiterate young college money dupes are being sent into this illegal meat grinder. American logic on this matter is one-sided and self-serving. Disarm to make our invasion easier, respect the rules of war when we don't, you will be punished if you resist our liberation, War is peace, etc., etc. What a load of dog rockets. America has used pure fiction to get this far and for them to scramble up onto their illusory moral high ground when the tactics don't favour their goals is just another example of a pious aggressor losing thought control. I hope every soldier in this sham war is treated well when captured but don't shovel this dung about the beneficent Americans patching up the Iraqis after they blow them to pieces. If they did not render aid from their trillion plus dollar war machine their true racism and disregard for non-white, non-Christians would be on display for all to see. I expect things will only get uglier when US "victory" is at hand. I can't wait to see the rusty A-bombs and bio weapons the Americans plant when they realize S.H. was smart enough to remove them pre-war. When one considers that this entire invasion is a crime the crimes of Iraqis in retaliation are quite expected. Rumsfeld's outrage at these things is a joke. After all this is the non-human who uses terms like "humane bombing". Fuck America, they baked this shit-pie now they have to eat their slice.
From: - | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 25 March 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Andrew:
quote:
nder strictly the Geneva Conventions, Al Qaeda fighters are a textbook example of "irregular forces", and entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

No.

Irregular forces refer to militias, police, reservists, the National Guard. Any state-sanctioned military or quasi-military force which is not part of the official armed forces.

You may think that guerillas are legitmate military forces. But under the Conventions they are no legimate, and therefore unlawful combatants.

Michelle seems to waging her own "War on Hyprocrisy", a brave, if rather vain, campaign.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 25 March 2003 01:12 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you want your soldiers treated in a certain way if captured, then it's advisable to treat POW's in your control well.

Good point, but considering what the Iraqi leadership has coming (and they know it), it's understandable that they'd want to take as many down with them as possible. This is, after all, not a regime that's been too concerned with the fate of its own people in the past.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 25 March 2003 01:21 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Irregular forces refer to militias, police, reservists, the National Guard. Any state-sanctioned military or quasi-military force which is not part of the official armed forces.

Er, so, am I to assume that the US military went through all the leftover papers of the Taliban, couldn't find any documents stating that Al-Qaeda fighters were sanctioned by the Taliban as "official" combatants, and because of that realized that it was appropriate to stick them in Guantanamo Bay? Get real, they made that decision ahead of time, and I'll bet you dollars to cents that there are plenty of official Taliban soldiers in Guantanamo Bay as well.

The only reason for Camp X-Ray to exist is to avoid any chance of the courts deciding the prisoners are being treated illegally.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 25 March 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What goes around, comes around:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/24/godfrey030324


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 25 March 2003 04:11 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is no such thing as a "unlawful combatant". Rumsfeld made it up. It is convenient fiction. A lie. An excuse for torture. Get that through your thick skull, sheep.

quote:
1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The Conventions

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: Jingles ]


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 25 March 2003 05:05 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
youngfox:
quote:
I am amazed that Iraq using guerilla tactics and employing propaganda offends Americans. What the hell did they expect?

The Convetions:

quote:
Article 35.-Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 25 March 2003 05:15 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jingles, I think you are correct that the terminology of "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the text, I think terrorist elements probably fall into the same category as 'mercenaries'
quote:
Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Can-Am
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3678

posted 25 March 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for Can-Am     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is, after all, not a regime that's been too concerned with the fate of its own people in the past.

Absolutely true. The Saddamites are babarians. Being captured by these people is worse than death. If American troops were expecting otherwise (I don't think they were) they were deluded. Bush's whining about the Geneva convention is just window-dressing. Neither he nor anyone else expects Saddam's SS to treat POWs any differently than did the original SS.

