Text 18635, 295 rader
Skriven 2005-12-13 19:03:24 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 18459 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Copyright
=================
 MV>>>>> Ask the "guests" at the Gitmo hotel....

 >>>> Who fall in te cracks of the Convention,

 MV>>> Cracks created for the purpose by the US interpreters....

 >> No, cracks that existed when the thing was drafted.

 MV> Well, the words were there of course. But they were not recognised as
 MV> a loophole at the time of writing. If they would, the loophole would
 MV> have been fixed then and there.

 MV> The loophole did not become a loophole until the US interpreted it as
 MV> such. And of course the interpretation was never tested against that
 MV> of an independent authority. The US does not recognise any such
 MV> authority.

 MV> If the US had *wanted* to follow the Geneva convention she would not
 MV> have been looking for loopholes and no one would know about their
 MV> existence.

 MV> So for all intents and purposes the cracks *were* created by the US.

I don't recall if the US was part fof the drafting process or not, It seems
that they were a signatory, but the majority of the work came from Europe. I
could be wrong. Even so, Prior to WW2 there was not a large occurance of
un-uniformed combatants. This was prior to the variaous Resistance groups of
course. NOw, the Geneva convention does treat unlawful combatants differently
we knnow this, so it's not creating a loophole as trying to bridge an existing
gap. For all intents and purposes the gaps were there to stars with, we
certianly did not create thm.

 >>>> AFAICT. Esle they'd be treated differently as it is, they
 >>>> receive the benifits accorded to POW's.

 MV>>> No they don't. They are denied visits from the representatives
 MV>>> of the Red Cross.

 >> Which they do not get beacuse they are not POW's, other than
 >> that...

Since allowed.

 MV> For teh "other than that" we only have the word of the captors....

And teh people who have visited, and filmed there, seen the photographs?
Listened to the lawyers? They do have visitors, you know.

 MV> That is why access to the prisoners by the Red Cross is essential.

 >>>> OK, so presume that they are Prisoners of War. That means we
 >>>> get to keep them until the war's over, right?

 MV>>> They should have been released nearly two yeras ago when George
 MV>>> Bush declared that armed hostilities had ended and that the war
 MV>>> was over.

 >> You sure that's what he said?

 MV> Yes, definitely. Of course he does not repeat that nowadays. But he
 MV> surely DID say it at the time.

And yer the tropps reamin and he sadi that about Iraq, didn't he? on the deck
of the Carrier? might want to check this one. New troops are arriving this
week from other countries..

 >>>> we don't have to have hearings and tribunals, we just get to
 >>>> house them until one of two thngs happen, a ending of the war, or
 >>>> a prisoner echange.  So, where's the problem?

 MV>>> 1) That according to your president the war IS over.
 MV>>> 2) That some of them are denied visits from the Red Cross.
 MV>>> 3) These ever increasing rumours about torture.

 >> Rumours are rumors, as has ever been.

 MV> Persistent rumours have the nasty habit of becoming more than just
 MV> rumours. Aby Graib comes to mind. And don't tell me the responsible
 MV> parties have been brought to trial and convicted. Those methods come
 MV> out of the bag of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Nobody here
 MV> believes that Donald Rumsfeld was unaware of it.

 >> If the war is over who are we shooting at, still?

 MV> Obviously your president spoke prematurely when he said the war was
 MV> over. he said it nevertheless.

Which is a far cry drom actually pulling out of there or hostilities ending,
which they havn't.

 MV>>>>> But they do not, they play judge in their own case and simply
 MV>>>>> rule that the Geneva convention does not apply. The Geneva
 MV>>>>> convention was meant to protect the weaker party - the
 MV>>>>> prisoner - against the captor abusing his power. What good is
 MV>>>>> that if the captor can unlateraly set it aside at will simply
 MV>>>>> by labelling the prisoners as "illegal combatants"?

 >>>> And yet, they get the /exact/ treatment that would if the were
 >>>> POW's.

 MV>>> No, they don't.

 >> Aside from IRC visits, they are, I've seen the pictures, both
 >> before and after Camp Delta. They are treated very well.

 MV> How do you know? Nobody is allowed to make pictures without a US
 MV> censor standing behind him. No one except US military personnel is
 MV> allowed to speak to the prisoners. Not the Red Cross, not the UN, not
 MV> the independent press.

BUt, this is not so. several members of Congress were invited down there for a
tour and inspection, they brought the press along who could take pictures of
anyhting at all, save for the prisoner's faces. in accordance with the Geneva
Convention.  I've seen sevral uncensored pictures on othe sites i trust, as
well. The lawyers talk to them on a reagular basis, (their defense lawyers)
so, there you go.

 MV> We only have the word of the captors that they are treated well.

 MV> Add to that that the few who were released tell a different story..

 MV> The indications that methods of interrogation are used at Guantanomo
 MV> Bay that violate international agreements and US law are pretty
 MV> strong. Why did these prisoners have to go to Cuba in the first place?
 MV> The answer seems pretty obvious: because methods are used that when
 MV> used on US territory would be a violation of the law.

 MV> Personally I think using torture and denying it is pretty stupid.
 MV> Eventually the truth will come out. It always does...

 MV>>>>> And of course Guantanomo bay is noit the one and only example
 MV>>>>> of the US ignoring the Geneva Convention. When the Iraqies
 MV>>>>> showed the captured amercican soldiers on TV, you screemed
 MV>>>>> bloody murder. Two weeks later, the US did the same with
 MV>>>>> captured Iraqi soldiers...

 >>>> OK, I can buy that. but . was the media state-run, or allowed
 >>>> to show that video? there's a difference.

 MV>>> The footage was shot by US "embedded" journalists. IOW with
 MV>>> knowledge and approval of the US army.

 >> Knowledge, Perhaps, I'm not sure about approval. I'll look
 >> that one up.

 MV> O c'mon, those embedded journalists operated under strict censorship
 MV> of the US military. Dutch journalist Wouter Kurpershoek after one day
 MV> of "embedment" decided to do without the "protection" of the US
 MV> military and de-embedded himself. he said he could not properly do his
 MV> job as independent reporter while embedded.


 >>>>>> It wasn't about numbers, Michiel, it was about tactics.

 MV>>>>> Hmmm... why do I get the feeling that this "tactics" are in
 MV>>>>> violation of the Geneve Convention...?

 >>>> Beats me, as it was't. I can see why you would think that way,
 >>>> but that's perhaps just not having enough information?

 MV>>> Or because recently a LOT of information has come aviable about
 MV>>> incidents where the US did not exactly respect human rights....

 >> Such as?

 MV> How about Abu Graib for starters?

That's not tactics is it? Even at it's best as an interrogation, that's not
tactics.

 >>>>>> They had a tactical doctrine that worked,

 MV>>>>> If it worked, what was stopping the other side from using the
 MV>>>>> same tactic? Outnumbered again...

 >> Using conventional troops as a guerilla force does not
 >> historically work well.

 MV> As the US found out.

No, we knew that already, we learned that in the revolutionary War. which is
why we fielded a more traditional force, and won.

 MV> How about guerrilla troops against guerrilla troops?

Very do-able.

 >>>> And yet, they were successfull until they were withdrawn..

 MV>>> If they really were succesfull, why were they withdrawn? And
 MV>>> you didn't asnwer the question: what stopped the enemy from
 MV>>> using the same tactic?

 >> That was a command decision by MACV. they were making the
 >> regulars look bad, and were considered "cowboys"

 MV> Or maybe they were not as successful as you say.

If you look at the records and talk to the people, as I have, you would not
come to that conclusion.

 >> and "Gone native" two no-no's at the time.

 MV> Maybe they *had* gone native. maybe fighting the same way as they VC,
 MV> they started to see things their way too. It happens you know....

Nope. they had the tactics right and it was expected for them to look like and
live as the natives, to gain their trust. Higher command didn't like that
because they didn't look like soldires anymore, and "that wasn't cricket" to
thier military oriented mentality They didn't understand the program at all..

 MV>>>>> Why would the NVA be forced to use the "losing" tactics? I am
 MV>>>>> afraid I do not follow you.

 >> See above re conventional forces, they do not have the training.

 MV> What stopped them from giving the same training to their special
 MV> units?

They did not have enough special Units, they were, at one point drafting old
men and boys to filed the units they had.. they did not have enough
infrastructure..

 MV> I still don't see how the US had a lasting advantage.

 >>>> Simple it would have been Conventional forces against
 >>>> guerillas, with the NVA being the conventional forces.

 MV>>> How would that stop /their/ guarillas?

The VC? those were southern local, barely trained, all they did was sneak up
and make large assuatls, in waves.. that's not guerilla tactics.

 >> It's a matter of training guerilla tactics, to be effective
 >> take specialised trainig, which is what the Special Forces do.

 MV> Again what stopped them from doing the same?

They didn't know how? the only people that really knew the jungle were the
Hmong, and they didn't like the communists and the feeling was mutual.

 >> NVA had similar units that trained the VC. they also had very few
 >> of them.

 MV> What stopped them from getting more?

No one to train them? and no time.

 >>>> You are awre of the difference between the NVA and th VC,
 >>>> correct? Vietnam was a lot more than a guerilla war.. there
 >>>> were conventional units employed on both sides.

 MV>>> So what your tactic amounts to is the US side *also* started to
 MV>>> employ guarilla tactics. That *still* does not give them the
 MV>>> advantage. /Their/ guarillas wre still fighting on their own
 MV>>> territory.

 >> And so were ours, as I stated, with the Hmong, the mountain
 >> people.

 MV> So both parties employed guerrilla tactics. I still don't see the
 MV> advantage.

The advantge comes in a combination of tactics and weaponry. better equipment
allied with equal tactics will win out. Good example? the British "Brown Bess"
Smoothbore musket vs the Kentucky (actually pensylvania) Long rifle. !775 and
later, accuracy a huge difference, that, and the training. when you hunt for
super, you have to use skill.

 MV>>>>> You can't free a fish from water...

 >>>> You've not seen the ones you can, have you?  Not all cretures
 >>>> in the water are fish.

 MV>>> True. But those that have never lived outside the water can not
 MV>>> live without it.

 MV>>> The people of Iraq have never lived in a democracy.

 >> Neither did we prior to 1776.. that arguement fails.

 MV> Same here. Different date of course. We however did not get it imposed
 MV> from outside. We grew into it all by ourselves. And it took a long
 MV> time.

Iraw is growing into it currently , we'll see how the elections go.

 MV> Yes, a fish can evolve into an animal that can live outside the
 MV> water.
 MV> But you can not forcebly "free" it from water.

 MV> Democracy can only come from inside.

---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)