Guantanamo and Iraqi prisoners

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-05-13 08:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:
The Kernel wrote:And I agree with you that the Bush administration has been fanning the flames of hatred with regards to terrorists and Iraq, but you started this thread on the presumption that they might be held officially accountable,
Actually, I just said "at fault", which I assumed people would interpret in the moral sense of "at fault", not the legalistic sense. I never said that they'd be able to make that stick officially.

I guess I misunderstood then. Still, it's not like Bush and his cronies don't already have plenty of moral reasons why they should be put in the stockade, but they have been extremely good at covering their asses. If this Iraq abuse thing gets bad, Bush will merely reaffirm his trust in the decisions of his underlings and Rumsfeld will take all the responsibility and resign, thus saving Bush's chances at reelection.

Thats the thing about being a president who does nothing, you can always blame your underlings, thus saving your job. Bush isn't a president, he's a conservative lightning rod.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-13 08:14pm

Darth Wong wrote: George W. Bush and all of his cronies using the terms "War in Iraq" and "War on Terror" and "Al Quaeda" and "World Trade Center" interchangeably as if they're all linked.

not to puncture your bubble, but we did annihilate an Al-Quaeda linked
group's base in Northern Iraq during OIF, of those 1,000 guys there who
we all killed, 10% were straight from Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-05-13 10:23pm

The Kernel wrote:Hey, I don't think anyone is arguing that the way we treat the suspected terrorists is right, I just want to clarify whether the Iraq abuses had anything to do with the labelling of certain fighters as terrorists thus removing any rights granted them under Geneva. If there is a link, then that is simply one more reason to crucify Bush.

None of the Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib were classified as terrorists, according to US Army General Antonio Taguba, to man in charge of the investigation into the abuses.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-13 10:27pm

Currald wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Hey, I don't think anyone is arguing that the way we treat the suspected terrorists is right, I just want to clarify whether the Iraq abuses had anything to do with the labelling of certain fighters as terrorists thus removing any rights granted them under Geneva. If there is a link, then that is simply one more reason to crucify Bush.
None of the Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib were classified as terrorists, according to US Army General Antonio Taguba, to man in charge of the investigation into the abuses.

They were mostly enemy combatants, right? Could have been killed on site, but we wanted information from them.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-05-14 02:42am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: George W. Bush and all of his cronies using the terms "War in Iraq" and "War on Terror" and "Al Quaeda" and "World Trade Center" interchangeably as if they're all linked.
not to puncture your bubble, but we did annihilate an Al-Quaeda linked
group's base in Northern Iraq during OIF, of those 1,000 guys there who
we all killed, 10% were straight from Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan.

Which is completely irrelevant and a red herring, as that particular group (Ansar al-Islam) was an opponent of Saddam Hussein's government. So much for your Iraqi state terror links to A-Q.

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2004-05-14 02:47am

Joe wrote:
Currald wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Hey, I don't think anyone is arguing that the way we treat the suspected terrorists is right, I just want to clarify whether the Iraq abuses had anything to do with the labelling of certain fighters as terrorists thus removing any rights granted them under Geneva. If there is a link, then that is simply one more reason to crucify Bush.
None of the Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib were classified as terrorists, according to US Army General Antonio Taguba, to man in charge of the investigation into the abuses.
They were mostly enemy combatants, right? Could have been killed on site, but we wanted information from them.

How the fuck is somebody randomly arrested at a checkpoint or in a night time raid of ttheir home or during a protest an 'illegal combatant' (which is a bullshit definition anyway)? Sorry, they're civilians entitled to the Geneva Convention rights.

Edi

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-14 08:20am

How the fuck is somebody randomly arrested at a checkpoint or in a night time raid of ttheir home or during a protest an 'illegal combatant' (which is a bullshit definition anyway)? Sorry, they're civilians entitled to the Geneva Convention rights.

Some of them are/were, no doubt. But most of the prisoners, from what I've heard are/were genuine enemy combatants who we wanted information from.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-05-17 01:08am

Joe wrote:
How the fuck is somebody randomly arrested at a checkpoint or in a night time raid of ttheir home or during a protest an 'illegal combatant' (which is a bullshit definition anyway)? Sorry, they're civilians entitled to the Geneva Convention rights.
Some of them are/were, no doubt. But most of the prisoners, from what I've heard are/were genuine enemy combatants who we wanted information from.

There were roughly 9000 prisoners in Abu Ghraib alone, are you telling me they were all resistance fighters? Besides, even if they were, they are still entitled to the Geneva Convention protections and whether or not the US wants info from them is irrelevant to that fact, it does not give an excuse to torture them. I can understand the isolation treatment and some other methods, but what was going on, no fucking way. I'd also be very interested in hearing your sources for the claim that most of them were really resistance fighters, as every source I've seen has indicated that the great majority of arrests have been completely arbitrary.

Edi