Possible Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib

[Justice 0]

Terrorists aren't covered under the convention because they do not carry their weapons openly, something which is required of all combatants under the Convention.

For once, I agree with Nablius/Highland. Listen to one of the liberal members with some decent common sense, people!

[Highland 0]

this should settle the arguments.

 

Article 4

 

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

 

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

 

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

 

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

 

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 

© That of carrying arms openly;

 

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

 

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

 

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

 

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

 

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[Guest Xias]

Um... proof? None? Oh, okay. Unless you actually have proof to back up the idea that the US Military was ordering these freaks to actually do this, then your argument is moot.

Please. Let me make a comparison for you, that hopefully you'll be able to understand:

 

If I own a bar and I go online to look up how to steal PPVs, and a few weeks later my employees put in equipment to allow our bar to illegally show pay-per-view events, it's not exactly a huge leap for an investigator to assume that I gave them the order to do that. It's just too convienant.

 

In the same vain, if the Departmanet of Justice is researching legal ways to torture prisoners, and then prisoners end up being tortured, it's not exactly a huge leap to assume that they were working together. At the very least, you can't completely write off the possibility, like you're doing.

 

-Xias

[Justice 0]

Please. Let me make a comparison for you, that hopefully you'll be able to understand:

 

If I own a bar and I go online to look up how to steal PPVs, and a few weeks later my employees put in equipment to allow our bar to illegally show pay-per-view events, it's not exactly a huge leap for an investigator to assume that I gave them the order to do that. It's just too convienant.

 

In the same vain, if the Departmanet of Justice is researching legal ways to torture prisoners, and then prisoners end up being tortured, it's not exactly a huge leap to assume that they were working together. At the very least, you can't completely write off the possibility, like you're doing.

 

-Xias

 

Oh yes, it was a complete coincidence that the Department of Justice was investigating torture while US soldiers were conducting torture. Those soldiers completely acted alone and without higher orders. Right.

 

That's not leaving an open possibility, that's an accusation right there, which is exactly what I responded to: You have no proof besides the fact that the Justice Dept. has been researching what counts as torture for purposes of interrogation. They've been doing this for a while, is the thing; ever since Afganistan, when 'enemy combatants' and the Geneva Convention really started to come into play. It's not as though the Justice Department has solely been focusing on that aspect, only that as a large part of an investigation into the entire legality of the Geneva Convention when it comes to treating these people.

 

There's no proof that these people were acting on higher orders, and the Justice Department has been researching this for a while now. Unless you have some sort of actual, well, proof, then all you have is a baseless accusation based on a coincidence.

[Guest MikeSC]

Heh. I KNOW i'm right. I've seen proof on a BBC Panorama special dedicated to the subject. The convention should apply - it's America that have decided it doesn't apply in the case of 'enemy combatants'.

 

There's no need for you to "go over it again" - you can continue living in ignorance.

The BBC already pissed all over its legacy of top-notch reporting, so to hear their assumptions in this regard are hardly shocking.

 

Here's a few facts:

There is no command structure for the terrorist cells.

They do not wear distinguishing attire or have distinguishing marks.

They do not carry their weapons only.

 

Those alone COMPLETELY disqualify them --- REPEATEDLY --- from Geneva Conventions protection. Apparently, you forget that the reason for the Conventions was to get sides to fight the war "fairly". If one side does not, the other side is under no obligation to do so, either.

 

Seriously, referring to others' ignorance when your drowining in a sea of it is a bit much.

Oh yes, it was a complete coincidence that the Department of Justice was investigating torture while US soldiers were conducting torture. Those soldiers completely acted alone and without higher orders. Right.

 

Honestly, who's the naive one again?

I suppose you can, of course, produce even a tiny piece of ACTUAL evidence to back this up? Amazing that troops are getting punished for following "direct" orders of higher-ups, something I'm fairly certain has NEVER happened in American history.

