Today, as I was flipping through the pages of the Boston Metro paper, I came across two revolting Letters To The Editor regarding prisoner abuse in Iraq.

Joseph Vinci of Boston wrote : "Only the media harping on torture of Iraqi prisoners - I am sick and tired of hearing about the mistreatment of the Iraqi prisoners everyday in the newspaper and on every news station. What about the civilian contractors they dragged through the streets and mutilated? It seems the liberal media only reported on that for 30 seconds while they keep harping on the "torture" of Iraqi prisoners. All the soldiers did to those prisoners was humiliate them. They did not torture, kill, or mutilate them unlike the torture and killings of the innocent citizens once ruled by Saddam Hussein. The media should move on and let Bush, Rumsfield and the soldiers do what they must do to keep this country and its people safe."

Franklin Dixon of Franklin wrote : "I am getting increasingly disgusted with the people who call the pictures that have been released showing abuse of the Iraqi prisoners as torture. Yes, it is shameful and it is abuse. But, it is no torture. Torture is what happened in Iraq prior to Hussein's fall. We hold ourselves to a higher standard, and thus feel that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is more reprehensible because we are supposed to act better. But please get a grip on reality. Have any of these prisoners disappeared? Have any been killed or maimed? I don't know, but I assume that even though these prisoners have been humiliated, they are probrably alive and well."


Disgusting. Completely ignorant statements. If someone stuck their fist in your a**hole without your consent, how is that not torture? Just because the Iraqi prisoners were not humiliated to the extent of the American soldiers that were killed and dragged through the streets doesn't make it any less evil. Instead, Vinci almost makes it seem as if he is pleased that the soldiers tortured or "not torture" the prisoners. Is there no more humanity in this world? An eye for an eye will never justify the fact that both sides have wronged. It certainly doesn't help when people make ignorant statements on such serioius issues. This is my favorite part (from above) : "Have any been killed or maimed? I don't know, but I assume that even though these prisoners have been humiliated, they are probrably alive and well."

quote:

---

Funny, Strangelove, I allready proved your arguement wrong with qoutes from the actual document.

---

What you did not do though was put those quotes in context. There are other provisions in the document that state who exactly falls under protection, and what those people must do to keep thier rights under the convention. Tigercats more or less re-stated what I had said before.

My point stands.

marine....actually you didn't prove much..

true some of the prisoners are protected but a large majority are not... many are considered illegal combatants..

under the geneva convention(which i HAVE read btw)one specific provision concerns
"lawful combatants"... and even has a definition concerning who is and who isn't considered a lawful combatant... under this provision(4A(2)it defines a lawful combatant as::
(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.

now since many of the prisoners did not wear a recognizable sign or symbol, thus fighting under the guise of a civilian,and did not act in accordance with the laws and customs of war, he/she is not granted rights under the geneva convention.. also you are forgetting a point.. even if the country or combatants are not a signing country of the convention, they are to be treated in the way specified by the convention
BUT......
There exists exemptions to the Third Convention for "High Contracting Parties" to this convention. In the case of a conflict between a signatory and a non-signatory the signatory shall remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.

to qoute..
(Art 2) "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, IF the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

so we can see that many of the people held in iraq are NOT covered under the GC and the fact that they did not abide by the GC we are not required to act in accordance to the GC concerning these people...

oh and you are right it doesn't say terrorist in the GC, but it does say it is forbidden for people to commit acts of terrorism...

Funny, Strangelove, I allready proved your arguement wrong with qoutes from the actual document.

Marine- I already quoted and dissected the convention some time before you. It's clear that these prisoners rights are called into question.

Why don't you go ahead and qoute the convention to tell me where it says terrorists are not covered by the convention. Becase all the convention talks about is people bound and people not bond to the agreement. And thos not bound..."shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention".

But please show me where it says terrorists are not protected under the convention. In fact, show me when it even says the words terrorists in the Geneva Convention.

