Politics and Philosophy: Charging the US with War Crimes

[Thiebear]

You're a bit confused Thiebear. I showed you two pictures of Al Qaeda in unmistakable combat gear with unconcealed weapons-- they weren't wearing turbans.

I also showed you a group of Sunni insurgents carrying weapons openly and dressed identically. I suggest that the authorities ship home any U.S. moron who can't immediately tell these guys are Sunni terrorists.

You never asked where their detention centers were? But, as a matter of fact, Al Qaeda has detention centers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The Iraqi detention centers are chiefly in the larger residential areas of Tikrit and Baghdad. What does that have to do with the price of eggs.

I think maybe someone has cut your boat adrift and your floating about the biosphere amoung all the pretty colors. So long, Thiebear. Come baccccck soon.

Actually you showed a group that had weapons and their face covered.

AND you showed one guy with a uniform from 1960 and a rocket launcher...

Posted on 04/29/2006 4:27:05 PM PDT by jmc1969

The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is attempting to set up his own mini-army and move away from individual suicide attacks to a more organised resistance movement, according to US intelligence sources.

Faced with a shortage of foreign fighters willing to undertake suicide missions, Zarqawi wants to turn his group into a more traditional force mounting co-ordinated guerrilla raids on coalition targets

Even Zarqawi admits he has no real Army...

[chomerics]

And if you believe a 19 year old girl from the sticks of WV and a 17-year honorably serving correctional officer from VA hatched and executed the plan to "break" AG prisoners, your opinion is equally valuable.

Karpinski got away with murder. That prison was her command. She is accountable for EVERYTHING that occurred therein.

I agree with you here hog, everything fell on the inlisted soldiers, there was not an high ranking officer indicted.

General Miller wrote a torture order for Abu Ghraib that crossed Rummy's desk. In his enthusiasm, Rummy scrawled "Let's get this done!" on the order and initialed it. The order then went to General Kapinski. She first reported it to an American reporter who broke the story before Kapinski put it in her book.

source?

I agree that Abu Graib was torture.. and it stopped short by only slamming the enlisted personnle..

I don't agree Gitmo is...

What do you know about what is going on in Gitmo? Read Jason Lee's book, For God and Country, it was eye opening to say the least and you may change your stance on Gitmo.

[Thiebear]

You're a bit confused Thiebear. I showed you two pictures of Al Qaeda in unmistakable combat gear with unconcealed weapons-- they weren't wearing turbans.

I also showed you a group of Sunni insurgents carrying weapons openly and dressed identically. I suggest that the authorities ship home any U.S. moron who can't immediately tell these guys are Sunni terrorists.

You never asked where their detention centers were? But, as a matter of fact, Al Qaeda has detention centers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The Iraqi detention centers are chiefly in the larger residential areas of Tikrit and Baghdad. What does that have to do with the price of eggs.

I think maybe someone has cut your boat adrift and your floating about the biosphere amoung all the pretty colors. So long, Thiebear. Come baccccck soon.

I think your really trying to state International Humane law....

Actually you showed a group that had weapons and their face covered.

AND you showed one guy with a uniform from 1960 and a rocket launcher...

An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition: An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished. As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform. In the Second World War, the United States captured eight German saboteurs who were out of uniform and executed six of them.

However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.

Lawyers for prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as those representing two U.S. citizens held in a navy brig as enemy combatants, have challenged the policy before the United States Supreme Court. A decision is expected in mid-summer.

Your pictures don't fulfill the below:

Prisoners of War

The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:

That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

That of carrying arms openly;

That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

[Larry]

And if you believe a 19 year old girl from the sticks of WV and a 17-year honorably serving correctional officer from VA hatched and executed the plan to "break" AG prisoners, your opinion is equally valuable.

Karpinski got away with murder. That prison was her command. She is accountable for EVERYTHING that occurred therein.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise the source for your abusive attitude.

Um, if you'll check my previous posts in the thread, I regard it as pretty-well proven that the events portrayed at Abu Garab were specifically (though perhaps deniably) ordered by the Bush administration.

I think that the Bush Administration has a wide-ranging policy that I think of as "running the government like a business". (Meaning, dishonestly and with reverse accountability.) (Example: How many people, here have had work experience where the company have firm, clear, and explicit rules, but where for some reason, the only people who get promoted are the folks who break the rules? Say, a trucking company where the pay rules give lots of money to drivers who lie on their log books and stay awake for 20 hours at a time, but if the driver gets caught doing it, then they point at the printed proceedures manual that specifically forbit it. They fire the driver, and immediatly replace him (with another guy who'll lie in his log book.))

