Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's like having my own deranged stalker.

Take a number. She is Hank's stalker sock, too.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Not Me
Does anyone else find it incredibly odd that Nick Berg was in Iraq? He wasn't a contractor. He just went there on his own to supposedly, try to help rebuild Iraq. WTF? Can anyone just go to Iraq if they want to?

In the reports that I read, he is referred to as a business owner and the business is called a telecommunications business. So, he owns a telecommunications business at 26 years old and instead of bidding on contracts, he just shows up in Iraq to look for work? WTF?

It is all so odd to me. It doesn't surprise me at all that he was detained in Iraq. People must have been like WTF are you doing here? Really, WTF was he doing there?

I don't see what's too extraordinary about it. The guy had a very niche business of fixing communications towers or some such and considering a ton of competitors probably wouldn't also be in Iraq, he may have figured he'd have a better chance of getting work. And he probaby didn't have a lot of work yet so he had time to travel. And later, it wouldn't be bad to say he took part in rebuilding Iraq.

Anyway, I had heard the guy had been interrogated late March to early April for about two weeks by the FBI after being arrested by Iraqi's. Today I did a quick search for the video of the beheading and then said "What the hell am I doing?" No way do I need to see that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, so they're going to concede the issue? Too bad. I would think that hiding amongst the women and kids while you shoot might give them a problem claiming GC protection.

I guess I really don't understand what you're saying here. We ought not respect international norms when dealing with an insurgency? Is there some principled basis for your stance, or are you just saying that the administration has a better legal case than it's been letting on?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess I really don't understand what you're saying here. We ought not respect international norms when dealing with an insurgency?

Nope, just being the normal lawyer, looking at one specific issue. I've read the GC, and I don't think it applies in this situation. Standards of decency do, of course, and this GC commentary has nothing to do with that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Nope, just being the normal lawyer, looking at one specific issue. I've read the GC, and I don't think it applies in this situation. Standards of decency do, of course, and this GC commentary has nothing to do with that.

Until very recently, we've been pretending that the fighting in Iraq was over, and that we were the civil authority in the country. As such, it seems pretty clear that we should be considering ourselves bound by the Geneva Conventions, or their functional equivalents.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, so they're going to concede the issue? Too bad. I would think that hiding amongst the women and kids while you shoot might give them a problem claiming GC protection.

As Hank suggests, I don't think the administration approved of the conduct in the first place, and didn't want to go there.

While clever, it's politically infeasible to justify the mistreatment by relying on the details of the convention. Sure, maybe the detainees lacked the proper insignia, but even though the convention is somewhat quaint in its assumptions of the rules of war, the substance of it (the requirements of detainee treatment) are considered pretty sacrosanct, and using the former to evade the latter would look disingenous in what is already an embarassing situation.

There's probably a good debate to be had over how the GC should be updated to cover conflicts as they are today, and not as they were in the trench warfare of WWI -- but this probably isn't the best time to initiate it.

But, "falling all over themselves"? Somehow I can't imagine that from Rummy, or any other Bush people. Is that how you phrase it when someone you don't like does something they should?

You may Bin Gone, but in some respects it's as if you never left. Methinks you impute too much. I'm characterizing what I heard, not that it came from someone I didn't like.

It wasn't Rummy, but I do remember hearing on the radio portions of the hearings with sub-secretary somethingorother in DOD. Leiberman (I think) was talking about the standards of treatment of Gitmo detainees being moved over to Iraq, and Mr. Subsecretary emphasizing at some length that this wasn't the case -- that the GC was the standard in Iraq, and he wanted to clear that up.

Gattigap

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
While clever, it's politically infeasible to justify the mistreatment by relying on the details of the convention.

Not trying to justify it. It's not justifiable. Just trying to figure out the sloppy hysterics of the situation. Crying GC when it doesn't apply, but isn't needed, strikes me as sloppy.

Methinks you impute too much. I'm characterizing what I heard, not that it came from someone I didn't like.

