Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. After WWII the winners had learned their lesson from WWI pretty well. Now they did not humilate the people of Germany like after the first war. We got the Mar shal plan and so on. Unfortunately after GulfWarII the winners hadn't learned their lessons from WWII very well. At the end of the war, despite the bombing campaigns, Germany had a vaguely functional administration and (heavily rationed) food, coal, electricity, etc were available. The Allies systematically dismantled all of that, both through apathy (no real planning beyond Move in and occupy the place) and their zeal to rebuild the country in their own image. For example, they prevented anyone who'd ever been a Nazi party member from doing their job. Well the problem was that to do almost anything, you had to be a party member, so they instantly stopped all civil administration, engineering/maintenance work, teachers, the judicial system, the police, you couldn't even deliver the mail without being a party member (since they were government employees). Virtually every male over the age of about 16 had been in the military and had experience with weapons. So you now had a mass of unemployed ex-military who desperately wanted food and clothing, and had access to an almost infinite supply of weaponry. In addition Germany after the war attracted what one of the allied leaders (Eisenhower?) described as the scum of Europe, eager to make a quick buck (in Iraq it's folks eager to beat up the infidels). This lead to sizeable pitched battles between the armed gangs and the occupying military, with the military frequently being outgunned by the gangs. Substitute Germany - Iraq and profit / food - religion /nationalism and the same situation exists today. Peter.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Sunder wrote: That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of protecting democracy. huge snip Whether we put the mofo into power or not is not relevent: the nation is a sovereign, regardless of the current figurehead who purports to represent it. Note: I don't *think* that anyone here is arging that Saddam was a nice guy - we're all just arguing at cross purposes. Camp A (me) seems to be arguing from a meta [societal] position, while Camp J is arguing from a personal-dislike position. Neither camp is likely to deter the other, since our frames of reference can never intersect :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 2:06 PM -0500 12/19/03, Michael Kalus wrote: I don't think Castro is a bad guy either. Ah. I feel much better now. Thank you for sparing me the rest of your drivel from now on... Plonk! Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: I don't think I've ever heard that the Nazi prisoners where drugged, abused or otherwice tortured or mistreated and humiliated. Feel free to enlighten me on this. if you count a haircut as abuse, torture, and mistreatment, I expect that they were. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LMgH3KrVc01cxKGLDz79xYZZW/NEDRXgsNqjdHep 4N3mLSiFXrfdllK8ARj0Y2Aj3QjP3ZT0efID0sD5Z
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as pinata Bear in mind that we could probably find plenty of victims of the Bush administration who would be willing to provide this variety of justice to America's dictator and a couple dozen of his closest Neocon advisors. Invading a country, and then turning its leader over to his political enemies for a quick show trial and execution, while singing the tried by his own people propaganda tune, hardly qualifies as justice. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. So far he's avoided being treated like Mussolini. At 11:35 AM 12/19/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the horror, the horror. While James has been wrong about 90% of this discussion (:-), I have to agree with him here - while the US was clearly propagandizing that they had him in their absolute control, they were also initially treating him in a quasi-civilized manner. The dude's been hiding in a hole in the ground, so checking him for lice is reasonable treatment. (I'm puzzled by the comment about the shave, though - all the fair and balanced news coverage still shows him with the beard) On the other hand, various spokescritters keep saying that they're going to stop treating him in a civilized manner, and that while they're not quite going to torture him, they're going to put him in a high-stress sleep-deprivation environment. I'm not sure if they're going more for the Vietnamese tiger cage model, or the Israeli army Palestinian Detainee model, or the Soviet purged general model, but it's No More Mr. Civilized until he confesses his crimes against the society. And in due course he is going to get an execution, which is exactly what the nazi war criminals got. In general, between the times the Nazi war criminals were captured and the times they got tried and hanged or shot, the US mostly treated most of them in a civilized manner, except during the active parts of the war where sometimes they wanted operational information. Apparently not the case here.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote: And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the rules of the peace of Westphalia. The Soviet Union never respected the peace of Westphalia. Which was evil. After the election of Ronald Reagan, neither did the US, Living proof that you can become what you hate. and the US has never resumed respecting it, so that stuff is ancient history now. So what you are saying is that we have become the Soviet Union? National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. Spare me. I was no Soviet apologist. And until Reagan I was a dyed in the wool republican. Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MG21u2rXbbd8Gv6a0KI33gOfB0dq3Rj0+8QLf9Zu 475GB3UNm+fRK0Tmju1skiWzb5gB5QGgnIdyidhHM -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. After WWII the winners had learned their lesson from WWI pretty well. Now they did not humilate the people of Germany like after the first war. We got the Marshal plan and so on. Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Is this something U.S. should feel comfortable with then? Some people on this list seem to have these disturbing thoughts. It will backfire sooner or later I'm afraid. And then it may be our kids who pay the price.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 02:00 AM 12/19/2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy for the first war. Also they were very humiliated by the fact that France then occupied part of western Germany. That was certainly one of the most overt reasons for the war. An equally plausible reason has it as an inevitable climax of a centuries-long philosophic development, preaching three fundamental ideas: the worship of unreason, the demand for self-sacrifice and the elevation of society or the state above the individual. These three ideas spewed forth from some of the most respected philosophers of the late 19th Century (e.g., Kant). An excellent book Ominous Parallels, by Leonard Peikoff builds the case that the rise of Nazism was facilitated by the philosophical content of mainstream German culture, and that the basic anti-individualist, anti-reason orientations of this culture are also apparent in modern American culture (hence the Ominous Parallels). steve
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Greetings Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally?