If I own a bar and I go online to look up how to steal PPVs, and a few weeks later my employees put in equipment to allow our bar to illegally show pay-per-view events, it's not exactly a huge leap for an investigator to assume that I gave them the order to do that. It's just too convienant.

 

In the same vain, if the Departmanet of Justice is researching legal ways to torture prisoners, and then prisoners end up being tortured, it's not exactly a huge leap to assume that they were working together. At the very least, you can't completely write off the possibility, like you're doing.

Let's go for a more accurate one.

 

You run a chain of SEVERAL THOUSAND BARS. You asked somebody in your inner circle if stealing cable is feasible. Suddenly, ONE bar does it. Nobody told them to do it. Hell, you FIRE all of the management of that bar for doing so.

 

Is it logical to assume that you told them to do it when you clearly did not and fired them for doing so?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

"Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country"

 

That alone covers a lot of detainees - epsecially in Iraq.

 

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm...

 

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them ."

 

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

 

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture ;

 

(b) Taking of hostages;

 

© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment ;

 

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

 

So, the Geneva convention DOES apply.

 

I know it's hard to have to live by the rules when terrorists clearly don't (it's worth remembering that not ALL prisoners are terrorists; some are in there for theft and other petty crimes..some are even totally innocent of all wrong doing, see the two British detainees released from Gitmo earlier this year) but as the good guys, that's what we have to do. Perhaps if we DID obey the Geneva convention then we wouldn't have the many cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan..not to mention what is yet to come out from Gitmo Bay.

 

Yes it can be argued that the people torturing/killing/raping the prisoners were a select few - it can equally be argued that if the Geneva Convention was adhered to as policy then the torture stuff may not have happened, or at the very least not on the scale that it did.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Courtesy of dailykos....

 

Seymour Hersh says the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

 

    "The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher." ...

 

Frat hazing, I assume, will continue to be the standard explanation on the right along with the ever popular postulation that some Arabs, somewhere, are worse than this.

 

But of course, since this guy was the one who helped break the My Lai massacre....evil lying liberal, right?

[Guest MikeSC]

"Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country"

 

That alone covers a lot of detainees - epsecially in Iraq.

Most of them, in fact, DIDN'T and DO NOT belong to the Iraqi armed forces. And they also violate the provisions mentioned above --- but continue ignoring that.

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them ."

And the terrorists are one of the High Contracting Parties? See, if "two or more" aren't involved, your point is a little moot.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

 

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture ;

1) Torture didn't happen. Mistreatment did.

2) They aren't covered --- you even (unintentionally) showed that.

(b) Taking of hostages;

 

© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment ;

Funny you didn't bold "b".

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

 

So, the Geneva convention DOES apply.

Except, well, it doesn't. Terrorists weren't a contracted party.

I know it's hard to have to live by the rules when terrorists clearly don't (it's worth remembering that not ALL prisoners are terrorists; some are in there for theft and other petty crimes..some are even totally innocent of all wrong doing, see the two British detainees released from Gitmo earlier this year) but as the good guys, that's what we have to do. Perhaps if we DID obey the Geneva convention then we wouldn't have the many cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan..not to mention what is yet to come out from Gitmo Bay.

"Many" cases? Not really. And if anything was happening in Gitmo --- it would've made news by now. The military is rather open.

But of course, since this guy was the one who helped break the My Lai massacre....evil lying liberal, right?

Does the phrase "Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day" mean anything?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

"Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country"

 

That alone covers a lot of detainees - epsecially in Iraq.

Most of them, in fact, DIDN'T and DO NOT belong to the Iraqi armed forces. And they also violate the provisions mentioned above --- but continue ignoring that.

"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them ."

And the terrorists are one of the High Contracting Parties? See, if "two or more" aren't involved, your point is a little moot.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

 

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture ;

1) Torture didn't happen. Mistreatment did.

2) They aren't covered --- you even (unintentionally) showed that.

