Unofficialbmw.com

[Roadstergal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 86325e:
Doesn't "Naked pyramids" happen every Fall Rush on college campuses?

---

By voluntary participants.

If you had been forced to perform sex acts by an invading army, would you take it with such equanimity? If your mother had been one of the women made by force to show her breasts or perform sex acts on her captors, would you think of it as a harmless prank?

[Roadstergal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tennessee Slim:
These were acts of some bored kids who created their own entertainment; low-level jabronis, reservists, not even professional soldiers.

---

Official representatives of the United States and its armed forces.

[TnSlim]

quote

Quote:

Official representatives of the United States and its armed forces.

No, they are minions, not representatives. Representatives work for a different arm of the government, carry different credentials and are governed by different rules.

[SaturdayNightBimmer]

OWNED!!! Nice.

[Cephas]

I'm not one to get into these conversations, (I'm about to undermine that statement!)
but I believe that the U.S. now officially sits atop the largest oil reserves in the world, do we not? So this really can't be much about oil....especially since I paid $2.39 per gallon today for 93...

BTW: Jessica Lynch was raped: For two straight hours.
This American Citizen was beheaded.
Daniel Pearl was executed.
The Italian citizen was shot point blank in the head.
Looks like the terrorists are real worried about the Geneva Convention to me

[TnSlim]

Not to be a wisenheimer but, just for clarification, I’d like to point out that the Geneva Conventions is not omniscient and all-encompassing, is not universally abided by, and isn’t even a single document. There is, however, a body of rules known as the Laws of War, which includes provisions from a number of treaties and agreements, the Geneva Conventions among them. While in the U.S. Army I was taught from the Laws of Land Warfare, a subset of the Laws of War in general (yes, there are special rules for maritime war).

The majority of these treaties were written in the Hague, not in Geneva. Things like the prohibition against the use of frangible ammunition (sometimes erroneously referred to as ‘dum-dum’ bullets) actually come from the Hague Conventions, not Geneva.

We most commonly hear the Geneva Conventions spoken of, I suspect, for one of three reasons: 1) Hollywood used it extensively in WWII POW movies, 2) The International Committee of the Red Cross also happens to be based in Geneva, or 3) Both 1 & 2.

Anyway, the Geneva Conventions leave a lot to interpretation when it comes to treatment of Enemy Prisoners of War (EPWs). Here are the pertinent passages, extracted verbatim, from the Geneva Convention of 1949 (the provisions of which remain in effect).

PART II
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest....

Article 87
...Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden....

PART III
CAPTIVITY
II. Disciplinary sanctions
Article 89
...In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war....

That’s all the specifics, so you can see where the "Geneva Convention" leaves a lot of grey area. There are, however, other treaties that deal more comprehensively with the subject of torture.

FWIW, the execution of EPWs is permissible "...only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power...."

Regarding the specific abuses of the Iraqi detainees, ‘I was only following orders’ hasn’t flown since the Nuremberg trials. In fact, a U.S. service member is required by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to disobey an unlawful order.

Also, have you noticed that the mantra of the guilty parties, trying to slither out from under their culpability, has been ‘Some Military Intelligence guys ordered us to do this.’ Did you notice they didn’t name names? That omission is what is referred to in circles of logic and conversation as “a clue.” I suspect that they are lying through their collective teeth. If they incriminated specific individual(s), those individual(s) could refute the charges and dash their alibi.

I would also point out that only a few of the Iraqi prisoners (Saddam, for one) are accorded the status of an EPW. The majority do not qualify for Prisoner of War status and are classified as “illegal combatants.” This distinction is not a U.S. contrivance and, point of fact, is spelled out in the Geneva Accords and elsewhere. To be accorded EPW status, combatants, “including such organized resistance movements, [must] 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.”

My supposition is that most of the Iraqi detainees failed to meet at least three of these four conditions and therefore are not due treatment as Prisoners of War under the Laws of War and its constituent agreements (to include those provided for under the Geneva Conventions). As for the slime who caused the ‘naked human pyramids,’ the UCMJ, I am certain, will deal with them.

[board_nerd]

quote

Quote:

My supposition is that most of the Iraqi detainees failed to meet at least three of these four conditions and therefore are not due treatment as Prisoners of War under the Laws of War and its constituent agreements

Spoken like a true attorney. And yet, it still fails to hold water. Under Congressional inquiry, and after sufficient prevarication, your own deputy Secretary of Defense conceded that if Americans had been subjected to the same treatment and tactics of interrogation, it would indeed be classified as inhumane. Describe and officially categorize your enemies as you will; euphemistic or otherwise legally vague language is the first barometer of shirked institutional responsibility and a suspect moral calculus

[TnSlim]

If you’ll read what I actually wrote you’ll see I made no attempt to exonerate the parties responsible for the ‘naked human pyramids’, to wit: referring to them as ‘the guilty parties’ (you can’t be guilty unless there’s an offense) and ‘slime’. My point was that there was a prior internationally-accepted precedent for not treating Iraqi insurgents as Prisoners of War; the US didn't just gin this up.