I stated that TERRORISTS are not protected by the Geneva Convention and those prisioners were considered as TERRORISTS.

Funny...

You people claim that Iraqi prisoners are not protected by the Geneva Convention yet...

Iraq ratified the Geneva Convention in January of 1981. That means all armies in Iraq that were recognized by the state - which were every militant group when Saddam was losing power - is protected by the Geneva Convention.

I highly doubt any of you have actually read the Geneva Convention so I have provided exerts for all you you idiots how seem too stupid to actually look for proof to back your arguements.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons...Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it" - Doesn't work out so good for all of your arguements since Iraq is bound to the convention.

"Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State. In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention"

So I guess this puts an end to all of yoru arguements that the Geneva convention does not apply to these people.

<http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html>

Also, our treatment of prisoners should have nothing to do with the treatment of American prisoners.

The Iraqi prisioners in the pics are considered as terrorists not the soldiers. That's just to correct that mistake in my earlier post

I totally agree w/ lilpunker. We have to recognize that this same thing is happening to our troops as well

My Brother is in the Navy in Iraq, and if you had someone out there fighting for this, you'd feel differently. Yes, it's horrible and no one should ever do that or have that being done to them, but you honestly thing thats not happening to our men/women? Our men/women are dieing over there ever day because terrorists do it for fun. Us in the United States know that those people that took those pictures are not terrorists, but those people that kill our soldiers are. I'm so scared that one day I'm going to get that phone call that John has been taken away from me, but the only thing that keeps me going is i know he's strong. As for those soldiers in the pictures, I think that they should be charged with something, they did it and they should have to own up to that responsiblity.

The Geneva Convention has no bearing on the Iraqi prisioners because it excludes them. Actually, it excludes terrorists and the prisioners that were abused are considered terrorists due to the actions which imprisioned them or the plans they had that may have been disrupted b/c of capture.

The liberal media pulls through with a big favor for the Dems. While I am disgusted by the acts and sickened by the pictures, I am moe revolted by the frenzy. The NY Times has had a story about it on the front page every day since the story broke and the LA Times has only missed three days. In fact the NY Times ran the pictues of the suspected terror suspect on wednesday on page 16A, instead of replacing yet another article on the Prisoner Abuse Scandal. I am in no way conding the actions, but the coverage should have been toned down long ago. I have learned nothing new in the past 2 weeks that i didnt already know in the previos ones. The NY Times and all of the other members of the liberal elite media should be as ashamed of themselves as the soldiers should be.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

Why don't you go ahead and read article one, which is direct contradiction to your article four.

I've got a question. How can killing people solve peace ? Give freedom ? I've seen those pictures and they are horrible i can't stand to look at them how could you not call abuse and humiliation torture?
null

war crimes is an oxymoron

Obviously you didnt read it... Go read Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.

You morons can compare pictures all you want. As a country we are believe human beings, not just Americans, should be treated a certain a way - and that include people who wrong us. Don't try to dignify what has happened by comparing it to something else.

"You really think this is even remotely a violation of the Geneva Convention?" Why don't you actually read up on it before you make claims about it, Bauhaus. Is that too much to ask of you? I knwo it is hard to actually research something before you you talk about it, but give it a try. Every person in the wolrd is protected under the Genevea Convention, even in times of peace.

All of those trying to glorify the prisoner abuse since 'other people do it to but a lot more worse' are pathetic morons.

Most people miss the biggest point..

WE GO AFTER WHO DID WRONG AND PUNISH THEM.

the americans are being punished, the iraqis are being punished, the terrorists are also being punshised.

bauhaus's imagery showes exactly what I mean by different levels of torture.

This is violation of the Geneva Convention.

***Images removed***

You actually are trying to compare the two? You really think this is even remotely a violation of the Geneva Convention?

They are insurgants you *******. People that are not Iraqi by birth entering into the country to try to kill American's. That means they are not elligible to revieve protection under the treaty. Duh?

[This message was edited by YNLissa on May 29, 2004 at 08:12 AM.]