(b) Taking of hostages;

 

© Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment ;

Funny you didn't bold "b".

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

 

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

 

So, the Geneva convention DOES apply.

Except, well, it doesn't. Terrorists weren't a contracted party.

I know it's hard to have to live by the rules when terrorists clearly don't (it's worth remembering that not ALL prisoners are terrorists; some are in there for theft and other petty crimes..some are even totally innocent of all wrong doing, see the two British detainees released from Gitmo earlier this year) but as the good guys, that's what we have to do. Perhaps if we DID obey the Geneva convention then we wouldn't have the many cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan..not to mention what is yet to come out from Gitmo Bay.

"Many" cases? Not really. And if anything was happening in Gitmo --- it would've made news by now. The military is rather open.

But of course, since this guy was the one who helped break the My Lai massacre....evil lying liberal, right?

Does the phrase "Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day" mean anything?

-=Mike

I didn't say MOST. I said MANY detainees were a part of the Iraqi army.

 

I would define "contracting parties" as one side and the other in a war, therfore two sides ARE involved. Us and them. Coalition and Iraqi's, whether they were the members of the Iraqi army or not is irrelevant, but for the sake of arguement, we'll just focus on the former Iraqi soldiers that have been imprisoned.

 

You call rape, murder, beatings, forced oral sex, forced feeding of pork which is disallowed under their religion "mistreatment"?! It's fucking torture.

 

The military is fairly open? WTF? The detainees in Gitmo have yet to be charged with anything nor have they been allowed visitors or contact with the outside world. Besides, two former detainees have already told of their abuse there. And that's just TWO that were released. If you think that no torture went on in Gitmo, or is going on, you are either extremely naive or just plain ignorant.

 

The Geneva convention applies and even if it didn't, I would have expected our treatment of prisoners to be of a much higher standard.

 

Your defense of the abuse is plain disgusting.

 

Are you a gimmick poster?

[Guest MikeSC]

I didn't say MOST. I said MANY detainees were a part of the Iraqi army.

 

I would define "contracting parties" as one side and the other in a war, therfore two sides ARE involved. Us and them. Coalition and Iraqi's, whether they were the members of the Iraqi army or not is irrelevant, but for the sake of arguement, we'll just focus on the former Iraqi soldiers that have been imprisoned.

Hell, did Iraq even sign it? And, again, the problem is with the terrorists who DON'T follow the rules.

You call rape, murder, beatings, forced oral sex, forced feeding of pork which is disallowed under their religion "mistreatment"?! It's fucking torture.

Eating pork is now torture?

 

Terrorist: "No, you can't make me talk."

Interrogator: "Fine, get the pork chops!"

Terrorist: "NOOOOO!"

 

And I'll say that the allegations have only become more and more overblown over time.

The military is fairly open? WTF? The detainees in Gitmo have yet to be charged with anything nor have they been allowed visitors or contact with the outside world. Besides, two former detainees have already told of their abuse there. And that's just TWO that were released. If you think that no torture went on in Gitmo, or is going on, you are either extremely naive or just plain ignorant.

How do we know about Abu Gharib?

 

BECAUSE THE US MILITARY REPORTED IT BACK IN JANUARY.

 

Duh.

The Geneva convention applies and even if it didn't, I would have expected our treatment of prisoners to be of a much higher standard.

Getting intel to save lives is more important than giving a con a "culturally acceptable menu", thanks just the same.

Your defense of the abuse is plain disgusting.

 

Are you a gimmick poster?

Yup. Total gimmick poster.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

It does sound comical, I agree, but to someone who takes their religion VERY seriously, it IS a form of torture.

 

The allegations aren't allegations - they've been proven. Videos and photograhs don't lie. I also can't see how they've been overblown either..it's there to see!

 

What do you think we did, just made them eat pork subs and tickle them?

 

Yes. the US were aware of the mistreatment in January but didn't take steps until months later...why? Because the media were onto it.