[bbbidit]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KYshadetreeBMW:
I think there is no way that we can pull out of Iraq right now and that we should not even try. Right now we need to keep kicking butt on these militia groups until they are extinct.

---

Extinct ??? we're not talking about animals here.. well ... maybe we are ... but the reality is that we will never get rid of these militia groups.. for every 1 we dismantle... 5 more pop-up....

[board_nerd]

quote

Quote:

My point was that there was a prior internationally-accepted precedent for not treating Iraqi insurgents as Prisoners of War

Great. There's possible precedent. And my point is, regardless, the actual application of the policy has been admitted wrong by one of its chief architects. So what does precedent buy? The 'guilty parties' extend far beyond the enlisted; true responsibility is borne by those who promulgate policy, in this case up to and including the sitting POTUS. The grunt on the ground is no different than a mule in a drug ring. Our prisons are littered with mules, with no practical impact upon the existent drug trade.

[TnSlim]

quote

Quote:

...the actual application of the policy has been admitted wrong by one of its chief architects....

What those kids did had nothing to do with policy.

quote

Quote:

...The 'guilty parties' extend far beyond the enlisted; true responsibility is borne by those who promulgate policy, in this case up to and including the sitting POTUS....

There’s an Army National Guard Military Police unit in my home town. They were called to active duty and have been deployed to Iraq for going on 13 months. I served in that unit when I was in college, but they were Armored Cavalry back then; same personnel, different mission. They are on the ground there now. I’m in contact almost daily with some of them and I regularly communicate with 12-15 of them, many of whom I’ve known for more than 20 years. We’ve chatted more frequently than usual over the last 10 days or so. To a man, they are telling me their policy for handling detainees and EPWs expressly forbids such treatment.

Looks like the policy letter from POTUS failed to reach them.

[Greenhornet84]

S;im,
With the receny
t revelations and the guilty plea, I'm inclined to agree. Someof these people have to go awayfor awile.
Mark

[Greenhornet84]

Fred Mac,
You say that we have never attacked another country without cause? Read some history son. Mexico used to own Texas and Califorinia, Hawaii was an indenpendant Monarchy until Dole Fruit wanted it and the US Marines invaded. We invaded the Philopenes after the WWI and stayed until 1999 and in the 19th century we invaded and held Tripoli.
Sorry son, but we are an agressor nation. Sometimes good and sometimes not. But to suggest that this country has never attacked another Nation , see above.
We invaded Afganifstan and had the favor of most of the world.
We also invaded Normandy on June 6, 1944.
To suggest that we have never invaded another country, I didn't even mention Viet Namm, where we lost 58,000 guys.
Mark
Marl

[Fred Mac]

Mark, When I said our nations I meant just that. Texas was not part of the United States. It was made up of both Mexicans and Texans. The folks who lived in the Republic of Texas were known as Texicans. We didn’t become a part of the United States until after the Texans won its independence. Not sure about California. But I will do some reading. Hawaii was an independent Monarchy and accepted the new growth. With their own number severely displaced Asians and Philippino there was an uprising. It was put down.

On February 15, 1898 the American battleship, USS Maine, exploded and sank in Havana harbor. On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war on Spain and the Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, ordered Dewey to attack the Spanish fleet in the Philippines as a response of the attack on the American Battleship. Which was the start of the Spanish/American War.

Afghanistan, ARE you kidding me. The largest Al Quada hide out? I just don’t think we need to say anything about that.

Vietnam, We were asked by the South’s Government in what was increasing raids by the Vietminh. We sent very few advisors at first. Then the first large group was 500. That was done by Kennedy.

The 58000 troops we lost in Vietnam were to help a government which some say was destined to fail. But we were asked.

I will say again. We are not aggressors. We took many shots and gave them one more chance. Now we have a President who decided we have taken all we can and we aren’t gonna take it anymore. Thank God Gore was defeated.

[panzerkeil302]

I spent 8 years in the service, and I saw "real up close" what a fuel air bomb does to the enemy....makes a beheadig look like a walk in the park. And we've used thousands of them in Iraq, in 92 and 2003-4.

Does it really matter that we killed lots of them, and they beheaded xyz amount of ours?

Nope. War is bad, death and killing are bad…I’m not sure if we’ve seen the worst of things…we can all just pray it’ll be over soon, at very least so no more Americans die.