Sorry. You meant "falling all over themselves" in an honorific sort of way. I get it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Although the pressure has been on Rumsfeld to resign, Josh Marshall suggests that Powell will be the next one out the door. He doesn't put it that way, but it sounds like Powell has his bags packed:

posted on http://talkingpointsmemo.com
Okay, I think the wheels are now officially off this car. The Baltimore Sun quotes Colin Powell as saying that "we kept the president informed of the concerns that were raised by the ICRC and other international organizations as part of my regular briefings of the president, and advised him that we had to follow these issues, and when we got notes sent to us or reports sent to us ... we had to respond to them, and the president certainly made it clear that that’s what he expected us to do."

Powell further said that he, Rice and Rumsfeld kept Bush “fully informed of the concerns that were being expressed, not in specific details, but in general terms.”

Not only does that contradict what the White House and the president have said. It contradicts the testimony of one of Don Rumsfeld's principal deputies from only yesterday.

When asked by Sen. John Warner whether the ICRC's concerns had made their way to the Secretary's level, Stephen Cambone replied: "No, sir, they did not. Those reports -- those working papers, again, as far as I understand it, were delivered at the command level. They are designed -- the process is designed so that the ICRC can engage with the local commanders and make those kinds of improvements that are necessary in a more collaborative environment than in an adversarial one."

I've been hearing for days that the State Department at the highest levels (i.e., not a few lefty FSOs in the bureaucracy, but authorized at the highest levels) has been leaking like crazy against the civilian leadership of the Pentagon on this story.

And here we have it right out in the open. Powell isn't exactly saying the White House or the president is lying. What he's doing might fairly be described as walking up to the black board, writing out "2+2=" and then letting us draw our own conclusions.

Now, Powell's critics will argue that this is his standard operating procedure: distancing himself from bad news with a shrewd campaign of leaks and carefully phrased attacks, which give the targets of the attacks no clear place to grab on to. And they'd be right. That is classic Colin Powell, a master Washington insider.

But that doesn't mean it's not true. And at a certain point -- though you'd imagine we'd already reached that point -- having the Secretary of State openly contradicting the Secretary of Defense and the president on a matter of such grave concern to the country is a situation that simply cannot last.

OTOH, maybe Bush can't afford to let Powell so soon before the election. What's Powell's game here?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, so they're going to concede the issue? Too bad. I would think that hiding amongst the women and kids while you shoot might give them a problem claiming GC protection.

Bilmore, I understand how you're riled at the political implications of this debacle, but really . . . your persistence in suggesting that the prisoners in question at Abu Ghraib, as well as the other victims of abuses at the hands of U.S. soldiers yet to be disclosed, necessarily engaged in such activity is so baseless as to approach the level of fantasy.

Most of the Iraqi detainees are merely common criminals, or folks just picked up and questioned for a while (eventually released). No involvement in the resistance -- much less the activities you described. Consider that we were estimating what? 5,000 fighters max in the "resistance" -- but had 40,000+ detainees.

For instance, back in October-December, 2003, the U.S. was conducting lots of security sweeps as well as targeted raids based on itel (some good/some not). The practices led to some good intel -- we got Hussein (for example), but the percentage of those "swept up" who were actually guilty of anything was quite small.

One source I know described it as: "There is a bombing. We go to the area and grab anyone who looks mildly interesting. Once you're in the detention center there is no presumption of innocence."

You may be right that the GC doesn't apply to said prisoners, I don't know. I don't see that issue helping us much.

However, you should stop assuming or arguing that the men who we held down, spread their legs, and stomped repeatedly on their balls (to use the Camp Bucca example involving the same unit) were necessarily: (a) bad people or (b) did bad things or (c) even fought against us. It ain't necessarily so.

S_A_M

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
As Hank suggests, I don't think the administration approved of the conduct in the first place, and didn't want to go there.

While clever, it's politically infeasible to justify the mistreatment by relying on the details of the convention. Sure, maybe the detainees lacked the proper insignia, but even though the convention is somewhat quaint in its assumptions of the rules of war, the substance of it (the requirements of detainee treatment) are considered pretty sacrosanct, and using the former to evade the latter would look disingenous in what is already an embarassing situation.

They might also be "conceding the issue" because of the widespread reports (including Taguba's) that more than half of the detainees were not connected to the insurgency. Not sure how the GC would be brought to bear on those folks, if at all, but in any case their presence at Abu Ghraib would seem to complicate the "insurgents are not entitled to these protections anyway" analysis.

But I also agree with Hank's take. The quotes that have been attributed to Rove about how this scandal will take a generation to live down give me some hope that the people at the top realize the true damage here is not simply the result of violating the letter of the GC.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As such, it seems pretty clear that we should be considering ourselves bound by the Geneva Conventions, or their functional equivalents.

If we consider ourselves bound by the GC (and I think we do), but the people who have been mistreated do not, by the terms of the GC themselves, qualify for their protections, why would the GC be pertinent? Can't we simply speak in terms of decent or indecent conduct?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I don't see what's too extraordinary about it. The guy had a very niche business of fixing communications towers or some such and considering a ton of competitors probably wouldn't also be in Iraq, he may have figured he'd have a better chance of getting work. And he probaby didn't have a lot of work yet so he had time to travel. And later, it wouldn't be bad to say he took part in rebuilding Iraq.

I don't think the contracting in Iraq works that way. These contracts are bid for. Random people don't just walk up to the CPA and say "hey, I am here. How about if I help you to build Iraq?"

The way it works is that a main contractor, like say, oh I don't know, how about Halliburton, gets the contract for rebuilding the telecommunications. Then the main contractor sub-contracts out the work or if they have the capacity, does the work.

They don't give the work to one-man shows just because the guy shows up in Iraq. It just doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Anyway, I had heard the guy had been interrogated late March to early April for about two weeks by the FBI after being arrested by Iraqi's.

I don't know if the FBI was involved or not, but I do not blame the Iraqis at all for detaining this guy and trying to find out what he was up to. No one does this. Random people don't just show up in Iraq looking for work. They either come working for relief agencies or for the contractors/subcontractors who have been awarded the contracts to do the work. Or journalists, of course.

It is just too wierd that he was in Iraq.

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Today I did a quick search for the video of the beheading and then said "What the hell am I doing?" No way do I need to see that.

I cannot understand why anyone would watch that unless they were investigating the murder and trying to get clues about the suspects.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
If we consider ourselves bound by the GC (and I think we do), but the people who have been mistreated do not, by the terms of the GC themselves, qualify for their protections, why would the GC be pertinent? Can't we simply speak in terms of decent or indecent conduct?

As I understand it, the Geneva Convention is accepted as expressing international norms about how prisoners should be treated, whether or not it may be said to apply in an individual case. People who refer to it are using it as a proxy for decent conduct, and probably have little to say about who falls within its ambit.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
If we consider ourselves bound by the GC (and I think we do), but the people who have been mistreated do not, by the terms of the GC themselves, qualify for their protections, why would the GC be pertinent? Can't we simply speak in terms of decent or indecent conduct?

I think you are starting from a flawed premise. According to Rummy and Myers, it is true that portions of the GC apply only to those who meet the criteria you posted. However, according to those two, there are other provisions for treating civilians accused of criminal acts when they are living in a war zone and arrested by the opposing military. For instance, if a civilian steals military supplies. According to Rummy and Myers, there are GC provisions that apply in this situation and those provisions apply to the Iraqi detainees at the prison.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is just too wierd that he was in Iraq.

I don't know anything about what this kid's situation was, but I think it's safe to say that there will be far fewer unattached folks like this (unaffiliated with military, contractor, relief orgs, or journalists) floating around in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

It's hard to envision Westerners hanging out in Iraq without sleeping behind a blast wall each night.