----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:56 PM Subject: Re: Pentagon admits Geneva convention violations approved?
> > I don't know the details (am still at work at 11:00pm, > so I'm not exactly following the news) but it's not > clear that insurgents captured in Iraq are covered by > the Geneva Conventions, for the same reasons we've > gone over on this list on several occasions. I personally saw Rumsfeld state last week that they are covered by either one or the other of two Geneva conventions. It makes sense because local irregulars are quite different from AQ with respect to the Geneva convention, IIRC. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that was the reason given. Some of the pictures shown on TV, like a naked, hooded man shackled to the bars of his cell, actually represent treatment that is more humane than some allowed under the rules drawn up in Iraq. According to the rules,** they can be subject to extreme heat or cold, hooded and naked for days, kept off any normal sleep for days and required to assume painful positions. Threatening with unmuzzled dogs also was approved. Who's fault is it when one of the dogs actually bites a prisoner. The handler, certainly. But, weren't the orders suspect too? Especially when the prison was out of control? That's a mighty fine line to walk without an accident happening. Further, there is a considerable amount of evidence that some of these folks were local folks who were arrested on suspicion alone. For example, one man claimed he was one of the folks in the picture said he cannot go home again on TV. He had a complex set of tattoos that matched the arm of one of the men in the picture. Maybe he faked it, I don't know, but I know that Bremmer wanted the population greatly reduced. >From all of this, a number of the people in the prison should be considered no more than suspects....of which a significant percentage must offer no real danger or we wouldn't be trying to process them out. Doesn't an occupying power have a requirement to treat the citizens of the occupied state humanely? It was agreed that this was inhumane treatment, and it appears to be that it was officially approved. IIRC, Rumsfeld said that this was covered by another Geneva convention than the one we had discussed. This is far different from what was discussed with AQ two years ago. It was assumed that even AQ members would be treated humanely, because Rumsfeld said that unequivocally. Now, inhumane treatment of prisoners in Iraq appears to be approved. Dan M. ** I cannot guarantee that these are the rules, since the actual rules were classified and not published. But, I saw the senator state at least some of the rules I listed, and neither witness argued. (I don't think the hot/cold was stated by the senator, but that has been multiply sourced elsewhere.) If they are not, then someone needs to clarify things very quickly. Indeed, why in the world can't the Joint Chiefs know what the rules were? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