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: Can-Am ]


From: Canada | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2003 09:52 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What goes around, comes around. Part II:

http://tinyurl.com/86r5


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Youngfox
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3750

posted 26 March 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for Youngfox   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
wei-chi
Your ability to obtain quotes from the conventions is wonderful and might have relevance if this was indeed a war. Unfortunately it is the illegal invasion of a nation whose defenses have been beaten down over twelve years of bombing, illegal territorial invasions and brutal sanctions designed to undermine the infrastructure and break the spirit of the people. I abhor the illegal actions by both parties in this conflict but the Americans have engaged in illegal invasion and worse yet the dismantling of their own constitution in order to quell dissent and motivate their ignorant mainstream masses through fear and xenophobic paranoia. Any moral high ground from which you could stand and point out these obvious infractions has been disintegrated by the arrogant and illegal actions of the American zealots. They play fast and loose as they ignore international laws to achieve their global hegemony. They have opted out of any international war crimes tribunal because they are aware that their nation would take up most of its time. They do not deserve to be outraged when their tactics are turned against them.
BTW, S.H. is a monster and war criminal who deserves to be tried for war crimes. When one considers that American "intelligence" keeps saying he is no longer in control of his people and forces, it must mean that soldiers and citizens in the field are turning to illegal means while attempting survival of this invasion. In their shoes against such inequitable odds many would resort to the same tactics (and have in the past). The honour required to start rattling off conventions does not appear on either side of this conflict. The gates of hell are open in Iraq now and all of mankind's better angels have vacated the country.

From: - | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 26 March 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From josh's article:
quote:
Mr. Bush insists on calling his counterterrorism campaign a war -- yet the hundreds of prisoners rounded up since September of 2001 are not accorded the status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds have been held, incognito and without charge, for more than a year. The U.S. government says they are "unlawful combatants," subject to no laws whatsoever because they are neither U.S. citizens nor held on U.S. soil. It says it can hold them for as long as it wants, with no access to lawyers or judicial oversight. Shamefully, U.S. courts appear to agree.

The next time you see a video of captive U.S. troops in Iraq, spare a thought for the 18 Afghans released this month from the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They showed up yesterday in Kabul -- cleared, for what it's worth, of suspicion.




From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 26 March 2003 01:06 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What goes around comes around. That's rich. US POWs have been tortured and mistreated by the Japanese, the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese and the Iraqis. In fact, just about every nation the Americans have fought have mistreated their POWs. So to suggest that American prisoners of war are not going to be subject to the Geneva convention, because of their refusal to grant POW status to captured mercenaries is a bit of a joke.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 26 March 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Youngfox:
quote:
Your ability to obtain quotes from the conventions is wonderful and might have relevance if this was indeed a war. Unfortunately it is the illegal invasion of a nation whose defenses have been beaten down over twelve years of bombing, illegal territorial invasions and brutal sanctions designed to undermine the infrastructure and break the spirit of the people.

I'm not sure what your definition of 'war' is, but I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

quote:
Any moral high ground from which you could stand and point out these obvious infractions has been disintegrated by the arrogant and illegal actions of the American zealots.

Like I said: Hyprocrisy does not negate justice.

Moreso, if we claim to have the 'moral high ground', then I think we have to recognize crimes wherever, and by whomever, they occur.

Perhaps you could enlist in Michelle's private "War on Hyprocrisy." Just make sure you abide by the Convetions


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 26 March 2003 06:10 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What goes around, comes around III:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0325-11.htm


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 26 March 2003 06:27 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
wei-chi

Mecenaries? Your stretching it. Note C in the relvant passages you have quoted:

quote:
c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

Members of Al Queda and Al Ansar fought for ideological not financial reasons. Unless of course you think all this stuff about them being Islamic Zealots is so much tripe, which is always possible. In anycase the key part of Jingles excerpt is this:

quote:
Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

At no point in time have any of the inmates of camp x-ray been given any kind of tribunal to determine what their actual status is, then they are still protected Third Convention.

