Pentagon considers Death Squads in Iraq

[Illuminatus Primus]

Meh. I wouldn't want my army to have discipline such that 1% commit horrid atrocities. That's a lot of atrocities.

[MKSheppard]

30,000 Graduates have gone through SoA

My mistake. the actual number is 60,000

[MKSheppard]

Meh. I wouldn't want my army to have discipline such that 1% commit horrid atrocities. That's a lot of atrocities.

It was my mistake, the actual number is 60,000 graduates, 300 wanted for crimes, or about 0.5%.

[Wicked Pilot]

Meh. I wouldn't want my army to have discipline such that 1% commit horrid atrocities. That's a lot of atrocities.

Well since 0% is not a realistic possiblity, what number would you find acceptable, and why that particular number?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Meh. I wouldn't want my army to have discipline such that 1% commit horrid atrocities. That's a lot of atrocities.

Well since 0% is not a realistic possiblity, what number would you find acceptable, and why that particular number?

1% just seems rather high, and I figure most Western European and our own armed forces does much, much better.

[Master of Ossus]

1% just seems rather high, and I figure most Western European and our own armed forces does much, much better.

Probably, but on the other hand western armies are almost by definition not living in the midst of ongoing guerrilla wars in shitty countries with virtually no infrastructure.

[SecondStorm]

And Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit executions without a fair trial.

Warmongering Rightwinger: "The Geneva Conventions doesnt apply to insurgents. We can torture them, shoot them, and piss on their mass-grave if we want to" Dont like it ? Its WAR you liberal pussy. So that makes it OK"

What a lovely strawman. Is every killing in a war an execution?

No.

But fucking Death squads is where the line must be drawn.

[Elfdart]

Look at the resume of any death squad leader and you'll find a stint at the School of the Americas.

Yes of course, Elfpenis doesn't miss a chance to malign the School of Americas because GASP, it teaches South American militaries to be
less corrupt and less bloodthirsty!

30,000 Graduates have gone through SoA, of which 300 are wanted for
war crimes. That's only 1% of all Graduates.

Concession accepted. US-trained units like the Atlacatl Battalion were MUCH worse than units of the Salvadoran army left to pratice nailing children to fenceposts and raping nuns on their own. You might as well have tried to change the subject by saying the atrocities didn't matter because Mark Furman is a racist.


In the interest of good humor though, I'll play along with your pitiful non-sequitur for a few moments:

How many Annapolis or West Point grads from that time period are wanted for war crimes? How many from Sandhurst or any other academy? Nah, couldn't possibly be the instruction at SOA. It must be something in the water in Central America.

Brad DeLong makes a good point about death squads:

Death squad activity is terrorism. Its purpose is never merely the assassination or kidnapping of a small number of leaders, but always the cowing of entire populations. This case is no different. Note the language carefully:

One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

The target isn't a few dead-enders or foreign terrorists; the target is "the Sunni population," which needs to be taught a lesson...

Justin Raimondo's new column is even better:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4308

No wonder the war whores wet the bed at night over the ICC.

[Howedar]

Warmongering Rightwinger: "The Geneva Conventions doesnt apply to insurgents. We can torture them, shoot them, and piss on their mass-grave if we want to" Dont like it ? Its WAR you liberal pussy. So that makes it OK"

What a lovely strawman. Is every killing in a war an execution?

No.

But fucking Death squads is where the line must be drawn.

Oh, well when you say it that way, you're absolutely right.

Arguing based on the name? Go back to first grade, kid.

[Gunhead]

N. Ireland type of operation can only be done by people who understand the local language, culture and look like locals. That kinda narrows the options for the US force in Iraq. Unless they can find trustworthy locals to train. Trust is in bit short supply there me thinks.

-Gunhead

[SecondStorm]

Oh, well when you say it that way, you're absolutely right.

Arguing based on the name? Go back to first grade, kid.

Not surprising.

[Howedar]

HELLO DOUCHEBAG, you can't argue that something is bad BECAUSE SOME REPORTER GAVE IT A BAD-SOUNDING NAME!

Give a real argument or concede the point.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Warmongering Rightwinger: "The Geneva Conventions doesnt apply to insurgents. We can torture them, shoot them, and piss on their mass-grave if we want to" Dont like it ? Its WAR you liberal pussy. So that makes it OK"

What a lovely strawman. Is every killing in a war an execution?

No.

But fucking Death squads is where the line must be drawn.

Well first, the geneva convention does not apply to them because tney are not uniformed. legally, we can execute them without trial(once they are in our jurisdiction though, our criminal proceedures must be followed, IE. Guatonamo(sp) Bay)

Secondly, whatis the difference between killing someone on the street, and killing them in their home from a utilitarian standpoint? Here it is. Less potential for loss of life and civilian casualties. WHat the fuck is it with you liberal pacifists? It is somehow wrong to take out a known enemy while they are incapable of fireing back for whatever reason? Is it some sort of honor left over from the medieval period or the Napoleonic era? If they are going to get up in the morning, and shoot at you, what is wrong with shooting them first?

