Fear and Loathing in Iraq

[Retlaw83]

Under the Geneva Convention, what happened in the Iraqi prisons was not torture. The Geneva Convention was broken when images of humiliated prisoners were made public.

[Mismatch]

Well, I am not that a whizz on the geneva convention, so I decided to search for something that tells me why it was broken when them pics were made public...
This is what I found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm

Which I found a tad amusing.

[MurPHy]

Their watchdogging of us is interesting, for aren't our enemies CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF? I don't think you need to debate if that breaches the Geneva Convention.

[S4ur0n27]

Terrorists are doing that, not soldiers from the most powerful country.

[Retlaw83]

Well, I am not that a whizz on the geneva convention, so I decided to search for something that tells me why it was broken when them pics were made public...
This is what I found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3042907.stm

Which I found a tad amusing.

I found the article hilarious!

As the the sergeant in the article said, there is a difference between torture and discomfort. Torture will leave lasting physical or psychological scars; discomfort will not. And the latter is legal under Convention rules.

HOWEVER, the public humiliation of prisoners is agains the Geneva Convention. Again, the U.S. government isn't responsible there, as private media corporations released the photos to the public.

The Army personnel who are being court-martialed more than likely took their orders way to far, and abusing people just for the sake of abusing people is illegal under U.S. law. So, to do that of your own free will while being a member of an all-volunteer army will get you hauled to jail.

[MurPHy]

HOWEVER, the public humiliation of prisoners is agains the Geneva Convention. Again, the U.S. government isn't responsible there, as private media corporations released the photos to the public.

Hmm. Now you know why I call the liberal media hypocritical communists. How can a person break a law (the Geneva Convention), and then turn around and say that the person you hate to death did it (the Bush Jr. Administration). Those damn liberals have their heads so far up their asses that they must be crazy.

[Guest]

What they did to those prisoners was way more than *just* wrong. I think its time for either the neuce, or rifle team. They did it of their own free will too. There were no orders to do that kind of shit. The commander is also to blame for letting it go on unchecked.

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

HOWEVER, the public humiliation of prisoners is agains the Geneva Convention. Again, the U.S. government isn't responsible there, as private media corporations released the photos to the public.

However I do believe that you have certain responsibilities when you take prisoners. It could have been that the government was in the wrong because they are responsible for making sure that those photos are not released to the public, in which they failed.

It's like a government agency collecting confidentail files on you, then uploading them to an unsecure server, when something embarrassing starts to circulate in your local area, you complain and they go "well sorry, we didn't distribute them, someone else did when they took them.".

Hmm. Now you know why I call the liberal media hypocritical communists. How can a person break a law (the Geneva Convention), and then turn around and say that the person you hate to death did it (the Bush Jr. Administration). Those damn liberals have their heads so far up their asses that they must be crazy. icon_crazy

I assume throughout that paragraph you are talking about the media or "liberal media hypocritical communists"

I haven't researched int the geneva convention,, so I'll ask you instead. As it is my understanding the geneva convention applies to the government who agrees to abide by it when they take or are holding prisoners. Does a media company that is not holding prisoners have to abide by the geneva convention?

As I understand it the geneva convention is outlining a set of rules and resposibilities that the agreeing government has to abide by with prisoners. Surely a media company not holding prisonersdoes not have to abide by the geneva convention over someone elses prisoners. So the media or "those damn liberals" have not broken any law but the government failed the responsibilities set out by what they agreed to.




As always, anyone who *actually knows anything about this* (and dont nessacarily presume you are in that group) please *please* correct me if I'm wrong.

[Retlaw83]

However I do believe that you have certain responsibilities when you take prisoners. It could have been that the government was in the wrong because they are responsible for making sure that those photos are not released to the public, in which they failed.

The government took did not take the leaked photos. The photographs in question were taken using the personal digital camera of one of the offenders. He then e-mailed them to his father, who then gave them to the news show 60 Minutes 2.

[MurPHy]

However I do believe that you have certain responsibilities when you take prisoners. It could have been that the government was in the wrong because they are responsible for making sure that those photos are not released to the public, in which they failed.

If it was a reporter who had taken the photos, it would have been the fault of the news agency. In this case, it is the fault not of the government, but of the Army. For both allowing this to happen, and allowing the breach of the Geneva Convention.

I haven't researched int the geneva convention,, so I'll ask you instead. As it is my understanding the geneva convention applies to the government who agrees to abide by it when they take or are holding prisoners. Does a media company that is not holding prisoners have to abide by the geneva convention?

You are unwise to ask me, as I know not of the technical details surrounding the Convention's laws. However, any media personnel who work with the U.S. Army should abide by their rules and regulations. And in the case of the prisoner abuses, it is the Army's fault in general, and the faults of the individual soldiers to be specific. As well as the fault of their commanding officer, who is likely a 2nd Leiutenant.

I assume throughout that paragraph you are talking about the media or "liberal media hypocritical communists"

I am. I call them commies usually. In that post I called them "liberal media", and then insulted them with "hypocritical communists".

As always, anyone who *actually knows anything about this* (and dont nessacarily presume you are in that group) please *please* correct me if I'm wrong.

You believe that I was talking out of my ass in the last post, don't you? I believe that you misunderstood me.

The government took did not take the leaked photos. The photographs in question were taken using the personal digital camera of one of the offenders. He then e-mailed them to his father, who then gave them to the news show 60 Minutes 2.

This little piece of information clears up my thoughts about this situation. The burden of blame should be rested on the individual soldiers who committed the heinous acts, as well as their CO. Unless a specific order to abuse and humiliate prisoners came from higher up, no one else should be blamed.

As for who broke the GC, both the soldiers who did it and the Army as a whole should be blamed. The soldiers (for doing it), and the Army (for allowing it to happen).

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

However I do believe that you have certain responsibilities when you take prisoners. It could have been that the government was in the wrong because they are responsible for making sure that those photos are not released to the public, in which they failed.

The government took did not take the leaked photos. The photographs in question were taken using the personal digital camera of one of the offenders. He then e-mailed them to his father, who then gave them to the news show 60 Minutes 2.

You dont seem to have understood my point. It is the governments responsibility to make sure the photos do not become public no matter who took them or distributed them. It's like a psychiatrist who has information on a patient, it doesn't matter who steals, copies or takes the information he is contractually obliged to keep the information from entering the public domain. The crime is not commited by him, but as the responsible party he is the one who should and does take the rap.


As for it being the Army's fault, that is true, however as I understand it the Army is supposed to be kept in check by the governement. The Army's actions are answerable by the goverenment, the resposibility is in the end theirs. Also is not a certain government official the commander in chief?


Unless the media was employed under a censoship contract and not as media journalists (which is rare) then they dont have to do jack squat concerning the geneva convention and the release of those photos. Some would argue that they were doing their job as an uncensored free press, frankly they'd also not be totally in the right but if you're laying blame the media is about as far from it as possible, unless they violated a contractual agreement between the government and army, unless I'm wrong the geneva convention doesn't come into with them.

If it was a reporter taking the photos, unless he was under a contractual agreement stating tht he cannot, then the news agency is *not* at fault.


"You believe that I was talking out of my ass in the last post, don't you? I believe that you misunderstood me. "

I may very well have misunderstood you. However if that is not the case then frankly no. I think you have an extreme bias, however having not lurked the political discussion areas I am probably wrong, and may very well be ingnorant of the responsibilities the government has by default and under the terms of the geneva convention. If I'm wrong please feel free to point it out, life is a learning process, I wish to be corrected, by anyone, aslong as they can have a valid argument backed up by facts. You and Retlaw86 have pointed things out to me already, I'm learning, and I thank you for it.




You yourself have pointed out a delegation of responsibility to higher up personnel who have agreed to take responsibillity of those under them

"The burden of blame should be rested on the individual soldiers who committed the heinous acts, as well as their CO."

is the CO didn't order it should he still face blame?
should the CO of the CO face blame since the responsibilities of the lower CO is also the responsibility of the higher CO?
can you see where this is going?

We agree on certain points, the main fault does lie with the individual soldiers, however I do believe that in cases like this everyone should get it in the neck from the top down, the top being the government, not as much as you follow back to the man on whom all responsibility lies but always a little. The media aslong as not proving a hazard, breaking laws and rules or have major detrimental effect should be left out of it, as it should be even if a reporter took the photos.

[Retlaw83]

You dont seem to have understood my point. It is the governments responsibility to make sure the photos do not become public no matter who took them or distributed them. It's like a psychiatrist who has information on a patient, it doesn't matter who steals, copies or takes the information he is contractually obliged to keep the information from entering the public domain. The crime is not commited by him, but as the responsible party he is the one who should and does take the rap.

According to the Geneva convention, when stuff like this happens, its the people directly responsible who take the blame, not the higher ups.

In other countries, when there is outright torture and massacre of people, generals and presidents are brought in on war crimes charges because they ordered their people to do those things. In Iraq, the president and generals did not order illegal abuse of prisoners.

EDIT: And why do people call me Retlaw86 when they screw up my name? I'm not offended when it happens, but its the same mistake from different people constantly. I think its a conspiracy.

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

You dont seem to have understood my point. It is the governments responsibility to make sure the photos do not become public no matter who took them or distributed them. It's like a psychiatrist who has information on a patient, it doesn't matter who steals, copies or takes the information he is contractually obliged to keep the information from entering the public domain. The crime is not commited by him, but as the responsible party he is the one who should and does take the rap.

According to the Geneva convention, when stuff like this happens, its the people directly responsible who take the blame, not the higher ups.

In other countries, when there is outright torture and massacre of people, generals and presidents are brought in on war crimes charges because they ordered their people to do those things. In Iraq, the president and generals did not order illegal abuse of prisoners.

In which case fair enough. Thanks for pointing that out.

EDIT: And why do people call me Retlaw86 when they screw up my name? I'm not offended when it happens, but its the same mistake from different people constantly. I think its a conspiracy.

It's probably just one of those things. Human mind thingamagiggie. Sorry for the wrong-doing. If you dont mind me asking, why 83?

[Retlaw83]

Its the year of my birth. I added it on because I registered at NMA first (but don't go there anymore) and someone had already taken Retlaw without making a single post. I signed up here under the same name for consistency.

So, I don't care about the 83. But I do find it amusing that people will always say 86 when they get it wrong, as opposed to say using 85 or 89.

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

Next time I get it wrong, remind me beforehand, and I'll make sure I put it down as 85. OK?

[Retlaw83]

Next time I get it wrong, remind me beforehand, and I'll make sure I put it down as 85. OK?

lol. Not a problem.

[EFFEXOR]

Ya know KMFDM has some crazy anti-culture anti politics stuff that kinda have to do with the current situation especially with the release of their newest album WWIII. However, Kerry was on the platform for reinstituting the draft and I sure a f*** hope they don't bring it back because alot of people I know would be as I said before screwed. And if they did bring it back there would be all sorts of hell for the gov'mint to pay. Seeing is how alot of the veterans of the vietnam war I know will protest because they don't want others to go through the hell they had to during that time. They hated it and would like to see the draft thrown out.

WWWIII be all that you can be,
Janus

WWIII is way too obvious, i'd say it's got to be one of the dumbest and least intelligent KMFDM albums to date... all of them are somewhat obvious but this one does one better. it's just pure anger and aggression that loses itself and comes out as mostly bad guitar and over produced noise. the intensity of the rage that sascha and the gang must have been feeling during this recording is so high that the technological advancements that KMFDM has made in the last 20 years have been forgotten. it's the nature of humanity though to become stupid when angry so i can't say i'm suprised.

i don't think it's a bad album, i also don't think it great... it's typical KMFDM; simple solution to simple problems (george w.)

listen to ministry's new album "Houses of the Mole (with special french "e") or skinny puppy's new "Greater wrong of the right" or even Front Line Assembly's "Civilzation" all musically and conceptually better albums than KMFDM's and all pretty much tackling the problem that is george w. bush.

that being said i'm seeing Ministry and Thrill Kill Kult on october 13th and probably seeing SP and KMFDM when they book some fucking canadian dates this fall.

[Wolfman Walt]

I liked "Juke Joint Jezebels"?

[Janus Matchell]

Ya know KMFDM has some crazy anti-culture anti politics stuff that kinda have to do with the current situation especially with the release of their newest album WWIII. However, Kerry was on the platform for reinstituting the draft and I sure a f*** hope they don't bring it back because alot of people I know would be as I said before screwed. And if they did bring it back there would be all sorts of hell for the gov'mint to pay. Seeing is how alot of the veterans of the vietnam war I know will protest because they don't want others to go through the hell they had to during that time. They hated it and would like to see the draft thrown out.

WWWIII be all that you can be,
Janus

WWIII is way too obvious, i'd say it's got to be one of the dumbest and least intelligent KMFDM albums to date... all of them are somewhat obvious but this one does one better. it's just pure anger and aggression that loses itself and comes out as mostly bad guitar and over produced noise. the intensity of the rage that sascha and the gang must have been feeling during this recording is so high that the technological advancements that KMFDM has made in the last 20 years have been forgotten. it's the nature of humanity though to become stupid when angry so i can't say i'm suprised.

i don't think it's a bad album, i also don't think it great... it's typical KMFDM; simple solution to simple problems (george w.)

listen to ministry's new album "Houses of the Mole (with special french "e") or skinny puppy's new "Greater wrong of the right" or even Front Line Assembly's "Civilzation" all musically and conceptually better albums than KMFDM's and all pretty much tackling the problem that is george w. bush.

that being said i'm seeing Ministry and Thrill Kill Kult on october 13th and probably seeing SP and KMFDM when they book some fucking canadian dates this fall.

Wow! EFFEXOR chill dude. WWIII is not an album for older KMFDM fans but it is definitely a gateway album for newer listeners. I have been listening to KMFDM since I was 10 and the first album I got of theirs was Nihil. They have always been counter culture. The guitaring in WWIII was superb and it was Steve Whites best to date. The songs that I could live without are Revenge, Moron and From Here ON OUT. Other than that it was a good album that was a hell of alot better than Attack. My cousin got to meet with Sascha K. before the Tulsa show anyways he said that he wanted the album to be the way it was. Also he didn't have Skold or Schulz to really go through on alot of the creative process. Not that they were bad but he got to things his way finally I guess.

I have heard and bought Ministry's-Houses of the Mole' , Skinny Puppy's-greater wrong of right. They are good album but they aren't in the same boat besides the fact they are industrial and they happen to not like Bush.
Other than that your flame made perfect sense.

[Kashluk]

Their watchdogging of us is interesting, for aren't our enemies CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF?

Speaking of which, it was a fake video tape. Just another one of those dirty capitalizt schemes

And I pretty much agree with the Amnesty International spokesmenbitch:

"It is a very difficult line to draw between what constitutes discomfort and what constitutes torture - that line will vary for individuals and it would depend on each particular case."