Omar Khadr's Interrogation Videos

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch
I'm unaware of these accusations that it's the norm.

That is quite obvious, yes.

I might be wrong, but I'm inclined to give the Army the benefit of the doubt.

You are very wrong. The Army is not the most intelligent and justice-minded and human-rights-oriented organization on this planet.

[Patroklos]

So you can't quote it?

It not existing is actually damning to you, Ben...I mean Asher.

You should focus on the part that says all captives deserve to be treated humanely, regardless of POW status.

I did, those are the parts that tell us that we can detain him indefinetly or until AQ/Taliban formally surrender and that his detention is entirely legal. Since there is no proof or reasonable suspicion of mistreatment, whats the problem?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I did, those are the parts that tell us that we can detain him indefinetly and that his detention is entirely legal. Since there is no proof of mistreatment, whats the problem?

What "proof of mistreatment" would be adequate for you? You dodged my question.

The Red Cross observers have explicitly identified "torture" as occuring at Gitmo, so how can you say this is not mistreatment?

What the Convention says w.r.t. lawful combatants is:

They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

But they are not being prosecuted under domestic law. They're in some nebulous state where NO LAWS APPLY.

Which goes back to my original comment of this being WRONG.

And finally, there's a part that you do not seem to know exists:

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Bush and his cronies -- and this includes you -- have invented a part of the convention that does not exist and brainwashed everyone else into thinking it did.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher
Can someone quote the part of the Geneva Conventions that say it's okay to do whatever the **** you want to 15 year olds? I missed that part.

The last time I checked, everyone -- POW or unlawful combatant or civilian -- is entitled to humane treatment.

The ICRC agrees with you.

It's really important that you guys understand why these rules exist. When a combatant can blend in with the surrounding population after attacking an organized force, it will almost always result in civilians being hurt. The purpose of these rules is to make it clear who is involved in the fight, and who isn't. It's not about torturing 15 year olds, it's about preventing a crowd from being machine gunned to kill one sniper. The problem with the people we fight, is that they see nothing wrong in using human shields.

As far as Theban's spy joke, here's what Wikipedia says the convention says:

• 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
• 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
  
  * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
  * that of carrying arms openly;
  * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
  
• 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
• 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

4.1.6 wouldn't apply to somebody who had been involved in Al Qaeda for as long as Omar was. It sounds more like a minuteman situation. Protocol I, the exception to being clearly identified, was not ratified by the United States. So it looks like Omar was nothing more than a war criminal.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher
You are very wrong. The Army is not the most intelligent and justice-minded and human-rights-oriented organization on this planet.

Being inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt does mean that I think they're perfect. I might be wrong, it may be that the Army tortures every single person they can get their hands on. I just don't think it's likely. I'm inclined to believe my friends, who have served, over a bunch of reporters, who are trying to get ratings.

[Asher]

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Read that carefully, Felch.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Felch


Being inclined to give someone the benefit of the doubt does mean that I think they're perfect. I might be wrong, it may be that the Army tortures every single person they can get their hands on. I just don't think it's likely. I'm inclined to believe my friends, who have served, over a bunch of reporters, who are trying to get ratings.

Can you provide the names of your friends that served at Gitmo?

Thanks...

[Theben]

Originally posted by Patroklos

In any case, just because one or some detainees were mistreated does not mean all were. You fail.

Oh, I get it now! Torture only counts if EVERYONE gets tortured! But since only some did, IT'S OKAY! EVERYTHING'S FINE!!

btw, I like that "mistreated" substitute for "tortured". You should work for Karl Rove.

So....lets recap shall we? The kid cried, Asher and Theban's hearts broke, so the kid is innocent. Sums things up quite nicely.

Uberfail on your account. I think that since, oh I dunno, we pride ourselves in being a moral nation we should walk the walk, which in my book means no torture. Period. Naive of me, I know. That and there's no reason not to let the kid be extradited to Canada. I assume they punish their criminals too. But since you seem to know what I'm thinking, since you put words in my mouth, why don't you tell everyone what I'm thinking now?

