War With Iraq

[Prophet Tenebrae]

A Saddam apologist? America was one of his biggest supporters until he invaded Kuwait. Maybe they should be apologising.

[stan]

when i saw those photos of the way america treat those suspected 'al-queada' prisoners in cuba i thought "thats terrible". when i saw the pictures of the americans at the hands of the iraqis i thought "thats terible". when i realised the double standards of america in treating their prisoners one way and then gurning when theres are treated in a similar manner i thought "what goes around comes around".
stop gurning yanks cos youre just as bad and youre the illegally invading force!

[hr]its a good job your mamma died giving birth. if she'd seen yer, she'd a died of shame.

[nova]

An interesting point raised last night on the BBC World Service is the fact that when the US took prisoners in Afghanistan and subsequently incarcerated them in Guantanamo Bay they were refused even official recognition as POWs, meaning that their rights were not protected by the Geneva Convention. Suddenly however, now that US troops are being held captive, the Geneva Convention has become of paramount importance again.

In addition, does it not strike anyone as rather convenient that the illegality of filming POWs for public curiosity allows the US and UK governments to place a moral obligation on Western TV networks not to show the more disturbing images? This prevents public opinion from swinging too drastically against the war.

I find the Allies' (and especially America's) inconsistent attitude to the application of international law utterly outrageous, and would urge everyone to read the article entitled "One rule for them..." at www.monbiot.com taken from the Observer on Sunday.

[_buff_]

The treatment of the US Prisoners of War held by Iraq is obviously a breach of the Third Geneva Convention for several reasons:

1) The interrogation or compelling of Prisoners of War to give information other than name, age, rank and service number/ID is a protocol breach.
2) Prisoners of War must be protected from both public curiosity and recriminatory attack.
3) Prisoners of War may not be killed unless in exceptional circumstances. The Third Geneva Convention allows for this in certain situations, such as escape attempts (but only as a last resort and after sufficient warning). However, where an individual is declared a Prisoner of War, the Captor has a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of the Prisoner and any punishments for offences committed whilst a Prisoner of War must adhere to strict guidelines and the laws of the military force of the Detaining Power.

Clearly, the interrogation of the Prisoners of war breaches point 1 above. It is correct that footage was first aired on Iraqi TV, and still is being aired repeatedly despite US jamming attempts, before being shown by the Al-Jazeera Network (which, coincidentally, is disputably part of the Saddam propaganda machine despite being based in Qatar given the strong anti-West sentiments they prefer to espouse)

The second point above is obviously a greater breach of the protocol. By filming and broadcasting the pictures of the Prisoners of War in Iraq, and world wide by Al-Jazeera, the Iraqi military broke the Geneva Convention by allowing the Prisoners to be individually identifiable whilst the line of questioning the interrogators pursued was obviously pampering to a specific audience. It is the responsibility of the Detaining Power to ensure that Military Prisoners of War are treated within the Third Geneva Convention not that of broadcasters who may have chosen to air such material. Obviously, should blame be apportioned according to taste we would be looking to Iraqi TV, the Al-Jazeera Network and the Iraqi Government, however, International Law would only accuse the latter.

Lastly, the bodies of the dead soldiers in the video show that the victims were shot at close range. A gun shot wound to the head at close range leaves a distinct and unmistakeable wound which differs greatly from that of a gun shot at intermediate or long range. The bodies in the Iraqi footage showed clear signs of gun shot wounds at close range. This close range would suggest that the soldiers had surrendered and were killed after this. A killing of this sort would contravene the Third Geneva Convention in various ways (No Quarter, Prohibition of Perfidy etc.)

Personally, whilst sympathetic to the situation of any Prisoner of War I feel greater revulsion at the human rights abuses currently being carried out by America at Guantanamo Bay where 641 individuals are being held in the name of the War Against Terrorism. The Iraqi breaches of the third convention figure among the less heinous however the American breaches number no less than 15. Donald Rumsfeld might have gotten this far using some fancy turns of phrase (they’re ‘unlawful combatants’ not PoWs, don’t you know?) but his new found zeal for International Human rights could just be his own undoing!

[Guest]

... read the accounts of Ann Clywd, I think she is called, Labour MP and ardent pro-war campaigner. She went to Iraq and her accounts are truely horrific. Torture and rape on a widespread level, grim reading but for that comment "what goes around comes around" I sincerely hope that was meant to be funny.