[Crazyhorse1]

They could... but theyd be wrong.

They'd be right. It's an aggressive war, fought on false pretenses against a country that did not threaten us.

[Crazyhorse1]

Karpinski = walking piece of dog excriment.

:2cents:

Karpinski-- ex walking piece of dog escrement.

Miller, Rummy, Bush, Cheney-- Once and future pieces of dog excrement.

[Crazyhorse1]

I think your really trying to state International Humane law....

Actually you showed a group that had weapons and their face covered.

AND you showed one guy with a uniform from 1960 and a rocket launcher...

Your pictures don't fulfill the below:

Prisoners of War

The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:

That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

That of carrying arms openly;

That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

My friend, you are making me a bit wacko here. You're asking too much of photographs, but it is at least utterly clear these guys are not out for a squirrel shoot and that they are wearing Sunni headdresses and Sunni robes.

What law and custom of war are they violating?

[Crazyhorse1]

I think your really trying to state International Humane law....

Actually you showed a group that had weapons and their face covered.

AND you showed one guy with a uniform from 1960 and a rocket launcher...

Your pictures don't fulfill the below:

Prisoners of War

The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:

That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

That of carrying arms openly;

That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

You included the quote below with your response. I suppose you are saying you are denying insurgents and terrorists even unlawful combatant status. Since its clear from the quote below that even unlawful combatants cannot be tortured and must even be tried by an outside judge before being punished, I am taken aback.

If this is what you are saying then you are conceding the argument. It's absurd to deny insurgents and terrorists unlawful combatant status even on the face of it. It's simply ridiculous. Yet, the quote clearly says these unlawful combatants cannot be tortured, which is what I have always maintained. What gives?l

Quote: An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition: An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished. As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform. In the Second World War, the United States captured eight German saboteurs who were out of uniform and executed six of them.

However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.

Lawyers for prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as those representing two U.S. citizens held in a navy brig as enemy combatants, have challenged the policy before the United States Supreme Court. A decision is expected in mid-summer.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

No, I proved you were posting insults in this thread.

And you tried to change the subject. (And are continuing to do so, despite your 0% success rate so far.)

And here we have Oakton's entire "contribution" to this thread:

6 posts.

5 posts containing words.

9 insults.

1 piece of information brought to the debate.

Better than usual.

That was fantastic, Larry. The only problem is that you are posting in the wrong thread. Try this one instead.

Why, does your entire contribution to that thread consist of a string of insults, too?

Talk about 0% success rate. In case you're confused, use accurate language and skip the liberal use of pronouns in your writing.

:doh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Here's a few fun things to look at concerning the belief that insurgents and Al Qaeda don't wear uniforms in battle and hence don't quality for Geneva Convention protections. Actually, uniforms don't come into it in the first place, but if they did, you'd still lose.

The last is a little tidbit about Rummy personally supervising the torture of a prisoner-the sick creep.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/iraq/images/040704_weap.jpg

Sunni insurgents

http://www.sipsurf.de/uploads/images/products/PAN-AMP/268_FAS-Scan-03_20051010.jpg

Al Qaeda

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/images/photos3.22/6928_256.jpg

Al Qaeda and Taliban

http://warincontext.org/2006_04_09_archive.html

Rumsfeld supervises the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo

A summary of your so-called "evidence":

1) A picture of terrorist ****s wearing civilian clothing.

2) A doctored picture of someone in a camouflage uniform.

3) A poor picture of a group of people in camouflage uniforms jumping out of a jeep.

4) A stupid left-wing link site/blog.

Brilliant! :doh:

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

[*]Specifically recommends verbal abuse, stress positions, humiliation, environmental extremes, the use of nudity, the use of attack dogs, and sleep deprivation as interrogation techniques.

This is not torture. Torture is hooking up a car battery to your balls. A torturer is someone as nefarious as Saddam Hussein.

Personally, I have zero problem w/ "torturing" terrorists to extract valuable and possibly actionable intel in order to save lives. In typical left-wing fashion, you care more about our enemies than our own security. What screwed up "principles" you have. Pathethic. :doh:

[Thiebear]

My friend, you are making me a bit wacko here. You're asking too much of photographs, but it is at least utterly clear these guys are not out for a squirrel shoot and that they are wearing Sunni headdresses and Sunni robes.

What law and custom of war are they violating?

I was proving they do not qualify as soldiers.