[ 26 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 26 March 2003 07:00 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, you really are anti-American. By the way, do you work for a American company? Jesus I hope not.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 26 March 2003 07:03 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Michelle, you really are anti-American. By the way, do you work for a American company? Jesus I hope not.

Two days since Michelle last posted and that's the best you can do?


From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 26 March 2003 07:03 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I am afraid its true, another sad case of Antiamericandelusionalizationism.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 26 March 2003 07:04 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm curious. What does an "anti-American" look like? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Does it "hate freedom"? Does the doctrine of "your with us or your against us" mean that an anti-American is, by extension, an anti-Marshall Islander as well? I hope someone can clear this up for me.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 26 March 2003 07:09 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Very simple, according to The Oxford Dictionary. ANTI means (apposed to)
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 26 March 2003 07:15 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, so what's an anti-American opposed to, exactly? Americans in general? American government policy? American beer? College basketball? Militarism? Shitty reality TV (though I think we have Europe to blame for that)?
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 26 March 2003 07:24 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm apposed to irrelevant illiterate posts. I guess I'm an elitist.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 07:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Apposed?

Tell me you meant to do that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 26 March 2003 07:28 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
(In stage-whisper)
*I didn't want to point out the glaring contrast between the alleged dictionary definition and the mispelling of same, but I'm glad someone else did*

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 26 March 2003 07:31 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes Michelle, in the immortal words of Brooke Shields on the Carson show... "I meant to do that."
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 07:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*Phew*


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 07:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From josh's last article:

quote:
The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

Worth highlighting, that's all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 26 March 2003 08:32 PM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Opposed to being American. You can't shit on the government without it getting on the people, after all, they were the ones that put them there.
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 27 March 2003 01:25 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
moredreads.

I know the direct mercenary-terrorist comparison fails in some aspects. But the underlying current within the Conventions is that non-state violence is not covered by the Convetions.

You just are not allowed to go out and form your own private army. That is what mercenaries are. That is what terrorists are. Regardless of the motivation, the outcome is the same, and it is illegal.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 27 March 2003 01:44 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Opposed to being American. You can't shit on the government without it getting on the people, after all, they were the ones that put them there.

A good argument, but not applicable in this case. It's more accurate by that logic to say that people are opposed to the US supreme court (and I'm down with that).


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 27 March 2003 01:47 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You just are not allowed to go out and form your own private army. That is what mercenaries are. That is what terrorists are. Regardless of the motivation, the outcome is the same, and it is illegal.

Unless you are a GOP contributor, like Dyncorp?

And as for anti-american:

quote:
Opposed to being American. You can't shit on the government without it getting on the people, after all, they were the ones that put them there.

Does that mean anti-republican, or anti-democrat? Anti-Lawyer-American or anti-waitress American? Anti-New Yorker or Anti-Texan?

That's a lot of groups to hate. Whew. And what if there is a contradiction, like anti-white supremecist-gun-nut American and anti-militant Black Panther, or anti-fundamentalist Christian creationist and anti-atheistic evolutionist? You can't hate them both. That would be illogical.

Anti-American is meaningless and ignorant smear tactic by those who have no defense of their position.

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: Jingles ]


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 09:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, I didn't notice this before.

quote:
Michelle, you really are anti-American. By the way, do you work for a American company? Jesus I hope not.

Why do you think that?

I'll be complaining to Audra about this slander unless you take it back and apologize.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 09:44 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry bellows, the people didn't put the Bushites there. The Supreme Court did. Bush received some 3,000,000 less votes than Gore and Nader combined.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
bellows
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 747

posted 27 March 2003 09:48 AM      Profile for bellows     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to the dictionary ANTI means "opposed to" And from all the threads that you have written you are Opposed to everything the Americans do. Sorry no apology
From: Corner Brook | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 27 March 2003 09:52 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle is opposed to Josh?
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 09:54 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bullshit, you're weaseling.

"Anti-American" refers to a hatred of Americans because they are American, akin to hating someone because they're black.

