Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why
Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why:
"'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.""
"the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday."
Let's see now, what's that word for when a government puts itself above the law? Oh, Yeah - FASCISM.
And what's that phrase for when you do things in violation of a Prisoner's rights under the Geneva Conventions? Oh, yeah - WAR CRIME.
posted by Morgaine @ 1:56 AM
PermaLink
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
10 Comments:
Is it still a war crime if your country's Attorney General "released" your country from the Geneva Convention? Ugh....
Oh, by the way... Are you actually diagnosed with manic-depressive disorder, or did you just say that in your profile?
It's official, but it is primarily expressed as varying depths of depression. I take med.s that are working quite well.
It's official, but it is primarily expressed as varying depths of depression. I take med.s that are working quite well.
Oh I'm glad that's working out. I asked because it bothers me when people take that label lightly and use it indiscriminately, it's not an issue to be taken lightly.
You might be interested in a paper I wrote for my women's studies class. I wrote about how Catholicism in the Polish American immigrant culture fosters emotional abuse and mental illness that seems to be "hereditary" from mother to daughter. May also explain my culture's MASSIVE alcohol abuse problem...
Anyway, keep up the good work and let Pennywitless just roll off your back. (easier said than done, I know!)
Only soldiers should have the power to make decisions that affect only soldiers.
No Service, No Opinion.
Yes, that phrase is harsh, and civilians bristle at it. I don’t care.
Mack
Sorry, that wasn't cool. Just get tired of people who have little to no comprehension about what they are speaking about spouting off opinions. Those in Abu Ghraib and in Gitmo have no claim to Geneva Convention protections. You do realize that the Geneva Conventions were a treaty, right? And only signatories to the treaty are afforded protections? And to get the protections you have to play by the rules of war? You have to wear a uniform, seperate yourself from civilian populations, not behead civilians, not willfully target civilian populations, etc.
Mack
Hey, Mack - I know about it being a treaty, but the fact remains that it is in violation of international law, and it only puts our troops in greater danger.
I have great respect for people who serve in the military, but they are being abused by this administration, and crimes are being committed in our name.
I don't know about Mack's definition of the rules of war... As a member of the AK, the Polish Resistence Army, my grandfather wasn't wearing a uniform, separating from the civilian population, etc... But I guess because America finally decided that supporting Poland (after all of it was levelled) would be politically advantageous, my grandfather is known to posterity as "freedom fighter" and not "insurgent."
I'm not comparing the US to Germany or the Soviets, but we all know that history is written by the winners, so... I don't know what point I'm trying to make...
Your grandfather was a partisan, and was whether he wore a uniform or not, he was a soldier in the Polish Army. The Polish government, even in exile was recognized as the true and legal government of Poland. The Polish partisans acted in accordance with the rules of war and were signatories to and respected the Geneva Convention.
The "insurgents" in Iraq are not partisans, do not represent the legal government of Iraq (their goal is to overthrow the legally elected government of Iraq), are not signatories to the Geneva Convention and routinely act contrary to the Geneva Convention.
Al-Qaeda is not a signatory, and even if it was, they lost claim to status once they began an campaign of systemic violence against the civilian populace. Remember that the beheadings and car-bombings of civilians, women and children was ordered and initiated by Al-Zaqwari himself. Hard to make a case that they deserve Geneva protections. But then again, I'm just a simple, aging, pudgy balding ex-Army officer, not a lawyer or a politician.
Mack
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home