Sneaky Tactics: US breaks Geneva Convention

After reading the following paragraph I thought to myself. Maybe the Abu Gharib Scandal was a deliberate Psy Op to show the public pictures degrading the Iraqis.

This definately hurt the morals of the USA's Enemy. Didn't it serve in the interest of the USA to show them? And to hush down any outcry at home just cut off Nick Berg's head!

Does the US support the Geneva Convention or doesn't it?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 25th March 2003

Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva Convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them."1

So isn't it clearly a breaking of the Geneva Convention that the USA even showed these photos of the enemy? (not alone did the actual acts..but that could be debated as conspiracy...)


[edit on 15-3-2005 by 00PS]

. . . prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and ear phones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).3
. . .

Here are more reasons the USA has been charged with breaking the Geneva Convention... What can all those diehard patriots say about their country now? They better think about this and become a true patriot and fight for the legal rights this country has to control this country to act legally right in the world.

Any chance of posting the links where the quotes originated?

I would like to read the full thing before i make any worth while comment based one persons unsuported quotes.
Cheers

I lost the link...I'm trying to find it now...it was originally published in the Guardian...But the point is what I'm talking about, not the quotes really.

I'll try to find the Link, I know you need it to 'communicate'. Consider this question too, was the Abu Gharib photos released to the US public a break of the Geneva Convention (specifically article 13 [you can google for a link to the Geneva Convention])

EDIT: Found the link - tbrnews.org...

[edit on 15-3-2005 by 00PS]

Not to be rude, because I'm really not trying to be, but according to the Geneva Convention (Article 4)

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;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

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

The insurgents in the Iraq conflict blatantly violate Items B, C, and D (likely Item A as well) and it certainly seems that they do not qualify as entitled to protection under the conventions.

Additionally, the insurgents routinely, and publicly violate the following rules of engagement:

1) Abducting civilians
2) Abusing prisoners
3) Abusing prisoners for propoganda purposes
4) Murdering those who have surrendered
5) Not allowing medical treatment to those in custody
6) Not allowing identification of wounded/dead
7) Not allowing free passage of medical help to those in custody

Those are ones I whipped up offhand. Terribly sorry for missing some, because I'm sure I have.

The insurgents in Iraq simply do not fit the description of those afforded protection by the very Convention you are speaking of. Sorry.

[edit on 3-15-2005 by Djarums]

Djarum,

You're not rude and you are most welcome to come in here, but your arguement is quite lame and more importantly off-topic.

I think you can go start a new thread that says Iraqi's Break Geneva Conventions, then you and all your Iraqi bashing friends can talk there. Me and my American bashing friends have here to talk...haha

So, keep it on topic - it would be most appreciated...

REPLY: Well the inmates at Abu Gharib handn't been tried or found guilty of anything so you are wrong #2 Gitmo - same story.


EDIT: 2 wrongs don't make a right

EDIT: SHouldn't the USA follow the rules of the world, aren't we supposed to be the Morally Highest Ruler of the World?


[edit on 15-3-2005 by 00PS]

Actually, my comments are the topic.

You state that America broke the Geneva conventions in Abu Ghraib. I offer evidence that they did not.

Read the conventions and you will notice that they clearly state who the conventions apply to. The group in question is blatantly not covered by the Geneva conventions. Period. The US has not violated the Geneva conventions in Abu Ghraib. I would appreciate an explanation as to how I am off topic.

So isn't it clearly a breaking of the Geneva Convention that the USA even showed these photos of the enemy?

You did say that. And you are, by definition of the Conventions, incorrect. Again, don't take it the wrong way...

The treatment in Abu Ghraib was vile. But I'm sorry, it did not violate the Geneva Convention in any way shape or form. That is the topic. I'm dead centered on it.

[edit on 3-15-2005 by Djarums]

HAHA That's the POINT!!! You are wrong....

It wasn't against the convention what they did Djarum...Did you understand the post?? The breaking of the conventions

ARE YOU READY?....


SHOWING THE PHOTOS

If the "enemy" was protected by the Conventions, then showing photographs of them would absolutely violate the Conventions. They are not, so it does not. I'm quite familiar with the Conventions, and with the point you are trying to make.

Why not agree that the actions were hideous and leave the Conventions out of it since they're not relevant here.

Originally posted by Djarums
If the "enemy" was protected by the Conventions, then showing photographs of them would absolutely violate the Conventions. They are not, so it does not. I'm quite familiar with the Conventions, and with the point you are trying to make.

Why not agree that the actions were hideous and leave the Conventions out of it since they're not relevant here.

Ah now Djarum, You know this thread is not just about Abu Gharib...Look at the second post, oh yes...it's GITMO!?!?!

Now what have you to say about men who have not be found guilt of any crime being held against their will and treated like dogs...oh that's full within the bounds of the Geneva Convention now isn't it.....NOT

Don't just argue to argue with me, argue because you have a point.

Oops it the exact same stuation at gitmo.
Those at abu ghraib and those at gitmo are not covered by the geneva convention.
Period.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Oops it the exact same stuation at gitmo.
Those at abu ghraib and those at gitmo are not covered by the geneva convention.
Period.

Even though there are innocent non-combatants mwm1331? You just want to argue rather than see the truth again don't you? That wasn't a question, I hope you don't respond.

OOPS

Think of it as a buisness contract. That Contract was signed by a bunch of companies (countries in this case). The contract does not aply to any company (country or organization) that did not sign it.

The Geneva convention is simply not aplicable here.

This is not to support what happened - but legally, you are wrong here.

The USA didn't sign the Geneva Convention? If that's the case then I am wrong...

It doesn't matter if they broke the Geneva Convention or not!!! There are other treaties and laws!!
------------------------------------------------------------

"Under the United Nations Convention against Torture, an international treaty that the United States has also ratified, torture is an international crime.
That Convention “also establishes what is called universal jurisdiction for cases of torture,” Ratner explains.
“So, for example, if an American citizen engaged in torture anywhere in the world and was later found in France, let’s say, that person could be arrested in France and either tried for torture there or extradited to the place of the torture for trial. To the extent U.S. officials were or are involved in torture in Guantánamo or elsewhere, they should be careful about the countries in which they travel.”
Ratner also specified that torture committed by U.S. soldiers or private contractors acting under U.S. authority is a violation of federal law, punishable by the death penalty if the death of a prisoner results from the torture.
“Even if one argues that al Qaeda suspects are not governed by the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture and other human rights treaties ratified by the United States prohibit torture as well as other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.” insists the expert. "

www.periodico26.cu...


Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

www.un.org...





[edit on 15-3-2005 by dawnstar]

One could argue that the photos were released by private sources, so the argument that the US violated Geneva is moot.

Example

Originally posted by 00PS
The USA didn't sign the Geneva Convention? If that's the case then I am wrong...

The US signed the Geneva Convention, but Iraq did not.

Therefore they are not accorded any of the rights that are guaranteed under it.

You are wrong.

the pictures depicted treatment that was considered illegal!!

Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody

www.hrw.org...
---------------------------------------------------

even if it was considered proper not to consider them worthy of the protections of the Geneva Convention......well, there are other laws and treaties that ban this kind of treatment......

Originally posted by dawnstar
even if it was considered proper not to consider them worthy of the protections of the Geneva Convention......well, there are other laws and treaties that ban this kind of treatment......

Did both countries sign these treaties?

I can't find a list of who signed them and when they were signed.

DO US laws apply???

assembler.law.cornell.edu...