Since you obviously don't realize it, "?" signifies a question. You didn't ask any. I will let you try again if you want.

No need. I figure you've answered my questions to the capacity your brain is able to.

[Sirotnikov]

That information comes from another detainee of course and is not corroborated, shock. Asher of course believes this guy with no ulterior motives whatsoever is a medical expert and would know what surgeries the kid needed in the first place, as well as was allowed to eaves drop on a interrogation. And there is no way good cop/bad cop wasn't used either, obviously the surgeons themselves were in on the conspiracy.

i'm perfectly o.k. with limiting medical aid to war detainees to a reasonable amount.

of course there's a a humane boundry. I wouldn't let them die or be paraplegic or something.
but if they have a broken pinkey they want back, they should earn it IMO.

I'll make sure they live, but it's their own damn fault they are hurt. They were in a war, and surrendered too late (after getting hurt).

You save them and you make sure they can live normally.
If they want some body part majorly improved - it's expensive and they ought to earn it. Next thing you know a state will be responsible for major plastic and reconstructive surgery of POWs.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Felch

I agree with you on waterboarding being torture. I'm against torture in general, mostly because I understand it is ineffective. It's generally a result of poor training and discipline. However, my opposition is based on efficacy and reciprocity. Since the Muslims who have captured Americans have been awfully willing to mistreat them, to the point of beheadings, I'm inclined to ignore what happens to the Muslims captured by Americans.

In other words, if Muslims treated American prisoners properly, I'd be opposed to their torture. As it is, I don't care what happens to those bastards.

My point being, aside from fulfilling one's sense of vengance, there's no benefit and a considerable downside to this line of reasoning.

Maybe, I'm not a lawyer, but it hardly matters. Unless Canada is actually willing to go hard about this (Pulling out of Afghanistan for instance) we're not likely to care about what right they have.

Again, the person in question appears to be of little use to us and is still, in effect, a Canadian citizen. Cost-benefit analysis sez, "Give him to the canucks."
As long as they'll prosecute him.

[fed1943]

An important point missing:

Is the boy/man an Afghan citizen?

If not, he has no right to be treated as POW.

Best regards,

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher

Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.

Read that carefully, Felch.

Yeah, that's new to me. I guess that's what I get for relying on outdated info. My knowledge of Geneva was based on a WWI course where I studied German atrocities in Belgium.

For the record, those Sprout bastards had it coming.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Asher
Can you provide the names of your friends that served at Gitmo?

Thanks...

Not Gitmo, but Iraq and Afghanistan. Gitmo, and camp X-ray in particular, are pretty small. Based on what they've told me, there are abuses, but not systemic, and not on the scale that you guys seem to imagine.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Theben
My point being, aside from fulfilling one's sense of vengance, there's no benefit and a considerable downside to this line of reasoning.

When I say I don't care, I don't mean I encourage it. I just don't want to see Americans locked up for breaking some terrorist's nose.

Again, the person in question appears to be of little use to us and is still, in effect, a Canadian citizen. Cost-benefit analysis sez, "Give him to the canucks."
As long as they'll prosecute him.

Can they guarantee prosecution? It sounded to me like they just wanted to tag him, and release him into the wild.

Before you point it out, I was wrong about the unlawful combatants being executable, but like I said, I was working off of a history textbook, rather than a law book. I still think that extending full rights of POWs to people who are not fulfilling the requirements of 4th Geneva needlessly endangers civilians.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Felch

In other words, if Muslims treated American prisoners properly, I'd be opposed to their torture. As it is, I don't care what happens to those bastards.

So in a potential future conflict your opponent can say "Since Americans treated Muslim prisoners improperly I don't care what happens to them.

You do what's right because it's right. If the other side is doing something different, well that's probably why they are the other side.