On Fri, 14 May 2004 15:59:11 +0200, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>If this is true, then it is an extremely serious > >>manner. It would be > >>admitting deliberate, systematic, authorized > >>violations of the Geneva > >>Convention. That is not just the actions of a few > >>bad apples. It seems to > >>me to be high level illegal orders. I'll stand > >>being corrected by someone > >>who better understands the military, but I cannot > >>see how a general could > >>legally order his reports to delibrately violate a > >>treaty agreed to by the > >>United States. > >> > >>Dan M. > > > >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 know you are an avid defender of, to the rest of the world, untennable > positions when it comes to the rights of your government in respect to > other countries. I also know that you are an just as avid critic of > other countries who apply exactly the same logic and reasoning for > exactly the same kind of measures taken against US citizens but come > on... you cannot be serious? Your government had the right to torture > civilians at will because they weren't official combatants and because > they had the extreme bad luck to be in US occupied teritory? Not even > gonne mention the legallity of that occupation. > > In my opinion the torture (because that is what it was) of people who > haven't officially, in all openness and through due process been > established as criminals is beyond any form of humane conduct no matter > under which convention you will or will not classify it and as such > cannot be defended and should be punished in an international or Iraqui > court of law. If these victims would have at least been officially > established as being involved in actions against the occupation forces > it would have been marginally understandable and slightly more > justifiable although I would still consider it no less dispicable. > > And then the US still doesn't want its's soldiers to be tried under > international law in a well established international court of law. > Makes perfect sense after this. > > Sonja :o) > ROU: Please tell me I got it wrong > My sense is that the GOP conservative position is actually exactly what are are objecting to. More reports have come out of the abuses being applied to innocent people. The response I get from conservatives is that it was only applied to "evil wrong doers," that "the Geneva Conventions don't apply," that there has been "nothing worse than hazing," except possibly by "a few bad apples," and (mentioning what you alluded to) that those who objected to the US taking illegal unilateral action should "shut up and support the President." I was waiting to see if there was a response to your response in this thread but I haven't seen it in over a week of waiting. Gary "There has been a recent shift in American public opinion, stay tuned" #1 on Google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