[Guest MikeSC]

It does sound comical, I agree, but to someone who takes their religion VERY seriously, it IS a form of torture.

In the REAL world, that gets filed under "Tough Shit".

The allegations aren't allegations - they've been proven. Videos and photograhs don't lie. I also can't see how they've been overblown either..it's there to see!

There've been VIDEOS of this? OK, where? Have YOU seen them?

 

And the only pics I've seen are of humiliation --- which is hardly torture.

What do you think we did, just made them eat pork subs and tickle them?

Nope, we kept them awake for HOURS and HOURS until the idiots decided to start talking. Go us!

Yes. the US were aware of the mistreatment in January but didn't take steps until months later...why? Because the media were onto it.

Because they had to investigate it. You know, the thing that allowed them to convict the people guilty.

 

The media knew about it in January --- you know, WHEN THE MILITARY TOLD THEM. Why did THEY sit on it for months?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Many of the still photos were taken from video footage.

 

If you've only seen humiliation you must have missed the picture of the dead Iraqi prisoner with the soldier standing over him giving a thumbs up. And the picture of the naked prisoners piled on top of each other. And the picture of the prisoner forced to suck another prisoners cock.

 

In the real world, being forced fed pork against one's religion isn't "tough shit" - it's torture. It's difficult for non muslims to comprehend just HOW bad that is for muslims to have to do.

 

Not to mention that a lot of these prisoners were in there despite being innocent or for petty crimes such as theft and have since been freed.

 

The torture wasn't done to gain information either - this was lower level soldiers (privates, corprorals) doing the abuse for FUN.

[Guest MikeSC]

Many of the still photos were taken from video footage.

And you know this how?

 

And, well, I didn't see any forced oral sex and the like.

If you've only seen humiliation you must have missed the picture of the dead Iraqi prisoner with the soldier standing over him giving a thumbs up. And the picture of the naked prisoners piled on top of each other. And the picture of the prisoner forced to suck another prisoners cock.

Yes, I have NEVER seen the picture of a prisoner forced to suck another's cock. I've never seen it anywhere (honest truth). Can you link it here?

In the real world, being forced fed pork against one's religion isn't "tough shit" - it's torture. It's difficult for non muslims to comprehend just HOW bad that is for muslims to have to do.

Guess what -- you get captured, you lose some rights. Deal with it. You get fed what you get fed.

The torture wasn't done to gain information either - this was lower level soldiers (privates, corprorals) doing the abuse for FUN.

And the ones who did it for that reason are either in jail RIGHT NOW or awaiting trial.

-=Mike

[Zorin Industries 0]

Weren't the photos and video of sexual torture seen behind closed doors by Senators, I think I remember something about that on the news a month or two ago?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

This is actually an account of what this "possible child abuse" entails:

 

http://stream.realimpact.net/?file=clients...ossroads_300.rm

 

It starts at about 1:07 on the tape, and the juicy stuff starts at around 1:30. This is a sample.

 

Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad [...]

The women were passing messages saying "Please come and kill me, because of what's happened". Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.

 

It's impossible to say to yourself how do we get there? who are we? Who are these people that sent us there?

[Guest INXS]

I don't have a link to the picture in question and I don't have the time to trawl the net for it right now - perhaps someone else here might do that or someone else has seen the picture?

 

And yes, they are in jail right now, the ones that committed the torture, so do you concede that it was done for jollies rather than intelligence gathering?

[Guest INXS]

A child being sodimised is just humiliation, right Mike?

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't have a link to the picture in question and I don't have the time to trawl the net for it right now - perhaps someone else here might do that or someone else has seen the picture?

 

And yes, they are in jail right now, the ones that committed the torture, so do you concede that it was done for jollies rather than intelligence gathering?

For some of them, absolutely. And they're being punished for it, as they should be.

A child being sodimised is just humiliation, right Mike?

You could've saved me the time and just posted a link to the picture, rather than requiring me to ask for one.

-=Mike