WE are NOT at WAR with SUNNI's Crazyhorse.. Their headdresses do not qualify as a uniform or Distinct gear..

You never put forth the chain of command?

You put forth a couple of backyard pictures.. I tried to look up Iraqi Insurgent uniforms and Alqaeda uniforms with Google but nothing happened...

I tried to give you and out saying they deserve International Humane treatment as is the law but not GC...

*** What law of war are they violating*** They are dressed as civilians, then cover their face, attack, blend back in with civilians.. thats a no-no.

*** They are attacking bus stops and markets and boobytrapping dead babies *** thats a no-no.

[Crazyhorse1]

I was proving they do not qualify as soldiers.

WE are NOT at WAR with SUNNI's Crazyhorse.. Their headdresses do not qualify as a uniform or Distinct gear..

You never put forth the chain of command?

You put forth a couple of backyard pictures.. I tried to look up Iraqi Insurgent uniforms and Alqaeda uniforms with Google but nothing happened...

I tried to give you and out saying they deserve International Humane treatment as is the law but not GC...

*** What law of war are they violating*** They are dressed as civilians, then cover their face, attack, blend back in with civilians.. thats a no-no.

*** They are attacking bus stops and markets and boobytrapping dead babies *** thats a no-no.

Thiebear, for the sake of your own argument, you can not afford to classify them as crooks or any other type of civilians. The Geneva Conventions are very clear about not torturing civilians and illegal combatants. About that there is absolutely no wiggle room. The trouble with your uniform theory, first of all, however, is that you have simply invented the relevance of uniforms (the GC doesn't give a damn about uniforms), and then have invented a significance for wearing them or not (you can't torture anyone anyway, regardless of what they wear). Next, you seem to think the GC believes people have to deserve protection by signing on or some behavior of some kind. Actually, there are no requirements at all. You are automatically protected, guilty or not, terrorist or not, Al Qaeda or not. If you fail to qualify for legal combatant status, you are an illegal combatant and still cannot be

tortured. etc.

If you torture people, in short, the Hague has served notice it will put you in prison. The message is extremely clear and the business of dragging suspects to justice from their little caves all over the world is still thriving.

[Thiebear]

Thiebear, for the sake of your own argument, you can not afford to classify them as crooks or any other type of civilians. The Geneva Conventions are very clear about not torturing civilians and illegal combatants. About that there is absolutely no wiggle room. The trouble with your uniform theory, first of all, however, is that you have simply invented the relevance of uniforms (the GC doesn't give a damn about uniforms), and then have invented a significance for wearing them or not (you can't torture anyone anyway, regardless of what they wear). Next, you seem to think the GC believes people have to deserve protection by signing on or some behavior of some kind. Actually, there are no requirements at all. You are automatically protected, guilty or not, terrorist or not, Al Qaeda or not. If you fail to qualify for legal combatant status, you are an illegal combatant and still cannot be

tortured. etc.

If you torture people, in short, the Hague has served notice it will put you in prison. The message is extremely clear and the business of dragging suspects to justice from their little caves all over the world is still thriving.

If that was true:

There wouldnt be requirements...

(talking about the Geneva Covention, not torture).

[Crazyhorse1]

If that was true:

There wouldnt be requirements...

(talking about the Geneva Covention, not torture).

An illegal combatant, simply because of his status, can be tried, convicted, sentenced to prison, and executed. He cannot be tortured or tried and sentenced by a judge of the force that captures him. In other words, all of the illegal combatants, including Al Qaeda, who are tortured, punished, or even tried and sentenced by an American judge before being legally convicted at Abu Ghraib are victims of war crime.

This rule would cover the most obviously guilty of the guilty.

The Illegal combatant is not entitled to combat behaviours of a legal combatant, however, which is the real purpose of the classification. He can't, for instance, kill people with impunity. If he kills someone even on the battlefield, he can be tried for murder.

[Crazyhorse1]

This is not torture. Torture is hooking up a car battery to your balls. A torturer is someone as nefarious as Saddam Hussein.

Personally, I have zero problem w/ "torturing" terrorists to extract valuable and possibly actionable intel in order to save lives. In typical left-wing fashion, you care more about our enemies than our own security. What screwed up "principles" you have. Pathethic. :doh:

Last I checked, fearless warrior, the Geneva Conventions could care less about what you and I thought about what constituted "torture" or "torturers."

The ignorant pigs just went ahead and defined the terms for themselves instead of waiting for me to become 21 and you to be born.