[The Kernel]

Well first, the geneva convention does not apply to them because tney are not uniformed. legally, we can execute them without trial(once they are in our jurisdiction though, our criminal proceedures must be followed, IE. Guatonamo(sp) Bay)

Are you aware that we are talking about a police action not a military conflict here? The US troops are supposed to be there to keep the peace, not fight a fucking war. That means they are a police force of the Iraqi government, ergo they have to treat Iraqi citizens as citizens not as illegal combatants.

Secondly, whatis the difference between killing someone on the street, and killing them in their home from a utilitarian standpoint? Here it is. Less potential for loss of life and civilian casualties. WHat the fuck is it with you liberal pacifists? It is somehow wrong to take out a known enemy while they are incapable of fireing back for whatever reason? Is it some sort of honor left over from the medieval period or the Napoleonic era? If they are going to get up in the morning, and shoot at you, what is wrong with shooting them first?

Because if we are actually serious about trying to create a free society, then these sorts of policing actions must consist of killing only while under imminant threat. Otherwise, arrests must be made, trials must be conducted, and so on and so forth. You know, much like we do in THIS country during a civil disturbance?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are you aware that we are talking about a police action not a military conflict here? The US troops are supposed to be there to keep the peace, not fight a fucking war. That means they are a police force of the Iraqi government, ergo they have to treat Iraqi citizens as citizens not as illegal combatants.

Actually, they are independant from the Iraqi police force, they are not under the sovriegn power of Iraq, they are commanded by the US military.

And no, they dont have to treat known terrorists as citizens. That would be unworkable now wouldnt it? WE CANT PUT PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTIVLY SHOOTING US ON TRIAL. They function as foreign invaders at best, terrorists at worse.

Because if we are actually serious about trying to create a free society, then these sorts of policing actions must consist of killing only while under imminant threat. Otherwise, arrests must be made, trials must be conducted, and so on and so forth. You know, much like we do in THIS country during a civil disturbance?

Civil disobedience is a non violent protest that builds into an angry mob. The isues in Iraq are quite different. These are people who plant bombs and openly carry weapons in order to shoot at our peacekeeping troops. They kidnap civilians and behead them over the fucking internet. Just because we have turned over governmental sovereignty to the Iraqis does not mean that the legal status of known terrorists has changed. It hasnt.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Also, I would like tyo point out that even if we are under the control of the Iraqi government *chuckles* they are allowing us to use such squads without protest. IE, we have theri governmental sanction.

[Elfdart]

Try reading the fucking document:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Since when do junior league Einsatzgruppen constitute a "competent tribunal"?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces

.

Insurgents done meet this

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.

They dont meet any of these conditions

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

DOnt meet this

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

SUre as hell dont meet this

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the 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.

Nor this

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.

DOnt meet this either. They may have at the beginning of the war, but they have had ambple time to make uniforms

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

\
Doesnt apply either.

There is no doubt, therefore, they are not protected by the convention. COncession accepted.

[Elfdart]

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.

DOnt meet this either. They may have at the beginning of the war, but they have had ambple time to make uniforms.

Most of Iraq is not occupied. There's nothing in #6 about uniforms. Is there any way to carry an RPG or AKM that is not out in the open? Bullshit on all counts. Keep in mind that I'm being overly generous by allowing that all or most of those targeted for torture, anal rape and murder are actually "terrorists". Most people at Abu Ghraib were simply swept up in dragnet arrests. Death squads aren't exactly discriminating either, unless you mean their preference for butchering helpless civilians.

By the way, the Nazi death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador had a thing for raping nuns and chopping them up. Now there aren't any nuns in Iraq. Is Rumsfeld going to import them or will they have to make do with burqa-clad old housewives instead?

There is no doubt, therefore, they are not protected by the convention.

So says Alyrium Denryle. That's not good enough.

COncession accepted.

Yours maybe. But I'm having too much fun debunking your half-baked bullshit. So please continue.

[Gunhead]

In the case of the sixth category. It means the combatants must make themselves identifiable from the civilians at the first chance they get, by means mentioned in the other categories. The weapon carrying thing is another identification method, anyone carrying a weapons in considered a legit fighter.

-Gunhead

[Gunhead]

The insurgents are not legal fighters because:

1. They are not recognizable from civilians
2. They don't follow the conventions of war

These are the two main reasons, anyone who can read can spot others, but these are the most important two.

If a fighter can be deemed as legit by any of the six categories he's legit. As longs these two are not violated.

They have.

-Gunhead

[Alyrium Denryle]

In the case of the sixth category. It means the combatants must make themselves identifiable from the civilians at the first chance they get, by means mentioned in the other categories. The weapon carrying thing is another identification method, anyone carrying a weapons in considered a legit fighter.

-Gunhead

Actually, according to the language, they ahve to meet all of the above conditions.

Most of Iraq is not occupied. There's nothing in #6 about uniforms

Regular armed units have a tendency to wear uniforms

Is there any way to carry an RPG or AKM that is not out in the open?

without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Emphasis mine.
See this Kernel? They dont follow the laws and customs of war, they therefore do not meet these conditions. ANd cannont be considered POWs under clause 6

Death squads aren't exactly discriminating either, unless you mean their preference for butchering helpless civilians.

ANd how are you defining death squads, it seems to be different from a crack commando team that goes into a building and kills an insurgent leader. Those peopelk are not innocent civilians. They are TERRORISTS, who BEHEAD innocent civilians

By the way, the Nazi death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador had a thing for raping nuns and chopping them up. Now there aren't any nuns in Iraq. Is Rumsfeld going to import them or will they have to make do with burqa-clad old housewives instead?

No one is suggesting that we use indescriminant death sqiads in the south american sense. I seem to understand deathsquads in the intended sense to mean an assassination squad sending in Delta Force to neutralize a specific target. Rather than using 1 ton bunker busters

[Gunhead]

The sixth one is pretty vague. The thing about it is that if you carry a gun wearing civvies the enemy has every right to shoot at you. You carry a gun hidden in your clothes you're not protected by law. (Ok in this scenario I think I'd take the protection of a gun over law.)

"without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units"

Well there isn't time to hand out armbands when the enemy is about to roll over you.

Following the conventions of war again is the really significant part.

This is a sort "lets all play nice" category anyway. I don't think a situation like this would arise in a "normal" confilict very often.

-Gunhead

[Elfdart]

In the case of the sixth category. It means the combatants must make themselves identifiable from the civilians at the first chance they get, by means mentioned in the other categories. The weapon carrying thing is another identification method, anyone carrying a weapons in considered a legit fighter.

-Gunhead

Actually, according to the language, they ahve to meet all of the above conditions.

American troops are in Iraq in violation of the laws of war. One of the laws of war is that a nation is required to formally declare war before attacking another. Congress hasn't declared war since 1942. There are numerous other violations of the laws of war by the occupiers and their commanders in Washington. By your logic, any American caught in Iraq is fair game for whatever the Iraqis have in store for him or her. Brilliant.

Regular armed units have a tendency to wear uniforms

#6 does not describe regular units.

Emphasis mine.

Foolishness yours, too. See above for the logical conclusion of your line of thinking -that the rules and laws of war are an all or nothing principle.

See this Kernel? They dont follow the laws and customs of war, they therefore do not meet these conditions. ANd cannont be considered POWs under clause 6

Actually, they do. The fact that there's any dispute whatsoever that (a) these people are "terrorists" and (b) whether they abide by the laws of war enough to be considered POWs means they have to be treated as POWs until a competent tibunal finds them to be spies, saboteurs or whatever. Even then, summary shootings, torture and rape are forbidden by US law and the UCMJ, neither of which has been changed to allow such SS-style tactics.

ANd how are you defining death squads, it seems to be different from a crack commando team that goes into a building and kills an insurgent leader. Those peopelk are not innocent civilians. They are TERRORISTS, who BEHEAD innocent civilians

So you claim. Even witch trials have a higher standard of proof than you're offering, and yet you want to turn loose thugs and killers who, by your own logic are illegal combatants who can and should be summarily killed if caught.

No one is suggesting that we use indescriminant death sqiads in the south american sense.

Oh yes they are. Read the Newsweek article. They aren't calling it the "Salvador Option" because all the other nicknames were taken. If you want a good idea of what that means, do a Google search for "el mozote" and "atlacatl battalion". Given that the current junta in Washington has a number of thugs who took part in the killing fields of Central America (John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams and other death squad groupies), it's a sure bet they want to Ku Klux Iraq as well.

I seem to understand deathsquads in the intended sense to mean an assassination squad sending in Delta Force to neutralize a specific target. Rather than using 1 ton bunker busters

In El Salvador, the vast majority of people were killed by US-trained death squads. A much smaller percentage were killed by bombs, artillery and such. So Einsatzkommandos are even worse than bombing and shelling.

Since Dubya, Rumsfeld and Alberto "Cornhole" Gonzales have given the green light for torture to the regular armed forces and law enforcement, why on Earth do you think they'll ride herd on paramilitary death squads?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who gives a shit. No one is opposing the use of assassination as a moral issue so what gives over legal guibbling?