[Cain]

The reason that the US were able to ignore the Geneva convention for the prisoners at camp x-ray was because they claimed that it didn't apply.

The prisoners that they were holding were not prisoners of war, but unlawful combatants. War hadn't been declared (war on terror doesn't count) so the rules of war weren't in place.

[Al]

They can say what they like about "unlawful combatants" but there is no such thing. If there were then the coalition forces would come under that description. The Geneva Conventions say that ANYONE captured in combat (irrespective of whether they are regular or irregular forces) is entitled to protection as, and the status of, a POW.

[hr]We are near waking when we dream we are dreaming.

[_buff_]

I totally agree with the sentiments of the 'what goes around' comment, perhaps it was a tad in bad taste The breachers of the Geneva Convention by the American Government in Guantanamo Bay are far worse than any breach by Iraq that we know of in this war (excepting the likely killing of the now dead Prisoners of War).

By way of example, a technique which is used to aid interrogation (remember these prisoners have not been found guilty and likely will not appear before a court, civil or military, since their imprisonment is limitless in duration) is 'lite torture'. This involves depriving prisoners of sleep for some days and subjecting them to bright lights throughout. Doesn't sound so bad? Maybe you should ask the prisoners who have tried to kill themselves by smashing their heads on walls or slitting their wrists.

Perhaps a bit off topic, but I think it clearly and crucially underlines the extent to which the US and British Propaganda Machine permeates. Perhaps the extreme polarisation of argument regarding this war is more to do with our lack of trust of our own governments than Sadam's.

[Cain]

[s]Al wrote on 19:22, 25th Mar 2003:
They can say what they like about "unlawful combatants" but there is no such thing. If there were then the coalition forces would come under that description. The Geneva Conventions say that ANYONE captured in combat (irrespective of whether they are regular or irregular forces) is entitled to protection as, and the status of, a POW.



I know that unlawful combatants are a big fudge. i'm just saying that that's how the US has managed to justify its actions and stay on its moral high horse.

[STOP MORAL EQUIVILIZING IT PISSES ME OFF!]

Im almost getting the message you people are gitty at the prospects of pows held by Iraq.

Lets lay a few things out Al Queda prisoners are being treated humanely. For the most part the Red Cross gave the Guantanamo bay camp a good rating on how prisoners are handled. But they are not bound by the Geneva convention. They did not fight for a sovreign army The taliban soldiers were treated under the Geneva convention because Afghanistan was a sovriegn country with a sovriegn army, Al Queda is not.

You people look for any way to use moral equivilancy. Especially the one who said who pointed out we supported Iraq in the 80s. What point that has, I have absolutely no idea. There is no moral equivilency between the US and the Iraq, or Al Queda, dont do it.

[Guest]

[s]_buff_ wrote on 19:04, 25th Mar 2003:
Personally, whilst sympathetic to the situation of any Prisoner of War I feel greater revulsion at the human rights abuses currently being carried out by America at Guantanamo Bay where 641 individuals are being held in the name of the War Against Terrorism.

Incredible, utterly incredible. Those American POW's were executed at point-blank range (a woman among them). One does not grant "soldier" status to terrorists. By your reasoning, one would grant that status to any common thug or murderer. You insult all uniformed soldiers with your stupidity.

BTW the Americans aren't attempting to "jam" the television signals in Iraq. They could take it out anytime they wanted.

It's utterly amazing how many 20-year-old, foreign policy experts reside at a second-tier, Scottish university.

[Deej]

I was horrified to open US News and world report today and find a photo of two dead Iraqi soldiers, one headless, in a foxhole. I'd seen the still on tv but couldn't tell much--I guess it didn't register--in the magazine it was horrifically graphic and in my opinion, wrong to have to see. Devastating. An image I will never be able to erase.

It's too late to stop all of this. I just hate how I feel about it all. How am I supposed to talk to my little girl about her uncle, who's there?

[Dr. Of Democracy]

When Iraq (and it is seemingly likely When, not if) use chemical or bioglogical weapons , how many of you will blame the US for "anatagonizing" Iraq?

I'm willing to bet almost all of you, so I'm calling you out now with a preemptive strike.
Who do you blame for an Alcoholic being an Alcoholic, the drinker or those arround him?

[stan]

[s]Unregisted User STOP MORAL EQUIVILIZING IT PISSES ME OFF! wrote on 19:55, 25th Mar 2003:
But they are not bound by the Geneva convention. They did not fight for a sovreign army


the IRA fights for no sovereign army you jumped up little peep squeek yet you gurn when they dont get a three course meal everyday in the maze.

see i can use big scary black letters aswell you hypocritical gimp.

[hr]
its a good job your mamma died giving birth. if she'd seen yer, she'd a died of shame.

[Jeff]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 22:16, 25th Mar 2003:

Incredible, utterly incredible. Those American POW's were executed at point-blank range (a woman among them). One does not grant "soldier" status to terrorists. By your reasoning, one would grant that status to any common thug or murderer. You insult all uniformed soldiers with your stupidity.


So charge them with a crime then. Common thugs and murderers at least get the prospect of a trial and the possibility of getting a not guilty verdict. These people have been assumed guilty until proved innocent. Liberty and justice for all. ha.


BTW the Americans aren't attempting to "jam" the television signals in Iraq. They could take it out anytime they wanted.


They tried bombing it last night. It didn't work. And there goes their "we will not destroy cilivian infrastructure" phase.


It's utterly amazing how many 20-year-old, foreign policy experts reside at a second-tier, Scottish university.


Actually, this is the main reason I decided to reply to this post. The rest of it was all pointless drivel. However when people slag of st andrews I get annoyed, I like it here, its nice, friendly, and has a lot of pointless traditions to partake in. So here goes:
st andrews is the third oldest university in britain, founded in 1411 (before america was even discovered). If this is such a second rate university, why have I been offered a place at cambridge once I graduate on the basis of my st andrews degree? I take it from this post that you yourself got into cambridge/oxford easily then. Oh, and I guess you didn't know that loads of people come to st andrews who had the grades for the "first-tier" universities, but failed the interview. Some even come in spite of getting offered a place at cambridge/oxford.

Get a life. Why are you reading a St Andrews message board if you think we are stupid and that our opinions are worthless?

[_buff_]

Re: Guantanamo Bay and the Geneva Convention

It is incorrect to say that the Geneva Convention does not apply to 'unlawful combatants'. The Geneva Convention does require the detaining power to treat any individuals held humanely. Donald Rumsfeld has stated that 'the United States is treating them -- all detainees -- consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention. They are being treated humanely' (DoD News Briefing, 22/Jan/02) The Red Cross is involved in Guantanamo Bay because the DoD has committed itself to detaining the 'unlawful combatants' consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention – a status which was only conferred on the prisoners after repeated calls and expressions of concern by the ICRC.

Furthermore, the Red Cross (ICRC) has NOT publicly commented on the situation in Guantanamo Bay since 'the information about its observations and findings remain confidential to be shared only with the detaining authorities... In no circumstances does the ICRC comment publicly on the treatment of detainees or on conditions of detention...' (IRCR news briefing).

Obviously to claim that ‘For the most part the Red Cross gave the Guantanamo bay camp a good rating on how prisoners are handled’ is false and let’s also be aware that any statements regarding Camp X-ray are not applicable to the Guantanamo Bay situation since it is Camp Delta where the ‘unlawful combatants’ are held. If, as Donald Rumsfeld stated, the prisoners at Camp Delta are being held in accordance with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention then clearly protocol breaches have occurred.

Moral equivalency has a clear and useful place in political discourse and in response to the ‘There is no moral equivilency between the US and the Iraq, or Al Queda, don’t do it. ‘ comment, we are talking about International Law which, by its very nature, is underpinned by moral equivalency.

Re: Conferring PoW status on common thugs or murderers.

Whilst I agree in principle that we must ensure that the Third Geneva Convention is strictly limited in its application through eligibility criteria, the DoDs claim to be adhering to the Principles of the Third Convention makes this somewhat a moot point in the argument..

Re: Jamming Iraqi TV Signals

Psyops have been heavily involved in psychological warfare setting up two propaganda radio stations across Iraq, attempting to disrupt TV signals by broadcasting screentest cards on the same frequency as Iraq TV and massive leaflet dropping throughout the country. The claim that the coalition forces could 'take out TV broadcasts' if they want to is ambitious and arrogant at best and, at worst, symptomatic of an ignorance of international humanitarian law. Whilst satellite communications were knocked out in the recent bombing, TV broadcasts were not interrupted but diminished in quality as the network redundancy took up the slack and switched to secondary transmitters. The US claim that broadcasts were interrupted are false as the station was off air at the time of the attack(the station is not 24 hours and the attack was in the scheduled downtime) and resumed transmission in the morning at the correct time.

An interesting point to note is that the bombing of the TV Station may well constitute a War Crime as a breach of the Geneva Conventions. According to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions Article 52 (2) “Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as the objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Obviously the television station is a civilian object and is therefore protected under international humanitarian law and even though the station was broadcasting propaganda, the Geneva Convention does not allow for such disproportionate attack. The coalition forces must, again, show that their actions took into account the threat to civilian lives and demonstrate the practical military use of the station (of which propaganda is not one).

Re: Slagging off St Andrews

It’s a cheap shot when you have to resort to name calling to attempt to make your point because your argument isn’t capable.

[Hurt by name calling]

[s]stan wrote on 15:25, 26th Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User STOP MORAL EQUIVILIZING IT PISSES ME OFF! wrote on 19:55, 25th Mar 2003:[i]
But they are not bound by the Geneva convention. They did not fight for a sovreign army


the IRA fights for no sovereign army you jumped up little peep squeek yet you gurn when they dont get a three course meal everyday in the maze.

see i can use big scary black letters aswell you hypocritical gimp.[/i]


you can but it doesnt make since, I'm not a "peep squeek" nor have I ever said anything supportive of the IRA

[Cambridge is better]

[s]Jeff wrote on 16:45, 26th Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User wrote on 22:16, 25th Mar 2003:

So charge them with a crime then. Common thugs and murderers at least get the prospect of a trial and the possibility of getting a not guilty verdict. These people have been assumed guilty until proved innocent. Liberty and justice for all. ha.



Liberty and justice for americans, I dont have a problem giving them military tribunals in fact many of them have gotten tribunals but I do not want any cia sources being hurt in order to give these scum a fair trial. I look at it this way they are prisoners of war in the war on terror, when the war on terror is over We can let them go home.


They tried bombing it last night. It didn't work. And there goes their "we will not destroy cilivian infrastructure" phase.


It had to be done it was a propaganda machine. This war has been ubelievably sucessful. If you told Montgomery, Patton, or McAurther that they could kill 30,000 enemy soldiers and only take about three dozen casualties, and about the same civillianss killed


Actually, this is the main reason I decided to reply to this post. The rest of it was all pointless drivel. However when people slag of st andrews I get annoyed, I like it here, its nice, friendly, and has a lot of pointless traditions to partake in. So here goes:
st andrews is the third oldest university in britain, founded in 1411 (before america was even discovered). If this is such a second rate university, why have I been offered a place at cambridge once I graduate on the basis of my st andrews degree? I take it from this post that you yourself got into cambridge/oxford easily then. Oh, and I guess you didn't know that loads of people come to st andrews who had the grades for the "first-tier" universities, but failed the interview. Some even come in spite of getting offered a place at cambridge/oxford.

Get a life. Why are you reading a St Andrews message board if you think we are stupid and that our opinions are worthless?


I read this message board to antagonize liberals. There are really no issues that the facts are on the side of the liberals so it's fun to show people how wrong they are. As for your school I've only heard of the golf course.

[Stormin Norman]

[s]_buff_ wrote on 16:57, 26th Mar 2003:
Re: Guantanamo Bay and the Geneva Convention

It is incorrect to say that the Geneva Convention does not apply to 'unlawful combatants'. The Geneva Convention does require the detaining power to treat any individuals held humanely. Donald Rumsfeld has stated that 'the United States is treating them -- all detainees -- consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention. They are being treated humanely' (DoD News Briefing, 22/Jan/02) The Red Cross is involved in Guantanamo Bay because the DoD has committed itself to detaining the 'unlawful combatants' consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention ? a status which was only conferred on the prisoners after repeated calls and expressions of concern by the ICRC.

Furthermore, the Red Cross (ICRC) has NOT publicly commented on the situation in Guantanamo Bay since 'the information about its observations and findings remain confidential to be shared only with the detaining authorities... In no circumstances does the ICRC comment publicly on the treatment of detainees or on conditions of detention...' (IRCR news briefing).

Obviously to claim that ?For the most part the Red Cross gave the Guantanamo bay camp a good rating on how prisoners are handled? is false and let?s also be aware that any statements regarding Camp X-ray are not applicable to the Guantanamo Bay situation since it is Camp Delta where the ?unlawful combatants? are held. If, as Donald Rumsfeld stated, the prisoners at Camp Delta are being held in accordance with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention then clearly protocol breaches have occurred.

Lengthy read I rememberthe red cross, and Im pretty sure some UN representives visiting the red cross, I can infer that since there has not been further complaints about the situation it must not be to bad. We dont torture people, we may make them uncomfortable but sleep deprevation is not torture.


Moral equivalency has a clear and useful place in political discourse and in response to the ?There is no moral equivilency between the US and the Iraq, or Al Queda, don?t do it. ? comment, we are talking about International Law which, by its very nature, is underpinned by moral equivalency.

No there is absolutely no need for moral equivalency here. We have not executed Guantanamo bay residents,like Iraqis have. Not letting terrorists go is not the sameas torturing and executing POWs and only you anti american loons would think so.


Whilst I agree in principle that we must ensure that the Third Geneva Convention is strictly limited in its application through eligibility criteria, the DoDs claim to be adhering to the Principles of the Third Convention makes this somewhat a moot point in the argument..

there you go again there is absolutely no equivilency between what they have done to POWs and what we have done to terrorists. Why do you people only complain when the US may ( which they didnt) violate the geneva convention.



Psyops have been heavily involved in psychological warfare setting up two propaganda radio stations across Iraq, attempting to disrupt TV signals by broadcasting screentest cards on the same frequency as Iraq TV and massive leaflet dropping throughout the country. The claim that the coalition forces could 'take out TV broadcasts' if they want to is ambitious and arrogant at best and, at worst, symptomatic of an ignorance of international humanitarian law. Whilst satellite communications were knocked out in the recent bombing, TV broadcasts were not interrupted but diminished in quality as the network redundancy took up the slack and switched to secondary transmitters. The US claim that broadcasts were interrupted are false as the station was off air at the time of the attack(the station is not 24 hours and the attack was in the scheduled downtime) and resumed transmission in the morning at the correct time.

not totally sure what yourtrying to argue but we sure as hell could take out all of thier must see propaganda TV if we wanted to, the problem is it will take out civilians which we hope to avoid. But make no mistake if the USA wants to blow something up it can

An interesting point to note is that the bombing of the TV Station may well constitute a War Crime as a breach of the Geneva Conventions. According to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions Article 52 (2) ?Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as the objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.? Obviously the television station is a civilian object and is therefore protected under international humanitarian law and even though the station was broadcasting propaganda, the Geneva Convention does not allow for such disproportionate attack. The coalition forces must, again, show that their actions took into account the threat to civilian lives and demonstrate the practical military use of the station (of which propaganda is not one).

As the Television is run by the military it is a legitimate target. It cant be argued this is a comand and Control structure. Attacking a civilian television station would be illegal but this is a government controlled channel.

But thats all semantics, The Iraqi TV was propagandizing the war, it was even encouraging civilians to fight with guerella warfare, taking it out, although I understand its still on is essential.

LEts not get bogged down in this issue of is it legal, the question is it right? If an action will save more lives which this will then its right. A few weeks ago you people were arguing on if they had WMDs and if the collateral damage is worth this action.

The red cross last I heard had the collateral damage around 25 civilians. Iraq is now saying 200, but thats highly debatable, and weve found Iraqi troops carrying cures for VX and antrax, as well as 3000 biological suits, they obviously know we wont be using these weapons, so why are they carrying these?

This is an extremely evil regime, we are just scratching the surface of how bad the plight of the Iraqi people has been, you people argueing about such trivial things about the geneva convention just baffles me at your dislike for the US.

[Cain]

[s]Unregisted User Cambridge is better wrote on 17:05, 26th Mar 2003:


(The bombing of the TV station) had to be done it was a propaganda machine.

I have the memory from the time that the TV centre in Kosovo was levelled that the media and other things that helped the war effort in a non military capacity were excluded from being a legitimate target and were specifically exempted from being part of the war machine.

or is my memory playing tricks on me?