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:00 -0800 From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? -- On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: Different rules apply in war. J.A. Terranson wrote: One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Sure looks like war to me. I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY when he tried to get a declaration? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 18 Dec 2003 at 5:40, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: I think you might have forgotten about the other half the system, due process. Even if you KNOW something, you've got to go through the motions. Different rules apply in war. One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. Or, to put this another way, we are only at war when it is convenient for us to be. Our Gitmo guests aren't POWs because there was no declared war. Anyone we grabbed on the fields in Irq were just illegal combatants, while our own troops (Jessica Lynch) were POWs. The whole thing is through and through bullshit. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: huge snip The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote: And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation. Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the rules of the peace of Westphalia. The Soviet Union never respected the peace of Westphalia. After the election of Ronald Reagan, neither did the US, and the US has never resumed respecting it, so that stuff is ancient history now. National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MG21u2rXbbd8Gv6a0KI33gOfB0dq3Rj0+8QLf9Zu 475GB3UNm+fRK0Tmju1skiWzb5gB5QGgnIdyidhHM
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 14:07, Michael Kalus wrote: The west traded heavily with [Saddam], be it the US, France, Germany, the UK. The west, including the US traded and continues to trade heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to believe they are actively supporting him. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it Yet you show no similar astonishment concerning the evil of Stalin. James A. Donald: Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. Michael Kalus I suggest you read Chomsky's new book, and if only as a reference to the sources he lists. Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=739htvsqv3bteggtq8p2ht5ae1fl8g3rj [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/yzao If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG BD9mhUcJ2fu+5AnOrsX/j+E5S6NXUuQ40Qk4617u 4fiAQszFxSm820AMu8akts9Cg5A/AkwHtkQLXCm8z
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote: By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. This does not resemble in the slightest sending collossal amounts of logistic aid to Stalin, or even supplying the murderous marxist Mengistu with free cattle trucks to ship the peasants to death camps in the course of imposing forced collectivisation, yet somehow I never hear the fans of terror and slavery complaining about those episodes. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 5ibjDrK757xI4qlX/NW0eJQnWdI267xZu+oMuBEO 4esmiD8ZBiOaoKK48vXdGpqBQjC43P2L5EtUa9k+i
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of protecting democracy. So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Once he turned on our interests, he was no longer useful and had to be removed. It just took Jr. to do it. Now, we'll put a different democratic government in place. Of course, it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. We couldn't give a fuck less if Sadam was given an anal probe on TV, or if he was put in the colliseum for donkeys to use as a sex toy, as in Roman times. As entertaining as it would be for some, it's utterly unimportant. Pax Americana will march on. We have their oil - we can throw some crumbs to some other friendly countries of the COW, and lesser crumbs to those who complained, but the rest is just meaningless green colored icing on the cake. The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's days. Perhaps a democrat will make it back in power again, but that too is meaningless, as the infrastructure for the super surveillance, terror police state is already in place and won't likely go away. It no longer makes a difference, even if a few of the teeth of the DHS are removed... people will still be disappeared in the middle of the night, warantless searches, secret shadow trails, et al. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ --*--:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD.\|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote: huge snip The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 11:55 AM, ken wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union? I'll take it then that the US has become the USSSR these days? After all this is the argument that gets brought up here all the time But the USSSR did it. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLbmlCnxcrW2uuEQLq0ACgilN5t6kaUb2ypyTgt/KoX6jv4r4Ani/c hGl1/s2A2eO1C8yPb0x9n5+x =mDsf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the horror, the horror. And in due course he is going to get an execution, which is exactly what the nazi war criminals got. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 1Lc+zlzr6cys1/DeraqXfhpuVH9FvHHd5rtUuv/E 4gp4fEG6nAev5a7thtLVe+M7bqpvkok78SJyY0f1N
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Ken, Eh what? Yes I've heard a lot of the Soviet union, however I don't see what you meant by that comment here. What I was referring to was the winning powers' treatment of the Nazi war criminals after WWII, Nurnburg trials and so on. (Note the word trials here) I don't think I've ever heard that the Nazi prisoners where drugged, abused or otherwice tortured or mistreated and humiliated. Feel free to enlighten me on this.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: Greetings Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally? The Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past due to the Henry Kissinger clause insisted upon by the US. Saddam's guilt in a smaller number of deaths is being pushed hard to justify the exercise in the Mid-East so the outcome is certain and will be dressed appropriately I'm sure. My guess is that a suitable Iraqi court won't take note of the number of civilian deaths due to bombings and economic sanctions by its liberators.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized internationally? Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. Who cares whether the guys at the Hague agree? Hague claims of jurisdiction have unfailingly led to bad results, as in the current disastrous trial of Milosevic. This is the same problem as occurred when the Westphalian state took over police powers from the local gentry, but in even more extreme form. The more distant the police and courts are from the crime, the criminals, and the victims, the less likely they are to provide justice, and the slower, more expensive, and less effectual that justice will be, if justice comes at all, which it probably will not. Hague justice does not work. It is failing with Milosevic. It would fail with Saddam. The court at the Hague is apt to convict the innocent and acquit the guilty in the face of all evidence, illustrating in more extreme form the problems that occur with the police powers of the Westphalian state. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG IiS2b9l7DPo2NQXOdJr115U+lCtla97DXp8x4D8z 4bCeKZNEInAT6Ra8UWqc7RyU+Uo6+JH777FclJ48e
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Sunder wrote: That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. Not really, no. So, while he was our puppet, He was never out puppet. he was the good guy, He was never the good guy, and was never called a good guy by us. Well, except for the idiots who are now calling for his release, I guess. and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Not really, no. Now, we'll put a different democratic government in place. Of course, it won't be as free as the USA, nor have the same kind of constitution - that would be a problem since we couldn't control it's oil. If all we wanted was to control its oil we wouldn't try to put a democratic government in place, with or without the quote. Gosh, the oil-conspiracy nutcases are so dumb, it's tiring. Nothing new, nothing to be surprised about. Exactly, a bunch of lies from the usual quarters. A stream of revisionist history from useful idiots hell-bent on making it ALL OUR FAULT, ever and ever again. It's a movable feast. The war on terror itself will go on for as long as the voters will tolerate it, or until it's true goals succeede and it becomes impossible for the voters to do anything but accept it - or be disappeared in the middle of the night... Not much different than in Stalin or Hitler's days. You don't know much about Stalin's or Hitler's times, do you? -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- J.A. Terranson: One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war. James A. Donald: Sure looks like war to me. J.A. Terranson: I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY when he tried to get a declaration? After 9/11 Congress gave the president a blank declaration of war -- names to be filled in later by presidential fiat. In addition, the original declaration of war on Iraq is still in effect, a fact that congress re-affirmed recently. The blank declaration of war is what the supreme court deemed to be an unconstitutional delegation of powers back in the 1930s. Roosevelt responded by threatening to stack the court, and the court reversed itself. The blank declaration is supposed to last for the duration of the war on terror, which was expected to last a generation, but which has proven so convenient for the government that it may well become permanent. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG HljLjS7+W9LEuxbq7VnSuM5kR+tZolVcQvGN3514 4f+D7vVmteFZvOSc2OURJhqQrdzVGAEtdAvDPRaf4
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- James A. Donald: Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with legitimate authority Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as pinata But I think we can find a legitimate authority somewhat better than that. And if we cannot, the mob has more legitimacy than the Hague. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CH40CSgX5Tgdj/SDJtnV3WgkBxSNswHYXJRRtrPl 4nJVivIV8DTmP2YOHTrLI5FBALdL8ZRNG8SGqcbVH