Here's a suggestion: Let's you and I petition the Hague to let us torture Iraqi kids to spill their guts. That ought to get actionable intel to save lives. Kids know a lot and the little ****s just can't hold out against skinning and eye extractions like their parents.

Especially the little girls.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Last I checked, fearless warrior, the Geneva Conventions could care less about what you and I thought about what constituted "torture" or "torturers."

The ignorant pigs just went ahead and defined the terms for themselves instead of waiting for me to become 21 and you to be born.

Here's a suggestion: Let's you and I petition the Hague to let us torture Iraqi kids to spill their guts. That ought to get actionable intel to save lives. Kids know a lot and the little ****s just can't hold out against skinning and eye extractions like their parents.

Especially the little girls.

Oh please... you and your equivocations. Prove that any children were tortured. God, you are an incorrigible sychophant. :insane:

[Crazyhorse1]

Oh please... you and your equivocations. Prove that any children were tortured. God, you are an incorrigible sychophant. :insane:

I didn't say any children were tortured, I suggested you and I seek permission to torture some children in order to save lives...in keeping with your philosophy.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Oh please... you and your equivocations. Prove that any children were tortured. God, you are an incorrigible sychophant. :insane:

And the insults continue!

[Thiebear]

An illegal combatant, simply because of his status, can be tried, convicted, sentenced to prison, and executed. He cannot be tortured or tried and sentenced by a judge of the force that captures him. In other words, all of the illegal combatants, including Al Qaeda, who are tortured, punished, or even tried and sentenced by an American judge before being legally convicted at Abu Ghraib are victims of war crime.

This rule would cover the most obviously guilty of the guilty.

The Illegal combatant is not entitled to combat behaviours of a legal combatant, however, which is the real purpose of the classification. He can't, for instance, kill people with impunity. If he kills someone even on the battlefield, he can be tried for murder.

Actually killing someone on the battlefield is required for it to be considered a war...

[TradeTheBeal!]

Actually killing someone on the battlefield is required for it to be considered a war...

War on Terror?

War on Drugs?

War on Poverty?

The Vietnam Experience...experience is hell!

[Thiebear]

War on Terror?

War on Drugs?

War on Poverty?

The Vietnam Experience...experience is hell!

War on Terror = Afghan/Iraq/many items in the US = people killed.

War on Drugs = Many a Cartel / Police officer / civilian killed.

War on Poverty = give someone a dollar, teach them a skill

[vinva]

Learn to read. I didn't call it a proof. I called it an explanation of exactly what it is. I made no claim as to its legal backing. It does cite relevalent portions of the convention, however.

Show me the relevance, specifically referring to the illegality of the weapons that we are using in Iraq. All I'm asking is for you to stop leaning on common dreams, media matters or whatever other biased source you are using and think for yourself. If you believe in this so much and, as you said, we are "drowning in evidence" then it shouldn't be that hard.

[vinva]

Karpinski got away with murder. That prison was her command. She is accountable for EVERYTHING that occurred therein.

I agree that the punishment for Karpinski should have been more severe, but let's not pretend that she didn't get punished at all. Demotion in rank, effectively ending her career, is about as severe as punishment will ever get for a flag level officer, especially when the only thing I think they ever pinned on her was negligence.

Does anyone know if she was allowed to keep her retirement benefits?

[Crazyhorse1]

I agree that the punishment for Karpinski should have been more severe, but let's not pretend that she didn't get punished at all. Demotion in rank, effectively ending her career, is about as severe as punishment will ever get for a flag level officer, especially when the only thing I think they ever pinned on her was negligence.

Does anyone know if she was allowed to keep her retirement benefits?

General Miller was authorized by Rummy to institute interrogation procedures at Abu Ghraib he and Rummy developed at Gitmo and you think it was ok that she was punished and they were not? There are some Bush supporters on this site with some really fine sensitivities in regard to justice. Try reading Sy Hersh on the matter or Karpinski herself. What? Bad sources! Gee. Seems everybody who doesn't sign on to your dream of reality is a bad source-- even all those guys who used to work for you last week! I wonder why that is. Why don't you catch on to yourselves?

By the way, Ramsey Clark just put the Iraqi civilian dead at over 250,000. Bad source. Bad,bad,bad source. So did Physicians for Peace? Of course. Bunch of commies! Amnesty International charges U.S. with War Crimes in U.N. Who cares what AI does? The U.N.'s corrupt. No reason for us to listen to it? Those damned eight generals ought to shut the hell up. Bunch of traitors! Bush may have lied, but I remember Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman.