Politics: J'accuse!

[Atticus Grinch]

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?

Well, if we're going down that line of argument, isn't it easier to say that while Iraq and Afghanistan were signatories to the GC, the resistance movement doesn't represent the government or people of those nations, and thus the combatants are not entitled to the protections of a treaty they (and their "government") have not ratified?

[ltl/fb]

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?

The Geneva Convention provides an internationally understood set of rules that are defined, not fluid. If we simply speak in terms of decent or indecent, (a) it reinforces the perception that we are saying the rules don't apply to us because we are special and (b) people in the administration will contradict each other as to what is decent and what is indecent when speaking about it, and that will get picked at incessantly.

Those might be prices worth paying, but I don't see what is gained by going with a "decent vs. indecent" standard rather than using the standards in the GC, given that under either rubric there is a significant amount of "indecent" (on the one hand) or "not in compliance" (on the other hand) behavior.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

Not So. NPR did a story about unattached "entrepreneurs" who went to Iraq after the ARCMH* in the hope they would get some reconstruction contracts --- even more so after the announcement that Old Europe wasn't invited to the party. A contractor from Texas was followed around by a radio reporter for the story, hitting all kinds of bureaucratic dead-ends, both American and British, before realizing that you had to work your political connections back home before getting on the plane, because Iraq had no working infrastructure within which to work. In other words, it wasn't even clear whom you were supposed to bribe. The story made it clear there were other such entrepreneurs bouncing around Iraq, looking for construction projects.

*Announcement Regarding Cessation of Major Hostilities, a day that will live in infamy.

[Replaced_Texan]

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?

My guess is that we may not know whether or not the GC applied in all circumstances or any circumstances. My understanding is that it was a pretty mixed population in that prison. Some were insurgents, some garden variety criminals, some were just at the wrong place at the wrong time, and some may have been legitimate prisoners of war (uniform, arms, etc).

To me, it seems somehow wrong that the guy who took up arms against the US (either standing army contemplated by the GC or insurgent) gets the benefits of protection from the GC, when the wrong place, wrong time guy who, as far as I can tell, was thrown in the detention center for the same reasons and was treated the same way, gets "well, that was indecent of us, wasn't it?"

Question: How long before the plaintiff's lawyers show up on behalf of the detainees?

ETA: comma and comment. AG, I heard the same NPR piece. There are a lot of guys from the Houston area over there right now that aren't attached to anyone with an official government contract. Didn't Doonesbury do a whole series of Duke going over to do essentially the same thing until Haliburton showed up in his little fiefdom and took over?

FWIW, I've been reading a soldier's blog where Kellogg Brown & Root is known as "Kick Back & Relax". Anecdotally, the soldiers can pay a local team $250 to refurbish a damaged house for their bunks. KBR to do a similar job: $17,000.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
people have to remember to think back before 92 for examples of how a president should behave and run a staff.

Ah yes. Underlings given implicit carte blanche to wantonly violate national and international laws by a head that's bumbling and inattentive, who then denies all knowledge and hangs them out to dry once the jig is up.

Check. Got it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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? 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?

I will concede sloppiness in phrasing. After all, I was drafting a damned internet posting, not an indictment (and, as a corporate lawyer, I wouldn't know how to draft an indictment anyway).

But Ty's points on the GC and international norms are on point. The key point I was trying to make is that people get hauled up at the Hague for the kind of things we're talking about, and, since no one is above the law, who among our own will we see at the Hague?

I noted that the indictment of Slobodan Milocevic included this choice little bit in paragraph 35:

b) The prolonged and routine imprisonment and confinement of thousands of Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb civilians in detention facilities within and outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the details of which are set out in Schedule C to this indictment.

c) The establishment and perpetuation of inhumane living conditions against Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb civilians, within the above mentioned detention facilities. These living conditions were brutal and characterised by inhumane treatment, overcrowding, starvation, forced labour and systematic physical and psychological abuse, including torture, beatings and sexual assault.

Bush and his boys have shamed all of us; now who will be taken to task and how. A military court martial may not be enough here.

Also note that this indictment goes beyond the GC, and is based also on violation of the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity. Hmmm.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
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.

There should be less unaffiliated westerners in Iraq. They risk becoming hostages and then what, do they expect our military to take risks trying to rescue them? Iraq is a fucking dangerous place for westerners. They aren't helping the efforts over there to be wandering around with a big fucking red target sign on their heads.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
There should be less unaffiliated westerners in Iraq. They risk becoming hostages and then what, do they expect our military to take risks trying to rescue them? Iraq is a fucking dangerous place for westerners. They aren't helping the efforts over them to be wandering around with a big fucking red target sign on their heads.

Sure. It does create some funny messages, though:

"Westerners! Stay the fuck away from here!* What are you, stoopid?"

* But stay tuned for the handover of sovereignty! June 30! Fox News! Be there!!

[Replaced_Texan]

Apparently everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees that the thus far unreleased pictures and videos were horrific. They also think it's probably a bad idea to let these pictures and videos get out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...soner_abuse_46

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
There should be less unaffiliated westerners in Iraq.

"fewer"

Yr pal,

Timmy

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Not So. NPR did a story about unattached "entrepreneurs" who went to Iraq after the ARCMH* in the hope they would get some reconstruction contracts --- even more so after the announcement that Old Europe wasn't invited to the party. A contractor from Texas was followed around by a radio reporter for the story, hitting all kinds of bureaucratic dead-ends, both American and British, before realizing that you had to work your political connections back home before getting on the plane, because Iraq had no working infrastructure within which to work. In other words, it wasn't even clear whom you were supposed to bribe. The story made it clear there were other such entrepreneurs bouncing around Iraq, looking for construction projects.

*Announcement Regarding Cessation of Major Hostilities, a day that will live in infamy.

Thanks for making my point for me. You don't just show up in Iraq and then get a contract. These contracts are being bid for by major international corporations.

This is going to sound really bad but these people who are so naive to think you can just show up in Iraq and get a contract to rebuild Iraq are candidates for the Darwin awards.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
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.

I understand that part, but I have seen good counterarguments as to that applicability, plus what do you then do about the people who are clearly not in for criminal acts, but for war capture?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"fewer"

Yr pal,

Timmy

No, what I meant was that Less should go to Iraq.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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.

Shit. I have to disappear again. But, first, these stats do not seem to work for the specific individuals about whom the military intell people had great interest - ie., the ones being softened up for interrogation. I very strongly question your assertion that these people were innocent shoppers picked up in a random sweep. As far as the Red Cross BS, I question the vailidity of asking inmates why they are imprisoned, getting a "I didn't do nuthin' ", and then saying 80% are poor innocents based on those answers. Read up on it - that seems to have been the methodology.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Thanks for making my point for me. You don't just show up in Iraq and then get a contract. These contracts are being bid for by major international corporations.

This is going to sound really bad but these people who are so naive to think you can just show up in Iraq and get a contract to rebuild Iraq are candidates for the Darwin awards.

You have a funny way of not having a point. The fact that nobody's doing it successfully is not evidence of the separate fact that nobody's trying.

If you're saying this poor guy was too stupid to live, that's your point and no one else's. Good luck with that.