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote: -- Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction enough for me. It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with legitimate authority to convene such a court, least of all the US or their puppet regime. In my opinion, Saddam should be released, or shipped out to an international court with recognized authority. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote: Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as pinata This would be an argument that the victims have a natural right to administer judgment against Saddam, which might be a valid point. In order to rightly exercise that perogative, the people of Iraq will be required to elect judges, or have them appointed by their elected representative. This would be a legitimate court in Iraq, but US military justice is illegitimate in Iraq, because of the illegal aggression. But I think we can find a legitimate authority somewhat better than that. And if we cannot, the mob has more legitimacy than the Hague. I'm afraid that due to the imperious actions of the Bush administration, you may be right about this. Moreover, the US is in a bind, because the US rulers were complicit in Saddam's only credible war crimes. For this reason they will never turn him over to the international courts, where this truth would be spoken loudly and repeatedly. It appears to me that elected judges is the way to go. Thank you for this stimulating discussion. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:11, Sunder wrote: That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or at least helped, that monster into power. No we did not. in 1958 pro soviet socialists gained ascendency in Iraq, but a power struggle proceeded between the communist and baathist wings of the socialist movement. In 1963, the baathists launched a coup, intended to be launched simultaneously in all arab countries, to establish a united supranational arab state based on the arab race and socialism. The coup succeeded in Syria, succeeded only temporarily in Iraq. Allegedly this coup was supported by the CIA, but there is no evidence for this, nor does it seem very believable that the CIA would wish to see the arabs united under a pan arab socialist regime. Shortly thereafter there was a counter coup against the baathists in iraq, which established a conventional military regime, whch was eventually overthrown by Baathists in 1967. If the CIA gave support to either coup, which one do you think it more likely to support? No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of protecting democracy. The trouble with your account of events is that the baathists were then as they are today socialist, pan arabist, anti american and anti colonialist, hence improbable as beneficiaries of CIA benevolence. So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader. Saddam was no more our puppet than Stalin or Pol Pot was, nor was he ever deemed a good guy, any more than they were. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vBqQagnGXwPK05ONAmls2anbapINr8iAonZNkXey 4iqeeJi9vST/28skvcS3MLX6xe/UAtn9L94MWRoIS
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 11:06 AM 12/19/2003, Michael Kalus wrote: I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others that write what men do, not what they ought to do. -Francis Bacon
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- James A. Donald: Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://tinyurl.com/yzao Michael Kalus I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? Have not seen it, in large part because I would not expect anything written by Michael Moore to contain even a grain of truth, and various people have asserted that everything said in Bowling for Columbine' is untrue. For all I know it could be gospel, but that would surprise me considerably. Michael Kalus If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. James A. Donald: It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. Michael Kalus Ethics and morales are non negotiable. So I am always told by those who support the slavery, terror, and the mass murder of innocents. There was nothing unethical about allying with Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam against their and our common enemies. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kM1bypSGohBUgdks4GawJ7BcA9DBm/iwPIm78xvn 4cqJAgrtl7lhOhmpgr9yawDyC1ZsbI20LXl034Dxa
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote: Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that Americans deserved 9/11 and have no right to whine about it. Nations are not morally entitled to any rights. They have rights merely by habit and convention, a convention formalized in the peace of Westphalia, and now at long last fading. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 3yfr0GecQwe20bSktePyxcgzRbYACoCVtp2B2nh6 4JmeFrAK15vo5iCWM20k8VWJqumUYsOuIky75CWgC
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The west, including the US traded and continues to trade heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to believe they are actively supporting him. I don't think Castro is a bad guy either. Believe it or not but not everything that is not Freetrade made in America is bad. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it Yet you show no similar astonishment concerning the evil of Stalin. Stalin has been dealt with. His empire has fallen. I am very well aware of the past. But my concern right now is the present and the future. Also, what you don't seem to get. This is not about Saddam, it is about how the US acts. Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=739htvsqv3bteggtq8p2ht5ae1fl8g3rj [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/yzao I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. Ethics and morales are non negotiable. Either you have it or you don't. If you don't have them, fine, but don't pretend you act because of them. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NMMWlCnxcrW2uuEQK0PACg5wJOlgUm6JQkkeTJx8tpxvalTxUAoPe6 tkln3VpG4iX/435Sdu1OlMGD =NKYl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Dec-03, at 9:34 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote: By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. This does not resemble in the slightest sending collossal amounts of logistic aid to Stalin, or even supplying the murderous marxist Mengistu with free cattle trucks to ship the peasants to death camps in the course of imposing forced collectivisation, yet somehow I never hear the fans of terror and slavery complaining about those episodes. Could we move into the current time zone for a moment? Thanks. Now re-read what was written there... Got the words? Good, now try to understand the meaning of those words, done? Okay. Now try to understand the implications of these actions... Getting somewhere now? Yes? Perfect. So maybe now we can start to have a constructive discussion about the way the US is saying one thing and doing the other without trying to point at someone who is worse. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NMk2lCnxcrW2uuEQKn3gCfSgNIFsMO0J8EbNqBpB6l0TTKVWcAniKC OVHhPVNujXiw7SpeO2qV8pj9 =1nR9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. the more I read of you the more I get the feeling that you think McCarthy was the best thing that ever happened to the US. It also seems to me you don't have any real argument. You just like to point to the Soviet Union for everything. Who brainwashed you if I may ask? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NJ1WlCnxcrW2uuEQLcegCgj3ZP50alQEzNLWlB7LX7TROD57QAoKal OtP9wE1e+KrM4t/aLTCz61J4 =/gHZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote: I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? Not wrong exactly, just completely biased, wrong headed, snuffling at the ass of anti-gun Hollywood so it would be hailed in the film world as a great work. Moore says guns are bad. So fucking what. What could Moore say that would be a suprise? The film is a blow-job for the anti-gun crowd. Nothing more. Moore makes me laugh, because he does have his moments. I really enjoyed Rodger and me. He got a little mean sometimes, but so what? But BfC was a worthless piece of garbage all in all. I'm not a big fan of The Omega Man either. But that crap Moore pulled at Hestons house was inexcuseble. He should have had the shit beat out of him for that.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 2:35 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote: Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that Americans deserved 9/11 and have no right to whine about it. Nations are not morally entitled to any rights. They have rights merely by habit and convention, a convention formalized in the peace of Westphalia, and now at long last fading. Interresting note. Did they deserve 9/11? If you go by eye for an eye then yes. If you think that Ossama (if it was him) and his cronies are evil, then yes, they deserved it too (wasn't Jesus all about suffering for the greater good?). If you think that nobody has the right to terrorism than they didn't. But neither did the Iraqis during the sanctions, nor the countless people who died in South America because the good guys were waging a war. Let's not even talk about all the things that were done by the good guys in Vietnam. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NspWlCnxcrW2uuEQIQRACeLIEpk760YpoNgMSsa1IZzg20ZusAoKmI IIo6dnih7/pjDBcd1sbkVB0C =kya6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, BillyGOTO wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. I think you might have forgotten about the other half the system, due process. Even if you KNOW something, you've got to go through the motions.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- Michael Kalus: he [Saddam] is shown and paraded on TV (and don't tell me he wasn't because showing a man in his state, showing how he gets examined is clearly an attempt to break the morale). James A. Donald; Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings of those poor fragile souls that hate us and seek to murder us, that got us into this trouble. Our enemies take it for weakness, reasonably enough. [...] As Bin laden said slaughtering the occupants of the twin towers made them look strong: : : when people see a strong horse and a weak : : horse, by nature, they will like the strong : : horse. Michael Kalus: It is almost astonishing to hear arguments like these. You (and people who make these arguments) sound like the kid who gets smacked after burning down the house and then starting to cry and call foul. I see: So when the US army is so unkind as to film Saddam acting submissive, this is a shocking violation of his human rights, and your bleeding heart feels for him deeply. But when, however, people fly a plainload of passengers into two tall buildings and murder thousands, those dreadful Americans had it coming, were justly smacked like a naughty child, and have no right to get indignant. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG /L77ce/syoKdEksHcHO1y4PFeqglQuamciRW8MD5 43mK5CsgJ9VG1mVzKSxOu2+qywMsCse3Y+DRKaDp/
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A, Donald writes: I see: So when the US army is so unkind as to film Saddam acting submissive, this is a shocking violation of his human rights, and your bleeding heart feels for him deeply. But when, however, people fly a plainload of passengers into two tall buildings and murder thousands, those dreadful Americans had it coming, were justly smacked like a naughty child, and have no right to get indignant. The two events are completely unrelated, except for the fact that 9/11 gave the US the additional hubris it needed to launch an unprovoked war of agression against another sovereign nation, in violation of international law and the wishes of the world community. Saddam's capture is the poisoned fruit of an illegal occupation, which is itself the poisoned fruit of an illegal invasion, whose clear purpose, despite the lies about Saddam's ready to launch nuclear weapons, was to control Iraq's oil, and eliminate support for the oppressed Palestinians. Bush knew that as long as he managed to attack Iraq, using any pretense, he would never be forced to leave once the excuses were revealed as lies, because if there's two things America is structurally incapable of doing, it's accepting blame and apologizing. Every American soldier in Iraq right now is a war criminal. Every dead Iraqi is a murder victim. As one writer so aptly put it... For months we have wanted to get our hands on the warmonger who terrorized the world with weapons of mass destruction. But, as we couldn't get George Bush, we had to make do with Saddam Hussein. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as propaganda any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty. No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). To use those people as a reason to wage war (even if the outcome would better their lives and the votes on this is still out) still has moral implications, and if it is only by the sanctions that did nothing to prevent those cruelties from happening but actually adding more to their daily lives. I don't know about you. But I know that if I would have lost family members in the past 12 years because of Sanctions and Saddam I would (at best) find the current arguments FOR the war (if I would know about them) more than cynical. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+Ek5GlCnxcrW2uuEQL2mgCgu51ILwv30Oa8V8te8IRfSMnCySkAn08A DF9dO7ROZY/QsT33q7Qp2r7E =TqNF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
You can't predict what the crowd will say, and the Arab crowd is no more symplistic than the American one. It does work somewhat differently, and does display different mentality, whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising. Again, I think you're missing the point here. All you need is one bin Laden to cause us a decent amount of agony. Half a dozen multimillionares with a fanatical hatred of the US and we might have a regime change over here. As for the rest of your post, you didn't respond to the one point so obvious I didn't bother making it: Israel. Add to that images of us running around any country with a drop of oil or two and they have the right picture: You Arabs can continue living here as long as our access remains unimpeded. And again, the politics and local history are very near irrelevant. The US is there in Saudi, Israel, Iraq, and wherever...not the French, not the Italians, and not the Chinese or the Russians. -TD From: Anatoly Vorobey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:08:46 +0200 On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. I thought it was trivial all along. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. Oh please. They (well, many of them) sure didn't forget their dislike of the US when they saw those newsreels of the twin towers tumbling down. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. Actually, they mostly systematically manipulated and fucked themselves over, with occassional help from different factions in the rest of the world. And they already have a symbol of how we've, etc. - American military presence in the most holy of Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia. That's one of the largest reasons for Al-Qaeda growth in recent years. Compared to infidel military bases somewhere near Mecca and Medina, whatever's done to some dictator who has presided over a mostly secular regime is insignificant. And American military presence in Saudi Arabia is actually subsiding now because Iraq is no longer a threat. They're not going to respect our Power, they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. This is just so much armchair psychology. Most of it is silly theoretising that has no grounding in reality. One side says: look, we had to humuliate him publicly, because those Arabs only understand power, they only respect you if you clearly show them who's the boss, bla bla bla. The other side says: we shouldn't humiliate him, because the Arab culture is built around the all-powerful concept of pride, and they'll never forget how we hurt their pride, bla bla bla. Both sides are spewing idiotic garbage with some marginal relevance to reality, which is much, much more complicated than that. You can't predict what the crowd will say, and the Arab crowd is no more symplistic than the American one. It does work somewhat differently, and does display different mentality, whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. This is inane. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. Truth is always relevant. -- avva _ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Harmon Seaver wrote: This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as propaganda any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. This however seldom leads good men to mistake evil men for 'good guys --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG x2lNKlbCvNFyDbzcIL3WupJdqL2kOOQGo3OhgraM 4X1HqIxqyVSPO+wzMqnLKSAznJWvSZg0qzwl74LB/
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:18:04PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. I smell statistical acrobatics by the USAF... Do we really measure weapons in pounds? I'd rather see a listing of weapons imports from JUST the period of the Iran-Iraq war than a listing of weapons imports from 1980-1990.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: -- On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. Am I? The west traded heavily with him, be it the US, France, Germany, the UK. Nobody was left out. All dealt with Saddam and made a lot of money off of him. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Who is you lot? [...] So in September 1980, Hussein's troops crossed the border into Iran. At first the war went well for Iraq, but eventually Iranian forces pushed the invaders out of their country. By spring 1982, the Iranians had gone on the offensive. And that greatly worried the Reagan White House, knowing that an Iranian victory could have a disastrous effect on America's power base in the oil-rich Middle East. Before long the Reagan administration began openly courting Saddam Hussein. In 1982, the United States removed Iraq from its list of countries that supported state-sponsored terrorism. In December 1983, President Reagan sent to Baghdad none other than Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy to the Middle East and today one of Hussein's harshest critics as U.S. secretary of defense. Rumsfeld's visit opened up America's relations with Iraq for the first time since the Arab-Israeli war in 1967. Later, Rumsfeld said that it struck us as useful to have a relationship and revealed that Hussein had indicated he wasn't interested in causing problems in the world. [...] http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/iraqwar/timeline/timeline_03.html Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. Does the mean anything to you? He was our good guy as long as we though we could use him. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. I think the circumstances where a bit different at this point in time. Besides. Nobody (at least not I) said anything about supporting him or cheering for Saddam. The Question here is not if he is a bad man or a good man. It is not if he did or did not do what they accuse him of. But it is about the double morale that the west has been advocating for the past 50 years. Especially when it comes to Oil. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it, until WE (for whatever reason) felt threatened by him and than dragged it all out again, just to proof how bad he is. Face it. If the West didn't want Saddam in Power they could have removed him a long time ago. The matter of fact is, we are as much to blame for what happened to the people in Iraq as is Saddam, if not more so. Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. So where do your enlightened Western Politicians fit in? Good or Evil? Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. I suggest you read Chomsky's new book, and if only as a reference to the sources he lists. This however seldom leads good men to mistake evil men for 'good guys No, but it leads good men to become evil. If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. Turning away when someone is abused doesn't make the abuse stop and it makes you just as guilty as the one who commits the abuse. Ignorance might be bliss for most people, but from an ethical and moral standpoint it is not. Parading Saddam around and humiliating him just shows how low we really are, despite the fact that we don't want to acknowledge it ourselves. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. These repeated claims that Saddam was somehow the US's boy in the Middle East are puzzling. The US did not supply any significant number of weapons or other military aid to Iraq. They did give limited support to Iraq in its war against Iran, a direct consequence of the Irani occupation of the US embassy in Teheran and kidnapping of its staff. If you look at the tactics and weapons used by Saddam in the invasion of Kuwait and in the resulting Gulf War, they were Soviet. Chirac's personal relations with Saddam go back to at least 1975, the year that France signed an agreement to sell two nuclear reactors to Iraq. There have been rumors for a long time that Saddam provided financial support to Chirac in various election campaigns. The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany. Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the beginning; American bodies dangling from ropes in Baghdad were not the beginning of a great romance. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, BillyGOTO wrote: On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:18:04PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. I smell statistical acrobatics by the USAF... Do we really measure weapons in pounds? In the UK we measure sales in pounds sterling. One pound = $1.75 and rising. I'd rather see a listing of weapons imports from JUST the period of the Iran-Iraq war than a listing of weapons imports from 1980-1990. One is included in the other. From memory, total US military sales to Iraq in the decade were $3 million. As we all know, in Washington DC a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there -- pretty soon you are talking real money. Three million dollars will buy you a few coffee pots and a monkey wrench for your AWACS aircraft. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-12-18/19:18]: 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. [...] It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. You are confusing todays Germany with the communist pre-1989 Eastern Germany, two *very* different things (I thought the British had better knowledge of the Olde Europe than the fellow Americans do?) As to the rest, always look at who published the facts. It's the same sources that claimed the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It's unfortunate that most people fall for this kind of manipulative misinformation. Cheers, Dan -- Daniel Roethlisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP key id 0x804A06B1 (1024/4096 DSA/ElGamal) 144D 6A5E 0C88 E5D7 0775 FCFD 3974 0E98 804A 06B1 !- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. From the same site I linked to before: [...] By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. But that was just the beginning of Reagan's pro-Iraq campaign. The United States sold the Iraqis military jeeps and Lockheed L-100 transports. And, according to a recent report in /The New York Times/, as many as 60 American intelligence officers provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance, lending detailed information on Iranian deployments, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments. The /Times/ story further reported that this intelligence assistance was offered even though American officers knew the Iraqi commanders would probably use chemical weapons against the Iranians. The military aid helped Iraq hold off the Iranians, and the war dragged on until 1988. That year the U.S. Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions against Hussein's regime. But the Reagan White House opposed the bill, calling it premature. When it eventually passed, the White House made little effort to enforce it. [...] Just because they didn't sell the weapons directly doesn't mean they didn't sell them. It is an age old practice to sell weapons to a middle man in order to get them where they are not supposed to be. And in regards to arms sales: [...] * U.S. arms exports in 1995 amounted to $15.6 billion, three times that of the next supplier and 49 percent of the world's. Over the 1993-1995 period, U.S. exports went equally to developed and developing countries. * The six next largest suppliers, with over $0.5 billion each and together accounting for 42 percent of the world total, were: U.K.$5.2 billionGermany 1.2 Russia 3.3 Israel 0.8 France 2.2 China, Mainland 0.6 * The Middle East imported over 30 percent of the total number of major weapons in trade over the last 12 years (1984-1995). In 1993-1995, Western Europe became the main importing region with 32 percent. [...] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/factshee/conwpn/wmeatfs.htm It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html [...] *Kroft. *And other arms dealers and countries did. Brazil provided thousands of armored vehicles. China and the Soviet Union sent tanks, missiles and munitions. German companies sold Saddam poison gas technology, and France, not only approved the sale of artillery to Iraq, but [also sold] armed helicopters and antiaircraft missile systems. This Chilean arms manufacturer [shown on screen] sold Saddam deadly cluster bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes. Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. *Sarkis. *I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. I do not have anything on my conscience. I did not sell the
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. If you are interested in an expanded and predictive analysis, check here. US aggression leads predictably to bad results: Take action to stop the war now http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/wartext4.html I wrote it in April, while US bombs were turning Baghdad into a second 9/11. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ On 17 Dec, Eric Cordian wrote: But when, however, people fly a plainload of passengers into two tall buildings and murder thousands, those dreadful Americans had it coming, were justly smacked like a naughty child, and have no right to get indignant. The two events are completely unrelated, except for the fact that 9/11 gave the US the additional hubris it needed to launch an unprovoked war of agression against another sovereign nation, in violation of international law and the wishes of the world community. Saddam's capture is the poisoned fruit of an illegal occupation, which is itself the poisoned fruit of an illegal invasion, whose clear purpose, despite the lies about Saddam's ready to launch nuclear weapons, was to control Iraq's oil, and eliminate support for the oppressed Palestinians. Bush knew that as long as he managed to attack Iraq, using any pretense, he would never be forced to leave once the excuses were revealed as lies, because if there's two things America is structurally incapable of doing, it's accepting blame and apologizing. Every American soldier in Iraq right now is a war criminal. Every dead Iraqi is a murder victim. As one writer so aptly put it... For months we have wanted to get our hands on the warmonger who terrorized the world with weapons of mass destruction. But, as we couldn't get George Bush, we had to make do with Saddam Hussein. -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. [...] OTO Ordo Templi Orientalis? You don't mean *that*, do you? I suspect I'm suffering from acronym overloading. Peter
RE: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On 18 Dec, Trei, Peter wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. [...] OTO Ordo Templi Orientalis? You don't mean *that*, do you? Why not? I suspect I'm suffering from acronym overloading. I was simply agreeing with the post of Eric Cordian, and hopefully adding support to the argument, while alluding to his interesting sig. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C UBULI$ P+ L+++() E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e h--- r+++ y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote: BTW, can you provide me with a reference for the dangling bodies'? Because I was unable to find anything on this so far. I was travelling in the area (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey) at the time. In the 1960s the usual overland traveller's route through the region to Europe had been Bombay - Gulf - Iraq (Basra) - Turkey. In the 1970s, when I was there, the route had shifted to Pakistan - Afghanistan - Iran - Turkey because of attacks on foreigners and in particular the hanging of several Americans as supposed CIA agents, spies. The Baath Party took over in 1968 and nationalized the oil industry in 1972; the surge in anti-western agitation occurred in that period. Googling provides a lot of hits, mostly propaganda for one side or the other. One interesting quote regarding the Baath takeover: To the end Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his supporters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers. (From Out of the Ashes, the Resurrection of Saddam Hussain, by Andrew and Patrick Cockburn.) The coup leaders included one Saddam Hussian, who of course killed the rest over the next few years. This time around the president's bullet-riddled body has not been displayed on TV. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Daniel Roethlisberger wrote: 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. [...] It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. You are confusing todays Germany with the communist pre-1989 Eastern Germany, I am not confusing them at all. There is ample evidence that the Germans sold to Saddam both before and after the reunification of Germany. two *very* different things (I thought the British had better knowledge of the Olde Europe than the fellow Americans do?) As to the rest, always look at who published the facts. It's the same sources that claimed the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It's The _UN_ claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They ordered them destroyed, and actually watched some being destroyed until Saddam threw them out in the late 1990s. They subsequently reported that they could not account for tons of chemical weapons; this was one of the reasons for the second war. unfortunate that most people fall for this kind of manipulative misinformation. The manipulative misinformation is the claim that the US somehow armed Saddam Hussein. He had French planes, Czech weapons, Russian tanks; we saw them burning on TV in both wars. There is no evidence at all that the US supplied weapons in any quantity to Iraq, just unsubstantiated claims from the usual mob, the ones who supposedly know all those secrets hidden from the rest of us. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they did to us. There were at least three points made in my post: * The treatment of Saddam seems well within the rules laid down by the Geneva conventions. * On the other hand, he and his government routinely violated the Geneva conventions and encouraged others to do so. * The US and the UK should step back and let Iraqis decide what to do with Saddam. Nowhere did I advocate gassing villages, rape, murder, torture, invasion of neighboring countries for all that good loot, setting off explosives in crowds, nor even the beatings handed out to captured British pilots. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about gasing into the abyss and so on. I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Tim, sorry it was unclear from my post whom I was referring to. It was James A. Donald. I did put his message id in a reply-to header. Jim Dixon wrote: Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind? No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush for lice then. You are also utterly missing the point and you are one pretty good example of how the mob are thinking. EVERYONE, including Saddam, Pol Pot or whattever should be treated in accordance with the laws by us who call ourselves the free democratic part of the world. Then they shall stand trial. A fair trial and being represented by lawyers. What would be more satisfying for the critics of U.S. than to see U.S. not being able to get its act together and instead conducting itself in a manner inconsistent with international law during this rather criticl phase of the Iraqi campaign. Mark my words, U.S. will be in regret later. Jim Dixon, you also wrote some half trouths on the subject of Palestinians and the support they received. You should read up on this subject. Saddam also has a history of building up edicational institutions and so on. He recived awards by U.N. earlier on for his wellfare programs and the development Iraq was gaining. Anyone can check this up, just call U.N. in NY and you'll receive a few references I'm sure. What I mean by this is not to defend him in any way but I feel that this rewriting of history and propaganda is serving noone in the long run. If you believe that 100% of the arab world in their harts and minds hate Saddam you're wring. Very wrong. Steve Schear: thanks for your interesting post! Some people need to learn more of that. I also noticed on the news that CIA was conducting the questioning of Saddam. (Did anyone expect anything else?!) I guess this also means that U.S. now will join all dicatators and awful beasts in performing various forms of abuse and torture on him. Iraq formally removed the death penalty just a few weeks ago. Regardless of what you feel about that in general, I think it's embarrasing once again to see U.S. almost lobbying against the Iraqis to have them not honouring their own laws to satisfy Bush on this specific issue! Remember there's only one reason for Bush wanting to see Saddam dead and that he does. And that is the fact that Saddam tried to kill my papa as Bush put it, I've seen it in interviews myself. Jim Dixon, going through your post again I see yet another half trough, you write The people on this list are less.. public humiliation and hanging of Americans.. And you seem to forget that U.S. was in bed with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war era and that there was a friendly tone then. U.S. officials met with Iraqi, I think that Tareq Azis met with Reagan even? Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they did to us. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about gasing into the abyss and so on. You have become what you hunt. Be ware. It is my opinion that we shall distinguish ourselves from these bastards by not committing their deeds ourselves. You seem not to agree on that. And that is a major mistake.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:00:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: How so? we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. I obtained the below quote from your website located at: http://www.jim.com/liberquo.htm "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." John Quincy Adams Regards, Matt-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 17 Dec 2003 at 9:00, Nomen Nescio wrote: No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush for lice then. You are also utterly missing the point and you are one pretty good example of how the mob are thinking. EVERYONE, including Saddam, Pol Pot or whattever should be treated in accordance with the laws by us who call ourselves the free democratic part of the world. Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: Saddam was eligible for being shot on sight. Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings of those poor fragile souls that hate us and seek to murder us, that got us into these trouble. Our enemies take it for weakness, reasonably enough. We should make it obvious that nothing will stop us from striking at our enemies, that we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. As Bin laden said slaughtering the occupants of the twin towers made them look strong: : : when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by : : nature, they will like the strong horse. This is : : only one goal; those who want people to worship the : : lord of the people, without following that doctrine, : : will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be : : upon him You should read up on this subject. Saddam also has a history of building up edicational institutions and so on. He recived awards by U.N. earlier on for his wellfare programs and the development Iraq was gaining. To the best of my knowledge, the UN only grants those awards to those who inflict quite extraordinary ruin and horrible destruction on their subjects -- such awards are as infamous and perverse as the UN human rights commission, headed by Libya las time I heard. The UN is a cartel of governments against their subjects. Just as a cartel of ordinary businesses requires its members to charge high prices and supply low quality, and grants honor and recognition to those members that charge remarkably high prices and unusually low quality, in the same way the UN grants honor and recognition to unusually destructive episodes of looting and pillaging against formerly prosperous law abiding peaceful subjects. The UN was established to protect against direct military conflict, but in ordinary day to day life, peaceful competition is a greater threat to the rulers, for example harmful tax competition. One of the major goals of the EU is to restrain 'harmful tax competition. Similarly one of the major goals of the WTO is to prevent what cypherpunks call regulatory arbitrage. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG wcaHHfIUZy9Tibd6zjm4+q5AQUP7EkuCy6cpPeeX 4svV9LeL01zDRxluCthNIy5l3iiUpZS7LwmP467jH
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Truly great. In doing so you have manifested what has been written here about gasing into the abyss and so on. On 17 Dec 2003 at 8:36, Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 21:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention. His answer was that some things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone who suggests otherwise. In other words, yes. Following in the footsteps of Richard Perle. I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html) 'Scuse me whilst I go vomit.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Natt writes: You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.? Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam interrogation, and pundits are speculating that they will use the same torture techniques that are being used on the detainees. Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. Bill Bennett said just a few minutes ago, that Saddam's capture made America safer, because the world has learned that If you mess with America, you wind up in a hole. A friend of mine, when asked what he wanted from Santa for Christmas, replied, A crater the size of DC. Clearly, the world's leaders are looking closely at Saddam's treatment, and realizing how easily pissing off the Bush family could result in them being shown on International TV unbathed, unshaven, checked for fleas, and bent over for a rectal probe. Of course, all of this is provoking a new arms race of astronomical proportions, as the other nations of the world realize international law means nothing, and that the US and Israel think they can judge everyone else on the planet, no one can judge them, and they can act with impunity. This will, in a few years, result in the usual force meets force plus brains low level format of the arrogant, and after a few hangings, and a big round of applause, life on the planet will move on. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention. His answer was that some things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone who suggests otherwise. Regards, Matt-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk? and so on. I think this implies the obvious, but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves they (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? From: Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:43 -0800 (PST) Natt writes: You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.? Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam interrogation, and pundits are speculating that they will use the same torture techniques that are being used on the detainees. Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. Bill Bennett said just a few minutes ago, that Saddam's capture made America safer, because the world has learned that If you mess with America, you wind up in a hole. A friend of mine, when asked what he wanted from Santa for Christmas, replied, A crater the size of DC. Clearly, the world's leaders are looking closely at Saddam's treatment, and realizing how easily pissing off the Bush family could result in them being shown on International TV unbathed, unshaven, checked for fleas, and bent over for a rectal probe. Of course, all of this is provoking a new arms race of astronomical proportions, as the other nations of the world realize international law means nothing, and that the US and Israel think they can judge everyone else on the planet, no one can judge them, and they can act with impunity. This will, in a few years, result in the usual force meets force plus brains low level format of the arrogant, and after a few hangings, and a big round of applause, life on the planet will move on. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law _ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected -- and then had been submitted to what appeared to be a polite and conscientious public dental exam and haircut? Damn lucky, to be honest. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected -- and then had been submitted to what appeared to be a polite and conscientious public dental exam and haircut? Damn lucky, to be honest. No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a court of law. You remember, Justice the thing the US supposely is standing for? Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the US Government (and thus the US Military). Two wrongs still don't make a right. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? M.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: Saddam was eligible for being shot on sight. That might have been. But he was not, and he is shown and paraded on TV (and don't tell me he wasn't because showing a man in his state, showing how he gets examined is clearly an attempt to break the morale). Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings of those poor fragile souls that hate us and seek to murder us, that got us into these trouble. Our enemies take it for weakness, reasonably enough. We should make it obvious that nothing will stop us from striking at our enemies, that we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. Most people outside of the US are blissfully aware of this. After all they had bombs dropped on them for the last 50 years, being shot at by people that were founded by the US Government (have a look at South America) and so forth. It is almost astonishing to hear arguments like these. You (and people who make these arguments) sound like the kid who gets smacked after burning down the house and then starting to cry and call foul. As Bin laden said slaughtering the occupants of the twin towers made them look strong: : : when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by : : nature, they will like the strong horse. This is : : only one goal; those who want people to worship the : : lord of the people, without following that doctrine, : : will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be : : upon him So you advocate to follow Bin Ladin? If you (as in the US Government) consider him evil, then following him and do the same way he does makes you evil as well. Having said that: What makes you the good guy? To the best of my knowledge, the UN only grants those awards to those who inflict quite extraordinary ruin and horrible destruction on their subjects -- such awards are as infamous and perverse as the UN human rights commission, headed by Libya las time I heard. Of course Libya is evil when it doesn't fit into the US foreign policy, but is a good friend' when you can send someone there to get vital information. If that involves torture than this is none of your business. It is sort of ironic that a state like the US can claim no interrest in how the information was obtained and cheerfully extorts people to countries where they know very clearly that those people will be tortured. It seems not even another passport (like say, Canadian) is protecting those people from the wrath and zeal of the US Administration and their henchman. If the Henchman happens to wear a turban while doing his deed, it is fine, as long as it is done under US Supervision, which can be denied if need be. The UN is a cartel of governments against their subjects. Just as a cartel of ordinary businesses requires its members to charge high prices and supply low quality, and grants honor and recognition to those members that charge remarkably high prices and unusually low quality, in the same way the UN grants honor and recognition to unusually destructive episodes of looting and pillaging against formerly prosperous law abiding peaceful subjects. The UN is a meeting chamber. The UN is an ability for countries to meet and try to find solutions that do not involve dropping heavy explosives on other peoples head. The UN also fails regularly because heavy weights like the US use it to throw their weight around. If there would be a proportional (as in number of people living in a country) representation the tables would turn very very quickly. The UN security council should be dropped in it's current form and instead should be re-created without any permanent members or any countries power to veto the decisions. The UN was established to protect against direct military conflict, but in ordinary day to day life, peaceful competition is a greater threat to the rulers, for example harmful tax competition. One of the major goals of the EU is to restrain 'harmful tax competition. Similarly one of the major goals of the WTO is to prevent what cypherpunks call regulatory arbitrage. It is not the leaders of most countries I am afraid of. It is the leaders of a handful of countries which possess the most power and have no problem in abusing it to further their own agenda. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:41:07PM +, Jim Dixon wrote: You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected You don't really know that any of that is true, you only know what the current message is from the Ministry of Truth. Twenty years ago they were applauding him and giving him bio/chem/nuc weapons. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: Damn lucky, to be honest. No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. Oh but it is. Ah? Why? Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a court of law. You remember, Justice the thing the US supposely is standing for? Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, that it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the good guys than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the best bang for the buck but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the US Government (and thus the US Military). Two wrongs still don't make a right. What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Anatoly Vorobey wrote: If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? M.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). Of course it matters. This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This is a principle of civilian life, not military conflicts. There's no innocent until proven guilty in military conflicts, surely you understand that. Oh, and BTW, do you know that in the enlightened western society (give up the sarcastic quotes shtick, it's died and its corpse stinks pretty badly) judges commonly allow or deny bail, or set its amount, based on hypothesised accusations against a detained person, when nothing at all has been proven, in the court of law or otherwise? Why don't you go and fight that grievious injustice? -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500: Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:12:55PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. Right. We don't know that he's a murdering son of a bitch, that's all propaganda, but we DO know that we've supported him in the past and IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. That is no propaganda, surely. There's never any need to qualify *those* kinds of assertons with the propaganda mills line. -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:53:56PM -0500, BillyGOTO wrote: On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. They're not going to respect our Power, they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. Look then for more bombings and 9/11s here in the US. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. -Tyler Durden From: Anatoly Vorobey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention? Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:57 +0200 You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500: Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. -- avva _ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Tyler Durden wrote: Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk? and so on. I think this implies the obvious, but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves they (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? I'll take it that was a rhetoric question but: Eye for an Eye and the world goes blind. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality. I thought it was trivial all along. The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in particular, the Arabic part of the Islamic world, are probably going to forget their dislike of Saddam when they see those newreels of the great Dictator being rubbergloved and de-loused. Oh please. They (well, many of them) sure didn't forget their dislike of the US when they saw those newsreels of the twin towers tumbling down. For them it's almost certainly going to resound as a symbol of how we've systematically manipulated and fucked them over all these years. Actually, they mostly systematically manipulated and fucked themselves over, with occassional help from different factions in the rest of the world. And they already have a symbol of how we've, etc. - American military presence in the most holy of Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia. That's one of the largest reasons for Al-Qaeda growth in recent years. Compared to infidel military bases somewhere near Mecca and Medina, whatever's done to some dictator who has presided over a mostly secular regime is insignificant. And American military presence in Saudi Arabia is actually subsiding now because Iraq is no longer a threat. They're not going to respect our Power, they're not going to care much that WE supported Saddam in the first place. They're just going to get angrier. This is just so much armchair psychology. Most of it is silly theoretising that has no grounding in reality. One side says: look, we had to humuliate him publicly, because those Arabs only understand power, they only respect you if you clearly show them who's the boss, bla bla bla. The other side says: we shouldn't humiliate him, because the Arab culture is built around the all-powerful concept of pride, and they'll never forget how we hurt their pride, bla bla bla. Both sides are spewing idiotic garbage with some marginal relevance to reality, which is much, much more complicated than that. You can't predict what the crowd will say, and the Arab crowd is no more symplistic than the American one. It does work somewhat differently, and does display different mentality, whatever that means, but none of it is exploitable with any useful degree of certainty by cheap armchair psychologising. Look for bin Laden to grow in status until he's just a notch or two below Mohammed. This is inane. That Saddam was a cruel, butchering dictator will soon be nearly irrelevant. Truth is always relevant. -- avva
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Harmon Seaver wrote: This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff. http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as propaganda any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Dec 15, 2003, at 5:36 PM, Anonymous wrote: I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In either of these interviews were there any discussion on whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't fully appropriate. The U.S. would have screamed up and down in front of the U.N. and threatened severe reprisals if a U.S. prisoner were to have his (or her) mouth, hair, and medical exam televised by the Iranians, Syrians, Serbians, Iraqis, Panamanians, or any of the other nations we have gone to war with. There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. I hope the next time a U.S. fighter is captured he is shown publically humiliated, with an Iranian or Syrian or French doctor forcing his mouth open and checking his hair for lice. The U.S. would be in no position to complain. (But they would, of course.) But, what can one expect of a country which refers to its own terrorists who blow up commercial Cuban planes as freedom fighters and to Palestinians seeking to expel the Zionist Jew invaders as terrorists? We are in Wonderland and the Republicrats are the Mad Hatters. --Tim May We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 8:43 PM -0600 12/15/03, J.A. Terranson wrote: This report contains all the earmarks of pure propaganda. :-) Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-- On 15 Dec 2003 at 20:06, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote: The image of an Arab leader (however terrible) being objectivised by a white gloved American medic like a bug on a lab bench, will not be read in the Arab world as a moment of liberation. It will be seen as a special kind of humiliation, the kind which typifies the depth of ignorance which has inspired this campaign from its outset. Arabs respect power. Well, everyone respects power, but arabs more so. The image of Saddam being poked around will devastate the insurgents just as much as his bullet ridden body would have done. Either one works. If he was cocky and defiant after being taken prisoner, that would have been a problem -- and I suspect that problem would have been swiftly solved. What was done was an excellent use of him, perhaps the best possible use of him. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DijbC0CdsDlDq+JMzf6Soaoy/uQpAPvQzIqw+vZV 4V4l1cML3B68fAUZdXEQULOypQU+iOODMqAEAhN3z
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 5:21 PM + 12/15/03, Dave Howe wrote: Iraq was somehow involved in the Trade Center attacks too For those who wondered why Abu Nidal took two in the hat shortly before the daisycutters came to play: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xmlsSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html This report contains all the earmarks of pure propaganda. It includes informations that repeats the Niger yellowcacke canard, the non-existent AlQuaeda connection, etc. 99 44/100ths percent bullshit. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Anonymous wrote: The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not only are they cheering we got him like a child who can not withhold his enthusiasm. Displaying Saddam the way they did are also possibly a clear violation of the Geneva convention as far as I can tell. The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. Maybe it was just the movies, but I do believe that in the first and second world wars combatants dressed in civilian clothes were routinely shot. -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. Maybe it was just the movies, but I do believe that in the first and second world wars combatants dressed in civilian clothes were routinely shot. But Saddam isn't a soldier - he's a politician. He may also have been in charge of his country's army, but he was being attacked because of his position as a political leader. Saddam was apparently quite proud of being a soldier. He routinely wore a uniform bearing insignia of miliary rank. He carried weapons. He was armed when captured and had with him evidence that he was directing military operations. In any case, if you are arguing that he should be treated as a POW, you cannot simultaneously argue that he is not a soldier. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Dave Howe wrote: The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. No, they don't. The provisions are reasonably clear. You wear a uniform of some sort, or you openly display your weapons: 3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: (a) During each military engagement, and (b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c). (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm) If you don't wear a uniform or display your weapons during an engagement, whether offensive or defensive, then you are engaging in perfidious acts and lose the protection of the Geneva conventions. Note that this says during each military engagement; if you drop your weapon and try to melt into the crowd, you have failed to comply, your behaviour is perfidious. If you are defending though, you are entitled to the protection of the geneva convention (and lawful combatant status) simply by being an open hostile (carrying your weaponry openly and obeying all the usual provisions of the geneva convention, which obviously doesn't allow hiding in a crowd of civilians). This is the take up arms provision so beloved of the american people - that in the face of invasion, the ordinary citizen would take up arms to defend his home and neighbours. I can find no support for what you say in this paragraph. Attackers are not distinguished from defenders except at the level of individual engagements. That is, if you are a member of an irregular force invading another country and are captured, you are a POW, so long as you comply with the rules: distinguish yourself from the civilian population, and display your weapons openly. Notwithstanding the above, 7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict. Saddam was an officer in a regular, uniformed armed unit. He had worn his uniform conspicuously for many years. He was not an irregular combatant. Therefore he was obliged to continue to wear a uniform while engaged in military action and not doing so could be considered perfidious. The following is also relevant: Article 46.-Spies 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy. 2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces. If you gather information or attempt to do so, and are NOT in uniform, you can be considered a spy and so are not eligible for POW status. According to news reports, our friend Saddam had many intelligence reports with him when captured. He was gathering information for military purposes. He was not in uniform. Therefore he forfeited any right to be treated as a captured soldier - specifically because he was not in uniform. It was presumably on one of these grounds that Allied prisoners out of uniform when captured were routinely executed in Europe during
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 03:47 PM 12/15/2003 +, Jim Dixon wrote: On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Anonymous wrote: The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not only are they cheering we got him like a child who can not withhold his enthusiasm. Displaying Saddam the way they did are also possibly a clear violation of the Geneva convention as far as I can tell. The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. Maybe it was just the movies, but I do believe that in the first and second world wars combatants dressed in civilian clothes were routinely shot. But Saddam isn't a soldier - he's a politician. He may also have been in charge of his country's army, but he was being attacked because of his position as a political leader.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
At 5:21 PM + 12/15/03, Dave Howe wrote: Iraq was somehow involved in the Trade Center attacks too For those who wondered why Abu Nidal took two in the hat shortly before the daisycutters came to play: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xmlsSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. No, they don't. Fox news repeats this enough that more than half of america believes it, but then, more than half of america believes Iraq was somehow involved in the Trade Center attacks too The rules are considerably more lax for the defenders than the attackers - if you are entering another country, then you must either be part of a uniformed, standing army or be part of a militia (with a rigid authority structure, open carrage of arms and an identifying badge or emblem). You must also respect the rules of war - so at least in theory, even a uniformed official combatant is not entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions if he himself breaks those conventions (by e.g. shooting noncombatants) If you are defending though, you are entitled to the protection of the geneva convention (and lawful combatant status) simply by being an open hostile (carrying your weaponry openly and obeying all the usual provisions of the geneva convention, which obviously doesn't allow hiding in a crowd of civilians). This is the take up arms provision so beloved of the american people - that in the face of invasion, the ordinary citizen would take up arms to defend his home and neighbours. There is considerable doubt as to exactly how this applies to sniping - certainly, uniformed combatants are little less likely to decide to dive into cover and take out their opponents with aimed fire than random undertrained militia are, and it would be insane for a lone take up arms defender to stand out in the open to duke it out; the problem is a random sniper is difficult to locate *after* an attack if he is not otherwise identifiable; ok, he isn't permitted to drop his weapon and retain his lawful combatant status, but nor could a uniformed individual (one of several) be expected to volunteer that he was the one who just killed four of the team now pointing weapons at him. (the take up arms provision seems to assume the defender picks up a gun and continues firing until he is killed, captured, or he wins :) name rank and number is for the movies.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not Crosspost from nettime: Subject: nettime wrong signals If symbols really do matter we might conclude that American administration's PR machine has got it badly wrong. In the carefully orchestrated news management of Saddam's capture, once again, the public opinion which *really* matters in the middle east: Arab public opinion, has been conclusively misread The image of an Arab leader (however terrible) being objectivised by a white gloved American medic like a bug on a lab bench, will not be read in the Arab world as a moment of liberation. It will be seen as a special kind of humiliation, the kind which typifies the depth of ignorance which has inspired this campaign from its outset. Once again the images (chosen with great care one imagines, given the time lapse between Saddam's capture and the John Wayne style triumphalism of the announcement) treats Arab opinion to a further demonstration of the power of the west to objectivize the world under a coolly scientific gaze. In this context no mediaeval torturer could have conceived of a greater humiliation than the medical torch's pencil thin beam illuminating the inside of the tyrant's mouth. A stupidity of almost incomprehensible proportions seems bent on prosecuting a war against terror in which the twenty-four hour news machine is mobilized to disseminate images that do little more than fan the flames of hate.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In either of these interviews were there any discussion on whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't fully appropriate. Nietsche quote sought: Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster. And if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you. I think it's about not becoming evil yourself when you're fighting evil. Pretty applicable, yes. We should not be tempted to act in unlawful and questionable ways. It is sticking by international treaties and handling everyone in accordance to law and human values that separates us from evil men like Saddam. This is a good time to show him and his followers that all men, even those of his sort, are treated equal and given a fair trial as stipulated by the universal declaration of human rights by the UN in 1948. And this by the state they call the great satan. Behaving like a lynch mob will make us loosers too.