Unless you're willing to say that you didn't mean that I hate Americans simply because they're American, then you've made a statement about me that is completely untrue, and you'd better take it back. And next time you'd better choose your words more carefully.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 09:59 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Albereo:

As soon as I posted, I noticed josh had posted before me. And I was just going to ask bellows whether he thinks josh is "anti-American" since I have found that josh and I tend to agree on these issues.

In fact, a lot of Americans agree with me on these issues. Personally, I think I stand for American ideals a hell of a lot more than someone like Dubya does. Freedom of speech. Autonomy of thought. Democracy.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 March 2003 10:04 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's a big difference between being "anti-american" and anti-Bush, or the policies of a particularly administration. Especially when that administration was not elected. The right-wing, since they rarely seem to see nuance in the world, fails to grasp that concept.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 10:05 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Personally I think Bush is "anti-American".
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wei-chi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2799

posted 27 March 2003 11:03 AM      Profile for wei-chi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This "anti" American thread drift is ruining my perfectly sensible discussion about the Geneva Conventions.

Jingles, from link:

quote:
The Americans who braved the bullets were members of an armed "airmobile" Search and Rescue Team. However, they were not part of the U.S. Armed Forces, but civilian employees of a private company called DynCorp, the new "privateer mercenaries" of a U.S. policy that now "outsources" its wars.

I didn't see anything in that article which argued that these oursourcees would be entitled to protection under the Conventions.

As well, be wary about the "War on" something, be it drugs or terrorism. Nice little media phrases like this have little to do with the reality of 'war' and even less in determining who is entitled to privledges under the Conventions.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 27 March 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Personally I think Bush is "anti-American".

Indeed. His administration has done more harm to America than 70 years of Soviet intrigues and actions.

drg


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 March 2003 12:02 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, I was thinking that. I was think with the collapse of the USSR, the American empire was sitting astride the top of the world and could have done so indefinitely. But not being enough to be at the top, Bush jr., on the poor advice of some pink faced Roman wannabes, have set the wheels in motion for a speedier decline of empire having successfully isolated the US from its allies, destroyed what had been an emerging spirit of global multilateralism -- which could only have been good for the nation with the most weight in international fora, and has thrust the US into a costly war where the initial $80 billion is but a down payment.

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 27 March 2003 12:37 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
ANTI means (apposed to)

I must be anti-American, I can think of some Americans I'd like to be apposed to.

("If I said you had a nice body would you hold it against me?") *cue snare and cymbal*


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 12:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now Sisyphus, he didn't spell it with an "a". If he had, my response would have been similar to yours, spelling flame be damned!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 27 March 2003 12:52 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Check out post #7 on this page, Michelle, he did too. (I confess I didn't read the others). I know spelling flames are weenie, but I couldn't resist on this one .

By the way, I ALWAYS cut'n'paste quotes, never retype. And unlike some (veiled reference to a Middle East thread), I try not to distort the poster's intentions.

[ 27 March 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 March 2003 12:57 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OH! I'm sorry, I looked at a subsequent post of his - I didn't notice that he had posted something similar twice.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 27 March 2003 01:06 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't see anything in that article which argued that these oursourcees would be entitled to protection under the Conventions.

I know. I just posted that link to highlight yet another hypocritical stance of the Bushitters. When mercenaries fight for cash and the GOP, that's okay. When they fight for their beliefs, that's terrorism.

They shouldn't complain then when FARC captures those scumbags.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 28 March 2003 02:02 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Iraq claims U.S. shows off Iraqi civilians as POWs
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 March 2003 08:15 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They shouldn't complain then when FARC captures those scumbags.

FARC couldn't capture a dog if they had a tranquilizer gun and a net from 10 feet away.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jobes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2579

posted 29 March 2003 10:57 AM      Profile for Jobes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Getting a bit long so I started a new one here
From: Oakville, ON, Canada | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca