U.S. soldier to plead case as objector [Archive]

View Full Version : U.S. soldier to plead case as objector

estranged4life

06-24-2004, 02:29 PM

U.S. soldier to plead case as objector
2004-06-23
By Ron Jackson
The Oklahoman

FORT SILL -- The first U.S. soldier to refuse to return to Iraq will plead his case as a conscientious objector today at Fort Sill.

Pvt. Camilo Mejia, 28, will testify at the 1 p.m. hearing, which will be closed to the public. He will do so as a convicted military deserter serving a one- year sentence at the Fort Sill Correctional Facility.

A military court convicted Mejia on May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for going absent without leave in October 2003 after he returned from Iraq for a two- week furlough. Mejia surrendered to the military in March, armed with a 55- page conscientious objector application and stories of prisoner abuses allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad Prison near Baghdad.

"It's an absolute travesty that he (Mejia) has been charged as a deserter," said Nancy Lessin, who is scheduled to testify on Mejia's behalf.

Lessin co-founded Military Families Speak Out in November 2002 when two military families protested the government's decision to wage war on Iraq. Lessin claims more than 1,500 military families have joined her organization, several of which are expected to attend a noon vigil outside the Fort Sill gates to protest Mejia's prisoner status.

"People have asked, 'Why did Camilo join the military? Didn't he know there was a possibility he might go to war? What right does he now have to do this?'" Lessin said. "True, soldiers do sign an oath that they will go to defend country and constitution, but there is also an implied vow that the government won't engage in some reckless, military misadventure.

"And that's the vow that we feel has been broken."
Mejia, a Costa Rican and Nicaraguan citizen, joined the Army in 1995 after his family moved to the United States. In 1998, he continued his military service by signing on with the Florida National Guard.

Mejia was deployed to Iraq as a staff sergeant with Company C, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment in April 2003. His rank was dropped to private after his court-martial, which created nationwide media attention.

A Web site dedicated to Mejia -- freecamilo.org -- champions his cause. On the site, Mejia is quoted as saying of his war experience, "At first they were happy to see us. Then we started setting up roadblocks, raiding their homes, killing civilians, and their attitude changed. The people didn't want us there any more, and we didn't want to be there."

Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, a Florida National Guard spokesman, is not sympathetic of Mejia's current problems. They are problems Tittle says Mejia could have avoided through legal military channels, or even by talking to an Army chaplain.

"We have had five Florida guardsmen killed in Iraq, and more than 100 who have been injured," Tittle said. "Our troops have served with honor and distinction. I suppose it kind of digs into the heart when one leaves and deserts his comrades."

estranged4life

06-24-2004, 02:32 PM

Family of convicted deserter pleads for conscientious objector status

2004-06-23
By Sean Murphy
Associated Press Writer

LAWTON - Supporters of a soldier who refused to return to Iraq after a two-week leave urged the Army on Wednesday to give him an honorable discharge, even though he was convicted of desertion last month.

A military hearings officer from Fort Stewart, Ga., heard testimony from character witnesses in a closed hearing to determine if Camilo Mejia should receive conscientious objector status. The hearing was held at the Fort Sill Regional Correctional Facility, where Mejia is being held.

Dozens of Mejia's supporters and relatives held a vigil outside Fort Sill before the hearing. Supporters said at a news conference that Mejia's sincere beliefs led him to refuse to return to his Florida National Guard unit after a two-week leave in October.

"He listened to a higher power, which is the voice of his conscience," Mejia's mother, Maritza Castillo, said in Spanish through an interpreter.

Mejia, 28, was convicted in a military court at Fort Stewart, Ga., of desertion. He was sentenced to a year in military prison, received a dishonorable discharge and was reduced in rank from staff sergeant to private.

A report from Wednesday's hearing will be forwarded to the Department of the Army, which will decide whether to approve Mejia's request.

In his conscientious objector application, Mejia claims he saw Iraqi prisoners treated cruelly while he was overseeing the processing of detainees at al-Assad, an Iraqi air base occupied by U.S. forces.

Among those testifying Wednesday was Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who leaked the 1971 Pentagon Papers, a top secret study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Ellsberg met with Mejia for two hours before the hearing, and said the soldier is "very sincere in his beliefs."

Raymond Schmidt, 40, owner of a military surplus store across the street from the vigil, said he believes Mejia deserved to be punished.

"He signed up knowing someday he'd have to fill a role," Schmidt said.

estranged4life

06-24-2004, 02:36 PM

Soldier's imprisonment sparks demonstration

2004-06-24
By Ron Jackson
The Oklahoman

LAWTON -- Thunderous echoes of artillery fire from nearby Fort Sill provided an ironic sound effect to a war protest staged Wednesday on behalf of a convicted U.S. Army deserter, Pvt. Camilo Mejia of Miami, Fla.

About two dozen protesters, some from as far away as California, rendezvoused in Lawton to speak out against Mejia's imprisonment at the Fort Sill Regional Correctional Facility. Mejia, 28, was taken to Fort Sill after being court-martialed May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for desertion. He is serving a one-year sentence.

The afternoon protest coincided with a closed military hearing at Fort Sill on Mejia's application for conscientious objector status -- a document filed in March after he went AWOL during a two-week furlough from Iraq. A decision will be made on Mejia's application by the Department of the Army.

Mejia, activated from the Florida National Guard last year, served six months in Iraq prior to his furlough and disappearance.

Mejia received national attention during his flight by taking his story to CBS correspondent Dan Rather on "60 Minutes." Mejia, a dual Guatemalan and Costa Rican citizen, since has spoken and written about prisoner abuses he allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad detainee camp near Baghdad, as well as the killing of innocent civilians. Consequently, the line between traitor and hero has been debated in the arena of public opinion.

"Camilo is following his heart in that this is an illegal and immoral war," said Mary Harren, who traveled from Wichita, Kan., to represent an anti-war organization called Pax Christi. "He's a proud inspiration for the rest of our youth. ... This democracy -- or what we have left of it -- can be proud of young men like Camilo."

Among those gathered to support Mejia were his mother, Maritza Castillo, and aunt, Norma Castillo. Both women spoke at a news conference convened under a shade tree at Lawton's Elmer Thomas Park.

"I'm struggling day by day, minute by minute, but it's not going to stop until Camilo is free," said Maritza Castillo, who flew in from New York. "Camilo is always in harmony with himself and his decision. And I'm very proud of what he is doing."
Some are ashamed.

Norman businessman Larry Courtney made a special trip to Lawton to express his views. The Army veteran held an American flag aloft as he faced the that leads into the historic post where he once was stationed.

"I have no sympathy for him (Mejia)," Courtney said. "He signed up to do a job, and he should have done it. The military isn't the kind of job you can just up and quit. If he ever thought he might have had to claim conscientious objector status, then maybe he should have never joined the military."

strandinthewind

06-24-2004, 02:39 PM

Interesting case. He will most likely lose because, right or wrong, the military cannot have everyone be a CO, etc.

BUT, the interesting part to me is if he reported that abuse and can prove it existed and the military did nothing abiout it, he will be very popular. It also may substantiate in some way his CO case.

Thanks for posting.

dissention

06-24-2004, 02:45 PM

He'll probably lose, but I'll cross my fingers for him. These kinds of stories make my blood boil, they're heartbreaking. I can't imagine the things he witnessed while in Iraq, those experiences are all the punishment he needs. Poor guy.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 04:03 PM

Soldier's imprisonment sparks demonstration

"I have no sympathy for him (Mejia)," Courtney said. "He signed up to do a job, and he should have done it. The military isn't the kind of job you can just up and quit. If he ever thought he might have had to claim conscientious objector status, then maybe he should have never joined the military."

He was told to break the law. Someone's going to have to make this case. Unfortunately, it's going to have to be him.
I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made. The Geneva Convention was ignored. I don't blame the guy for being a conscientious objector to that. He served for a long time so the deserter charge is rather ridiculous to me. I'm sure at no point he ever agreed to commit war crimes.
God help him.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 04:42 PM

He was told to break the law. Someone's going to have to make this case. Unfortunately, it's going to have to be him.
I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made. The Geneva Convention was ignored. I don't blame the guy for being a conscientious objector to that. He served for a long time so the deserter charge is rather ridiculous to me. I'm sure at no point he ever agreed to commit war crimes.
God help him.

Now, let's be fair, saying he was exposed to this is not and should not be enough. He has to prove he was told to break the law - and regardless of how long he served, if his contract was not up, the law compelled him to stay to its fruition. I mean I am sure all CO's say things to get them out of their duty. He has to prove it. AND - even then, he should have followed the military's procedure for reporting such events. I am unsure, but I do not think military law allows a prisoner to refuse to return to duty way after the fact. In fact, his not reporting it when he saw it is probably another violation. So, although his heart may be in the right place now, he went about it in an illegal method and most likely will go to prison for it. If he had followed the rules, this could have been avoided and, depending on the situation and assuming he is telling the truth, less people could have been tortured. Instead, he appears to have taken the law into his own hands, which is hardly ever going to win in a criminal court - nor would society want it to - anarchy is the alternative :shrug: So, while I feel for this guy, I think he has made his situation worse.

As for the Geneva Convention, my understanding is the U.S. is adhering to it in Iraq. but not in Afganistan as far as Al-Q is concerned. They are correct regarding Al-Q because Al-Q does not fall within the GC's narrow combat rules nor are they civilians as the GC defines that. This is a good thing because if Al-Q did, all we could do with the captured people pretty much is ask them is their name, rank, and other such trivial info. I think we need more info. from these people than that (of course without torture). Interestingly, the combat provisions of the GC would apply to the military prisoners in Iraq, but not to the garden variety criminals who were not incarcerated in any type of battle. Any treaties we are in with Iraq (there are a few both countries (along with others) have singed) would also control and perhaps be more inclusive than the more limited GC. In the end, it has not been established the torturous actions of the soldiers (which were horrible and I am not defending them) rose to the level of official U.S. policy. If they cannot prove that (and I hope we cannot no matter how much I hate W) - then the U.S. is not in violation of the stadards set forth in the GC and any applicable treaties, the soldiers are and they will be prosecuted accordingly. It is unfair to hold the entire US accountable for them, unless it can be proven the U.S. officially sanctioned it and the people tortured fell within the def.'s of these laws. So, far, that has not been proven and the doc.'s the WH released last week negate it further.

I know this sounds like a techinicality, but I think it is unfair to place the U.S. in such a bad light because IMO doing so places all soldiers in this horrendus and quasi-felonious mind set. I think the vast majority of the soldiers there are the good guys and do not deserve such treatment by association :shrug:

Tone: This was said in a friendly not finger snapping manner :angel:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 04:48 PM

Now, let's be fair, saying he was exposed to this is not and should not be enough.

I said I didn't know what he had witnessed or been told to do. I am quite sure however, that he was told to break the law. We'll see. :shrug:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 04:50 PM

So, although his heart may be in the right place now, he went about it in an illegal method and most likely will go to prison for it.

And the proper procedure for violating the Geneva Convention according to military rules is what? :confused:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 05:08 PM

I know this sounds like a techinicality, but I think it is unfair to place the U.S. in such a bad light because IMO doing so places all soldiers in this horrendus and quasi-felonious mind set. I think the vast majority of the soldiers there are the good guys and do not deserve such treatment by association :shrug:

Don't start that anti American, rah rah, you don't support the troops rhetoric with me.
Did I say they were bad? No. That's the current administration's bag of tricks. When are they going to be accountable or apologize?
Do you honestly think they even give a **** about Camilo, other than the fact that he's a nuisance to them?

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 05:19 PM

I said I didn't know what he had witnessed or been told to do. I am quite sure however, that he was told to break the law. We'll see. :shrug:

You first said "He was told to break the law." I drew my conclusion from that because although you said later that "I don't know what he saw or did at Abu Gharib but I think his case has to be made" - the articles indicate he served at the "Al Assad detainee camp near Baghdad, as well as the killing of innocent civilians. So, I did not equate the two :shrug: :cool:

How can you be certain, you were there? This guy is a prosecutor's dream. I mean if it was so bad, why did he wait - people may have died or been tortured because of that. Do not tell me he was scared. He was a combat soldier based on what I read - so that defense looses a TON of credibility based on that fact. Then, he waits until he is back in the states and runs away. All of those things do not support his credibility. So, if it is his word against their word, he will lose. Also, if he did not report an infraction of the rules, I am pretty sure that is a source for reprimand as well, although I do not know for sure.

Yet, you just assume the US is the bad guy and ordered this guy (who essentially has no credibility or proof that I have seen to support his claim) or the people he saw to torture people and kill innocent civilians. You have to admit that smacks of more than a little bias :shrug: But, I still love ya anyway :cool: :laugh:

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 05:22 PM

And the proper proceedure for violating the Geneva Convention according to military rules is what? :confused:

Look it up :laugh: :D :wavey:

And, for that matter, please read the GC BEFORE asserting we are in violation of it :cool: When you read it, you will see Al-Q did not fall into the def. covering capture of a nation's soldiers as well as other parts.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 05:25 PM

Don't start that anti American, rah rah, you don't support the troops rhetoric with me.
Did I say they were bad? No. That's the current administration's bag of tricks. When are they going to be accountable or apologize?
Do you honestly think they even give a **** about Camilo, other than the fact that he's a nuisance to them?

I would have bet a $100 you were gonna come back with that. I am not saying anyone is anti-american. I am saying that guilt by association is wrong and this guy and any other criminals have to be prosecuted and it angers me that they (and who knows who "they" includes) are casting the USA in a bad light. That is hardly the same as calling you anti-American :cool:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 07:21 PM

I'm sorry Strand. Sometimes when we are having these discussions, I completely forget that in your heart and mind, you still think that the United States instigating this war is the right thing to do. When I look at it that way, I can see and understand your viewpoint clearly.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 07:22 PM

I would have bet a $100 you were gonna come back with that. I am not saying anyone is anti-american. I am saying that guilt by association is wrong and this guy and any other criminals have to be prosecuted and it angers me that they (and who knows who "they" includes) are casting the USA in a bad light. That is hardly the same as calling you anti-American :cool:

Wait. You were calling me anti-American? :lol:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 07:24 PM

Look it up :laugh: :D :wavey:

And, for that matter, please read the GC BEFORE asserting we are in violation of it :cool: When you read it, you will see Al-Q did not fall into the def. covering capture of a nation's soldiers as well as other parts.

Al Qaida? I thought we were talking about Iraq/Abu Gharib prison. There goes that pesky Iraq/Al Qaida connection again.
Oops. I forgot. There was no Iraq/Al Qaida connection.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 07:30 PM

Look it up :laugh: :D :wavey:

Okay. Where do I find that? In the UCMJ? :shocked:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 08:12 PM

Yet, you just assume the US is the bad guy and ordered this guy (who essentially has no credibility or proof that I have seen to support his claim) or the people he saw to torture people and kill innocent civilians. You have to admit that smacks of more than a little bias :shrug: But, I still love ya anyway :cool: :laugh:

I'm not assuming anything. What do you think Pollyanna? He just went off and did it all by hisself?
Maybe you can ring them up and they'll let you prosecute him while beating on your chest singing John Ashcroft's "Let The Eagle Soar."

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 08:22 PM

I'm not assuming anything. What do you think Pollyanna? He just went off and did it all by hisself?
Maybe you can ring them up and they'll let you prosecute him while beating on your chest singing John Ashcroft's "Let The Eagle Soar."

I am saying he has to prove it happened. I strongly suspect every CO or deserter says similar things, just like every criminal says they are innocent. If we let people go based on their word, trust me - the jails would be empty :laugh: You do realize people will lie and say anything when faced with jail :shrug: In fact, people will lie and say anything when they cannot sell their case for immediate war based on the evidence everyone agrees with (Hello W :mad: ) :cool:

Again, I am not saying this guy did or did not do anything. I am just saying he has to prove it - and you just automatically believe him (I do not think he actually said he did anything did he). If he is relying solely on his word, that will not be good enough because his credibility is not very good in that he failed his duty to report it while there and instead he came home while still getting paid and while having turned his back on all the autrocities he allegedly witnessed. Then, once home, he then and apparently only then cried out against it. I am not too sure that will play well with the court (I am unsure if he will get a jury as he will be in military court and be prosecuted by the JAG) - of course, I could be wrong :shrug: Again, it will be his burden and unless he comes up with other than his word, which he may hopefully be able to do :shrug: - he most likely is going to jail.

This is just my speculation of the facts of this case.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 08:56 PM

Al Qaida? I thought we were talking about Iraq/Abu Gharib prison. There goes that pesky Iraq/Al Qaida connection again.
Oops. I forgot. There was no Iraq/Al Qaida connection.

Perhaps you do not think rendering medical aid to OBL's upper level guy and then setting him free is insignificant, but I do not (we already had this discussion). So, once again, the whole "no link between SH and Al-Q" is just not true - no "significant" link is closer to the truth, but it is still incorrect IMO. If SH had treated OBL and then let him go, would that have been enough :shrug: But, it does not matter to me because I do not think a link to Al-Q was necessary. As I have repeatedly stated, the world for 11 years thought SH had WMD and called for him to disarm or prove he had disarmed. he refused to do so and acted in every way possible to thwart the world. After 9/11, I, along with every other major political person in the word, thought the world could no longer afford the possibility that SH would give some chemical or biological weapon to any terrorist group, much less use them himself as Russia claims he wanted to do to us after 9/11 (granted they have not proved that - but it is a strong statement to lie about :shrug: ). Interestingly, every major political leader in the world agrees with me, including the D heir apparent :cool: My only issue was the timing of the war. I think in the end, however, SH could have had ten more years and he would never have cooperated AND according to David Kay, SH was in material breach, which only supported UN Res. 1441. So, regardless of any link with OBL and Al-Q, I think SH had to go. I do wish, however W had done it differently because in his rush to war, we sent untrained people over there and that has cost us significantly IMO.

But, I brought up Al-Q earlier to demonstrate that the GC does not apply against them. I also think they and/oe other terrorist groups we similarly cannot tolerate after 9/11 are in Iraq now. But, you may think differently despite the evidence to the contrary. I will not, of course agree with you :cool:

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 08:58 PM

Okay. Where do I find that? In the UCMJ? :shocked:

I have no clue. I would go a google search for the JAG codes and go from their. Happy Reading!!!!!! :cool:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:08 PM

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/paust2.php
THE COMMON PLAN TO VIOLATE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
Professor Jordan Paust
University of Houston Law Center
JURIST Guest Columnist
If one focuses on the January 25, 2002 Memorandum for the President by White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales (available here) and President George Bush’s subsequent decisions and authorizations, there is evidence of the initiation of a Common Plan to violate the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Behind the Plan was a memorandum addressing possible war crime responsibility and designs for attempted avoidance of international criminal responsibility that was written by then DOJ OLC attorneys John Yoo and Robert Delahunty entitled “Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees” written on January 9, 2002 (available in part here) and “endorsed by top lawyers in the White House, the Pentagon and the vice president’s office,” according to the New York Times (Neil A. Lewis, “Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights,” NYT, May 21, 2004, at A10).

According to the Gonzales memo, the Common Plan involved at least those responsible for “the Department of Justice...formal legal opinion concluding... [with respect to] the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW)...that there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW does not apply with respect to the conflict with the Taliban. I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply...,” adding: “OLC has further opined that you have the authority to determine that GPW does not apply to the Taliban....OLC’s interpretation of this legal issue is definitive.” According to the Yoo - Delahunty memo, when asked by General Counsel William Haynes about “the effect of international treaties...on the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. Armed Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan... [and, i]n particular, ...whether the laws of armed conflict apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial... [, w]e conclude that these treaties do not protect members of the al Qaeda organization... [and] do not apply to the Taliban....”

The Plan among White House Counsel Gonzales and President Bush (and evidently others in DOJ and DOD at the time) that is evidenced in the Gonzales memo was legally inept. The Plan openly admits the unavoidable fact that “the customary laws of war would still be available.... Moreover, even if GPW is not applicable, we can still bring war crimes charges....” with respect to violations of the laws of war during the war in Afghanistan. Thus, the Plan recognizes that the customary laws of war apply to the war in Afghanistan but involves a design and decision to refuse to apply the 1949 Geneva Conventions despite the unavoidable facts: (1) that they apply to the war in Afghanistan, and (2) that they are treaty law that is also widely recognized as part of the customary laws of war that apply to the war in Afghanistan. As Secretary Colin Powell warned in his memo of January 26, 2002, “The United States has never determined that the GPW did not apply to an armed conflict in which its forces have been engaged.... the GPW was intended to cover all types of armed conflict and did not by its terms limit its application” (available at here ). It was reported in early February 2002 that the White House changed its prior plan to not apply the Geneva Conventions to the war in Afghanistan that the US internationalized on October 7, 2001. The newer Plan attempted to erroneously deny any protections to members of al Qaeda captured in that war, but admit that the Geneva Conventions applied during the war. See Paust, “Antiterrorism Military Commissions: Courting Illegality,” 23 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1, 7 n.15 (2001) [hereinafter “Antiterrorism”]. Later events demonstrate that the newer Plan was to deny Geneva protections for the Taliban as well, claiming that they were all unlawful combatants and, as such, had no rights under the Geneva law – which is also in error and in violation of the Conventions. See, e.g., Paust, “Judicial Power To Determine the Status and Rights of Persons Detained Without Trial,” 44 Harv. Int’l L.J. 503, 504 n.3 (2003) [hereinafter “Judicial Power”]; “Antiterrorism,” supra at 5-8 n.15.

The Plan attempted to rest on a supposed “high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information,” supposed “military necessity,” and a claim that a “new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning.” However, none of these claims justify a Plan to violate the Geneva law. Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions requires the United States “to respect and to ensure respect for the” Conventions “in all circumstances.” The Plan was to violate this duty. Common Article 3 requires that, “as a minimum,” all persons taking no active part in the hostilities, regardless of their status, “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely” and shall enjoy listed minimum guarantees. The Plan was to violate these rights and duties. No exceptions exist to the rights and prohibitions also contained, for example, in GPW Articles 13, 14, 16, 17, 130. No exceptions exist to the rights and prohibitions also contained, for example, in the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC) Articles 8, 16, 27 (except for necessary measures of control and security as such), 29, 31, 32, 33, 43, 78, 147. The Plan was to violate these rights and duties. As the Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State has written with respect to “the right to humane treatment – a right that belongs to all humankind, in war and in peace,” “[i]t is a general principle...that inhumane treatment is cruel and unacceptable under any circumstance.... More broadly, this customary law...found more expansive expression in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. While the United States has major objections to parts of Additional Protocol I, it does regard the provisions of Article 75 as an articulation of safeguards to which all persons in the hands of an enemy are entitled.” William H. Taft, IV, “The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features,” 28 Yale J. Int’l L. 319, 321-22 (2003); see also Paust, “War and Enemy Status After 9/11: Attacks on the Laws of War, in id. at 325-35; “Judicial Power,” supra at 504-14; Paust, Abuse of Iraqi Detainees at Abu Ghraib: Will Prosecution and Cashiering of a Few Soldiers Comply With International Law? Any person who is not a prisoner of war and who is detained, regardless of status, is protected under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as well as other relevant international laws. Most are also entitled to protections under the Geneva Civilian Convention. See, e.g., materials cited previously and U.S. Dep’t of Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare 31, para. 73 (1956). Thus, basic Geneva rights and duties concerning humane treatment apply whether or not a person detained is a prisoner of war, unprivileged belligerent, terrorist, or ordinary civilian.

Under the United States Constitution, the President (and members of the Executive branch) is bound to faithfully execute the law, which includes treaty law and customary international law. See, e.g., U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 3; Paust, International Law as Law of the United States 169-73 (2ed. 2003), and cases and materials cited. Thus, the Plan to violate the Geneva Conventions is not only illegal but is also unconstitutional.

This inquiry focuses on the Plan evidenced in the Gonzales 2002 memo and reports concerning the Yoo - Delahunty memo. It does not begin to address the criminal authorizations, orders, and other actions effectuating the Plan or other plans that involve patent violations of the laws of war, such as plans (1) to remove persons who are not pws from occupied territory in Afghanistan or Iraq in violation of GC Articles 49 and 147 (war crimes and “grave breaches”), (2) to engage in forced disappearance of persons by refusing to disclose names and/or whereabouts of those detained without trial, (3) to offer rewards “dead or alive” (a war crime), (4) to deny persons who might face trials in military commissions at Guantanamo the minimum due process rights that are required under human rights law and the Geneva Conventions, and (5) to adopt “20" or other secret interrogation techniques which apparently include some that are patent per se violations of the laws of war and human rights and some that are highly problematic and can constitute violations in particular circumstances.

With respect to planned denials of Geneva protections for those being interrogated, it has also been reported that there is evidence of an effectuation of the Common Plan at Guantanamo through April 2003 when Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld ended the use of certain illegal tactics but approved other secret harsh methods, claiming that the Geneva law did not apply to the detainees. See Robert Burns, “Lawyers Opposed Questioning at Guantanamo,” The Tribune, SanLuisObispo.com , May 21, 2004. See also DOD Background Briefing, May 20, 2004 (Di Rita: “the president had determined that the conflict...with the Taliban, while it was subject to the Geneva Conventions, people picked up as Taliban would be considered” unprotected; and a DOD Working Group created by General Counsel William Haynes in January 2003, with DOJ input, approved secret harsh interrogation techniques, which Secretary Rumsfeld approved in April 2003). There were also September 2003 and October 12, 2003 memos by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez concerning approved and need-to-be approved interrogation techniques in Iraq. We are still learning more about the impermissible interrogation techniques. Readers will recall that war crimes can range from “all measures of intimidation” through “inhumane treatment” and “cruel” treatment to “torture” and that the United States has several statutory bases for prosecution of both military and civilian persons who are reasonably accused of dereliction of duty, complicity, perpetration of various crimes, and direct involvement in common plans to violate the Geneva Conventions and other international criminal proscriptions. See, e.g., Paust, Abuse of Iraqi Detainees.

Clearly, it is important that President Bush carry out his promise to initiate prosecution of all who are reasonably accused of relevant international crimes and end criminal practices such as illegal transfers of detainees, forced disappearance, and illegal forms of interrogation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan J. Paust is Law Foundation Professor at the University of Houston Law Center and a former Captain, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and member of the faculty of TJAG School (1969-1973).

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:11 PM

BTW - the articel says "A military court convicted Mejia on May 21 at Fort Stewart, Ga., for going absent without leave in October 2003 after he returned from Iraq for a two- week furlough. Mejia surrendered to the military in March, armed with a 55- page conscientious objector application and stories of prisoner abuses allegedly witnessed at the Al Assad Prison near Baghdad." So, isn't this a different prison?

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:13 PM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/05/07/rights/index.html

Lack of protection
Long before Abu Ghraib, senior officers warned that Bush appointees in the Pentagon were undermining prisoner safeguards.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

May 7, 2004 | Long before official reports and journalistic exposés revealed the horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, high-ranking American officers expressed their deep concern that the civilian officials at the Pentagon were undermining the military's traditional detention and interrogation procedures, according to a prominent New York attorney.

Scott Horton, a partner at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler who now chairs the Committee on International Law of the Association of the Bar of New York City, says he was approached last spring by "senior officers" in the Judge Advocate General Corps, the military's legal division, who "expressed apprehension over how their political appointee bosses were handling the torture issue." Horton, who once represented late Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov, was serving as the chairman of the bar association's Committee on Human Rights law when the JAG officers first contacted him.

Prompted by their allegations as well as press reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan, Horton and other members of the New York bar began to compile a report examining U.S. and international legal standards governing the treatment of military prisoners. Horton says he and his colleagues met with JAG officers expressing the same concerns again last fall.

The bar association's 110-page report, released last week, leaves no doubt that the practices revealed at Abu Ghraib violated both U.S. and international law. During the preparation of that report, Horton and his colleagues were more concerned with practices in Afghanistan and Guantánamo than in Iraq. What they have learned recently, however, suggests that questionable practices and attitudes toward prisoners stem from broad policy decisions made at the very highest levels of the Defense Department.

Indeed, Horton says that the JAG officers specifically warned him that Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith,one of the most powerful political appointees in the Pentagon, had significantly weakened the military's rules and regulations governing prisoners of war. The officers told Horton that Feith and the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes II, were creating "an atmosphere of legal ambiguity" that would allow mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Haynes, who was recently nominated to a federal appeals court seat by President Bush, is responsible for legal issues concerning prisoners and detainees. But the general counsel takes his marching orders from Feith, an attorney whose scorn for international human rights law was summed up by his assessment of Protocol One, the 1977 Geneva accord protecting civilians, as "law in the service of terrorism."

Haynes, who was recently nominated to a federal appeals court seat by President Bush, is responsible for legal issues concerning prisoners and detainees. But the general counsel takes his marching orders from Feith, an attorney whose scorn for international human rights law was summed up by his assessment of Protocol One, the 1977 Geneva accord protecting civilians, as "law in the service of terrorism."

In practice, the changes in oversight appear to have blurred authority and accountability at Abu Ghraib. Along with the lack of proper supervision and training of the Army reservists who ran the prison, these changes resulted in lawlessness and atrocious abuse.

After hearing the complaints of the JAG officers, Horton and his bar colleagues wrote to Haynes and the CIA's general counsel in an effort to clarify U.S. policy on the treatment and interrogation of detainees. Those inquiries, he recalls, "were met with a firm brushoff. We then turned to senators who had raised the issue previously, and [we] assisted their staff in pursuing the issue directly with the Pentagon. These inquiries met with a similar brushoff." The Bush administration wanted no meddling by human rights lawyers as it brought democracy and human rights to the benighted region.

Horton says that career military officers at the Pentagon were "greatly upset" by what they regarded as the deliberate destruction of traditions and methods that have long protected soldiers as well as civilians. Those officers, and others who may have evidence to offer, are obviously reluctant to step forward and speak because they fear reprisal from the Pentagon and the White House. They have been instructed not to talk to anyone about these issues. It is to be hoped that in the investigations to come -- whether or not Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary Feith keep their jobs -- those conscientious officers will be able to tell what they know about the decisions that led to this national disaster.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:15 PM

Good article, but it is wrong in assuming Al-Q qaulified as POW's. That is just incorrect - period. The Taliban on the other hand probably should have. They were fighting on behalf of a country we attacked (though provoked) , they wore uniforms, etc. So, we should have considered them POW's under the GC. But, Al-Q - no way. Again, this does not mean I think the Al-Q detainees should be tortured in any way. Rumsfeld allowed that, or at least came close to it with the use of dogs as a threat, etc. For that, he should be prosecuted. You will get no argument from me there.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:24 PM

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:26 PM

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:29 PM

http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4812581.html

Newsweek recently published excerpts from a January 2002 memorandum from Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, to President Bush, in which Gonzales urges the president to declare that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the conflict with Al-Qaida or the Taliban.

As Secretary of State Colin Powell objected in a dissenting memo, such a declaration would "reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions." But Gonzales nonetheless urged President Bush to take this unprecedented step, on the grounds that it would "substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:32 PM

I was wrong. It was Al Assad. Does it matter?

Well, yes it does in the context of my point. No evidence exists to support the abuse extended outside of Abu Ghraib. This guy is claiming but cannot prove it did and it was rampant and that is why he does not want to go back. The prosecution will bring that fact up. They will say something like "Isn't it convenient that once you saved yourself and were comfortably back in the USA, you are now claiming prison abuse in a prison where it never happened" or something like that. This guy opened the door with that by allegin it and he will get slammed for it. In the end, there is no proof that Abu Ghraib was anything more than an abberation - it very could be the tip of the iveberg, but proof is what will matter. I am not saying it was or is, I am just saying that within the contect of this guy's case, he cannot prove it - therefore, it most likely will weigh against him. Whether that is right or wrong, I make no comment. That is just the reality of it. Again, all he has is his word, which he lessened the credibility of by failing to report the rampant abuse he alleged and instead brought his own hide to safety before making an effort to stop the abuse. Rather, it looks like he got back to the US and made up some convenient and timely excuse not to go back. He is in some trouble.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:32 PM

http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=66870

The White House also released documents detailing some of the most harsh interrogation methods Rumsfeld approved for use on prisoners at the lockup at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Rumsfeld's Nov. 27, 2002, memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including: Putting detainees in "stress positions," such as standing, for up to four hours.
Removing prisoners' clothes.
Intimidating detainees with dogs.
Interrogating prisoners for 20 hours at a time.
Forcing prisoners to wear hoods during interrogations and transportation.
Shaving detainees' heads and beards.
Using "mild, non-injurious physical contact," such as poking.

Prisoners at Abu Ghraib were interrogated for as long as 20 hours at a time, kept hooded and naked, intimidated with dogs and forcibly shaved. Bush and other administration officials have said other treatment at the Iraqi prison, such as forcing prisoners to perform sex acts, beating them and piling them in a naked human pyramid, were unquestionably illegal.

Less than two months later, on Jan. 15, 2003, Rumsfeld rescinded approval for those methods without saying why. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend proper interrogation methods.

That panel reported to Rumsfeld in April 2003, and its recommendations included prohibiting the removal of clothes, which it said could be considered inhumane treatment under international law. Rumsfeld issued a new set of approved interrogation methods later that month, disallowing nakedness and requiring approval for four techniques: use of rewards or removal of privileges; verbally attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee; alternating friendly and unfriendly interrogators in a "good cop, bad cop" method; and isolation.

Bush had agreed in February 2002 that al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not protected by the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war because they violated the laws of war themselves.

Bush's previously secret Feb. 7, 2002, order also agrees with Justice and Pentagon lawyers that a president can ignore U.S. law and treaties.

"I accept the legal conclusion of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice that I have the authority to suspend Geneva (conventions) as between the United States and Afghanistan," Bush wrote. "I reserve the right to exercise this authority in this or future conflicts."

Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

But Rumsfeld acknowledged last week that he ordered a suspected terrorist to be secretly held in Iraq without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said he approved an unspecified number of other, similar secret detentions.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:33 PM

Which article?

Both actually :laugh: But, I referred to the one fronm the Professor in Houston.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:34 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/14/MNGE46LJQ51.DTL

Officials say methods at prison broke rules
Pentagon aides say abuses violated Geneva accords

Washington -- Two of the Pentagon's highest-ranking officials were forced to admit Thursday that a tough method approved for handling prisoners in Iraq appeared to violate the Geneva Conventions, although both said they were unfamiliar with how the decision to allow such techniques had been approved.

The statements by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put them at odds with their boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who approved a "stress matrix'' for interrogating detainees there.

"I would describe it as a violation, sir,'' Pace told Sen. Jack Reed, D-R. I., after Reed pressed him on whether placing prisoners "naked, with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes,'' would violate the Geneva Convention of 1949 requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:37 PM

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E6439%257E2146574,00.html

Officials admit Iraq interrogations violated Geneva Conventions

By Ken Guggenheim
The Associated Press

Washington - The No. 2 military and civilian officials at the Pentagon indicated that interrogation techniques ordered in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions and said they did not know who approved them.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:39 PM

Bush is correct when he says the GC would not apply to all prisoners in Iraq. The GC POW status applies only to the soldiers fighting in the Iraqi army, if there are any left. These new people currently exploding car bombs, etc., would more properly and accurately be considered enemy combatants because they are not fighting under the flag of Iraq, wearing the Iraqi uniform, etc. - these are the terms set froth in the GC. I cannot comment on the existing treaties because I have not read them. Finally, any prisoners already in prison (although SH mostly emptied the jails prior to the invasion) would be considered as civilians under the GC because they did not attack us, etc.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:40 PM

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:40 PM

Both actually :laugh: But, I referred to the one fronm the Professor in Houston.

You want to email the former JAG and tell him of the error? Or shall I? You know all of the legalese much better. I'm just a hippie/dippy white chick. It might sound better coming from you. Want his email address? :angel:

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:42 PM

You want to email the former JAG and tell him of the error? Or shall I? You know all of the legalese much better. I'm just a hippie/dippy white chick. It might sound better coming from you. Want his email address? :angel:

He might, as many do, think I am a loon :laugh: But, he is incorrect about Al-Q unless he insome way can prove Al-Q was fighting on behalf of The Taliban, which would be hard to do considering The Taliban deined Al-Q was even in the country :shrug:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 09:43 PM

Bush is correct when he says the GC would not apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

Then, whatever could this mean:

"Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq."

Torture, war, concientious objectors, war crimes-it's enough to make your head spin!

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:44 PM

Here is a link to a site about which I know nothing, but it has the relative part of the GC:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:46 PM

Here is the text:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 09:48 PM

Then, whatever could this mean:

"Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq."

Torture, war, concientious objectors, war crimes-it's enough to make your head spin!

I think he is saying not all prisoners in Iraq qualify under the GC, Only the ones under Art. IV above do. But, I think we no longer have any or at least hardly any former Iraqi soldiers in prison. I could be wrong about that - but, I remember reading that we are using the old soldiers in the new army.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:04 PM

Boy, I sure am confused...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-05-12-rumsfeld_x.htm
Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Convention applies to all prisoners held in Iraq,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html
However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/21/rumsfeld.interrogation.memos/
Leading up to the Iraq war, Bush said Iraqi prisoners would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld said last month that Bush had made that instruction clear.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=532888&section=news
Lawyer wants Bush on witness stand over Iraq abuse
Mon June 21, 2004 05:04 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A lawyer defending a U.S. soldier charged with abusing prisoners in Iraq says he will seek to put U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld on the witness stand.
Bush and Rumsfeld sidestepped the Geneva Convention in their "war on terror", civilian defence counsel Paul Bergrin said on Monday.

His client, Sergeant Javal Davis, was instructed on a daily basis to soften up Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence, Bergrin said.

"Bush gave a speech declaring his war on terror and said the Geneva Convention no longer applied," he told reporters after an impassioned address in the court room.

He accused Rumsfeld and other top U.S. officials of trying to redefine the definitions of abuse and torture in a campaign aimed at influencing lawyers at the Department of Justice.

Pretrial hearings are being held in Baghdad this week for Davis, Specialist Charles Graner and Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, reviving notorious images of sexual and physical humiliation that sparked worldwide outrage.

The photographs of smirking American soldiers tormenting naked detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison rocked the U.S. military when they emerged in April, prompting accusations that policies adopted in Bush's "war on terror" had encouraged the cruelty.

Davis is accused of abuses including jumping on a pile of prisoners and stamping on their hands.

"My client was not even instructed for five minutes on the meaning of the Geneva Convention, nor was he trained to work in a prison. He was instructed on a daily basis by military intelligence and civilian contractors to soften up and loosen up detainees so he could save American soldiers from getting slaughtered," Bergrin said.

During Monday's hearing, the U.S. military judge handling the case agreed to Bergrin's request to question top American generals.

Judge Colonel James Pohl said Central Command chief General John Abizaid and Iraq commander Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez could be interviewed.

The U.S. army, keen to demonstrate it is weeding out the culprits, has launched investigations into seven low-ranking suspects in relation to abuse at Abu Ghraib, which U.S. officials have blamed on a few wayward individuals.

Pohl ordered the prison be preserved as a "crime scene", despite a suggestion by Bush that the building be demolished.

Bergrin said he wanted to take members of the jury to the jail so they could experience the conditions U.S. soldiers were working under.

"We want the court members to smell the faecal matter and the urine that service members who worked inside that prison and who are accused in this case had to live with," he said.

The hearing on Monday, at a convention centre built by Saddam Hussein, aims to resolve any outstanding legal issues ahead of the start of the court martial.

The trio have yet to plead.

Graner, who faces the most serious accusations, could be sentenced to up to 24 years and six months in jail if convicted.

He is accused of photographing a detainee being dragged on a leash, and posing for a picture by a pile of naked detainees.

Graner is also charged with making prisoners strip and masturbate in front of each other, and forcing one detainee to simulate oral sex on another, before taking a picture.

Frederick faces charges including participating in an incident where a prisoner was hooded and made to stand on a box with wires attached to him, and told he would be electrocuted if he fell off -- an image splashed on front pages worldwide.

One U.S. soldier, Specialist Jeremy Sivits, has already been sentenced to a year in prison after admitting abuse charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-17-shadow-prisoner_x.htm
U.S. military admits wrongly holding prisoner in secret
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended his decision to hold a prisoner captured in Iraq without notifying international authorities, saying it was at the request of CIA Director George Tenet and the detainee was treated humanely.
"He wasn't lost in the system," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "There is no question at all ... that he received humane treatment."

The terror suspect has been held since October without being given an identification number and without the International Committee of the Red Cross being notified, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. Both conditions violate the Geneva Accords on treatment of prisoners of war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3831399.stm
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's November 2002 memo approved several methods which apparently would violate Geneva Convention rules, including:

putting detainees in "stress positions" for up to four hours;

removing their clothes;

intimidating them with dogs;

interrogating them for 20 hours at a time;

forcing them to wear hoods;

shaving their heads and beards;

using "mild, non-injurious physical contact" such as prodding.
Less than two months later, Mr Rumsfeld withdrew approval for those methods, reportedly on advice from military lawyers. He appointed a Pentagon panel to recommend interrogation methods.

But Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

http://uttm.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml
U.S.: Detainee Begged For Death

June 25, 2004
(CBS/AP) Three U.S. soldiers will testify that a former CIA contractor beat an Afghan detainee with a heavy flashlight 10 to 30 times and kicked the man so hard he came off the ground and later begged to be shot, a prosecutor said Friday.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-3034253.php
Bush and Rumsfeld have said the Geneva Conventions do apply to all prisoners in Iraq.

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040510-18.html
The United States seeks to comply "fully" with the obligations of the Geneva Conventions with respect to the treatment of prisoners of war and security prisoners in Iraq, says Alberto Gonzales, White House Counsel to President Bush.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:07 PM

Well, read the text of the GC above and you won't be confused any longer :woohoo: :nod: Clearly, it applies only to armies and such, not terrorists not operating with any armies.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:07 PM

He might, as many do, think I am a loon :laugh: But, he is incorrect about Al-Q unless he insome way can prove Al-Q was fighting on behalf of The Taliban, which would be hard to do considering The Taliban deined Al-Q was even in the country :shrug:

Like I said, we can email him... :)

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:09 PM

Well, read the text of the GC above and you won't be confused any longer :woohoo: :nod: Clearly, it applies only to armies and such, not terrorists not operating with any armies.

I covered that:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html

The Geneva Conventions have one aim – to protect both soldiers and civilians as much as possible from the horrors of war. Those conventions now outline the rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, civilian internees and sick, wounded or shipwrecked members of fighting forces.

In fact, what the hell, just so you're not confused anymore:

Violating the Geneva Conventions, breaking the rules may constitute either war crimes or crimes against humanity. Today's conventions, negotiated after the Second World War, and including some updated amendments from the late 1970s, are the result of a century of diplomatic wrangling and lobbying by humanitarian organizations.

John McCain is administered to in a Hanoi, Vietnam hospital as a prisoner of war in the fall of 1967. McCain spent 20 years in the Navy, a quarter of it in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp after his jet was shot down over Hanoi during a bombing mission Oct. 26, 1967. The Navy pilot nearly gave up during his captivity but his memory of books and movies helped him survive. North Vietnam did not follow the Geneva Convention, because, it in its view, the conflict in Vietnam was an "undeclared war." (AP Photo/File)
The first important convention was actually signed in The Hague in 1907 and ratified by most of the world's nations in the following years. That convention tried to set out rules for fighting wars, and where it hasn't been supplemented by later agreements is still in force. A key clause in the 1907 Hague Convention that called for wars to be conducted within "the laws of humanity and the requirements of public conscience" became the basis of the later idea of "crimes against humanity."

The limits of the 1907 Convention became clear during the First World War. In 1929, many of the world's nations signed a Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war. The Second World War again showed the previous conventions need amending and updated, so in 1949 diplomats negotiated four Geneva Conventions. They are:

Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

The first two conventions cover members of armed forces involved in a conflict who are no longer able to fight (hors de combat is the legal term). The third convention regulates the treatment of prisoners of war. The fourth convention for the first time laid down rules for the treatment of civilians both during the fighting and in occupied territories. The supplements to the Geneva conventions neogiated in 1977, Protocols I and II, widened the definition from declared war to "armed conflicts" and recognized both "international" and "non-international" (such as civil wars) conflicts.

Prisoners of War

The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions:

That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
That of carrying arms openly;
That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

PoW or Unlawful combatant?

The United States created a new controversy over the conventions after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration quickly declared that members of al-Qaeda captured on the battlefield were "unlawful combatants" and not subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Mary Robinson, the UN human rights chief, said they should be considered prisoners of war, as defined by the Geneva Conventions. At the time, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other military officials called them "detainees" or "unlawful combatants."

Rumsfeld repeated that contention during the controversy over abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. He said that prisoners in Iraq were covered by the conventions, while members of al-Qaeda are not, adding, "Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians."

The Americans argued that captured members of al-Qaeda do not fall into any of these categories, saying that al-Qaeda members don't wear uniforms ("fixed distinctive sign") or obey the laws of war. Rumsfeld labeled them "unlawful combatants," and said the rules of the Geneva Convention did not apply.

An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition: An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished. As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform. In the Second World War, the United States captured eight German saboteurs who were out of uniform and executed six of them.

However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.
Lawyers for prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as those representing two U.S. citizens held in a navy brig as enemy combatants, have challenged the policy before the United States Supreme Court. A decision is expected in mid-summer.

Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured.
Rumsfeld has defended the use of interrogation techniques such as dietary changes, sleep deprivation, forcing prisoners to sleep naked and forcing them into "stress positions" as justified against unlawful combatants. Humanitarian organizations and some U.S. senators say those practices "go far beyond the Geneva Convention."

Carpiquet, France; July 4,1944---- Canadian Private Leopold Marcoux with German prisoner of war taken during battle for Carpiquet In Airport. During the Second World War, both the Allies and Germans treated prisoners of war following the rules of the 1929 Geneva Convention. (CP PHOTO) 1999 (National Archives of Canada / Michael M. Dean)
Occupied territories

The key phrases of the fourth convention covering civilians in occupied territories cover both the occupier and the occupied. The occupier is required to treat people properly, while the population of an occupied state can forfeit rights if they take part in acts such as spying or sabotage. But the convention also adds that detainees cannot be deprived of their rights indefinitely. Those rights must be restored when the security situation permits. Critics of the Bush policy have pointed out if what the U.S. calls the "war against terrorism" goes on for years, prisoners could be held without rights indefinitely.

Article 1 of the convention states:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [unable to fight] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Violation of prohibitions

Violation of prohibitions are covered by Article 5, which states:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:10 PM

Like I said, we can email him... :)

Al-Q has never fought along side any army, never openly displayed arms, never wore a uniform, never did the other things set forth above - do you think they qualify under that def. I do not. I cannot understand why people do. Al-Q and other terrorist groups do not fight openly. They fight in secret. Therefore, the GC cannot apply according to the plain meaning of the document :shrug:

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:21 PM

I could not find where the GC says an independent judge needs to determine the POW status of questionable people. Can you - note: I am not saying this is wrong, just that I cannot find it? Also, the term "enemy combatant" comes from U.S. Sup. Ct. case law not the 1949 GC.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:23 PM

Al-Q has never fought along side any army, never openly displayed arms, never wore a uniform, never did the other things set forth above - do you think they qualify under that def. I do not. I cannot understand why people do. Al-Q and other terrorist groups do not fight openly. They fight in secret. Therefore, the GC cannot apply according to the plain meaning of the document :shrug:

I don't believe in the so called "Al Qaeda." I believe in terrorists. Not exactly sure who they're really working for though. I do know they seem to be bankrolled by certain sects in Saudi Arabia.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:27 PM

I don't believe in the so called "Al Qaeda." I believe in terrorists. Not exactly sure who they're really working for though. I do know they seem to be bankrolled by certain sects in Saudi Arabia.

NOW your talkin' I think invading SA perhaps would have been better than Iraq. But, what do I know? How about the new Amnesty for terrorists who give themselves up by the end of month and promise not to do it anymore - I mean please. :shocked:

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:27 PM

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:29 PM

Try here: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Look under Section IV. It's pretty long.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:31 PM

Try here: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Look under Section IV. It's pretty long.

I posted sevtion IV above. It does not mention this?

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:35 PM

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:37 PM

Just so you know, I found that phrase in a lot of those articles I posted. I think it's probably correct.

I know - I read that. But, you know me, I gotta see it for myself :laugh: It makes sense that they would have such a provision. Although, it would not be hard for the US to get some country to say it. So, the argument is a little academic.

Also, the Ct. may have gotten it from the 1929 GC. It was an interesting case dealing with Nazi spies who snuck into the country.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:39 PM

I posted sevtion IV above. It does not mention this?

You posted ARTICLE 4- of what section I do not know. Section IV is pretty lengthy as I'm guessing the rest of it is. but if you want to-go ahead and look at that link I gave you. The Conventions are there in their entirety. It could take a while.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:42 PM

You posted ARTICLE 4- of what section I do not know. Section IV is pretty lengthy as I'm guessing the rest of it is. but if you want to-go ahead and look at that link I gave you. The Conventions are there in their entirety. It could take a while.

I looked there as well. I could not find it. It very well could say it. Again, it makes sense, although it would be hard to do until a leter date than the capture, etc.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 10:56 PM

NOW your talkin' I think invading SA perhaps would have been better than Iraq. But, what do I know?

Well, I don't advocate invading Saudi Arabia. I think that the gummint should have investigated it but they can't you see...because I think Bush is complicit in 9/11.

How about the new Amnesty for terrorists who give themselves up by the end of month and promise not to do it anymore - I mean please. :shocked

I'm sickened by that. It will do absolutely nothing. I have to wonder why they are doing this-timing and all.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 10:59 PM

Well, I don't advocate invading Saudi Arabia. I think that the gummint should have investigated it but they can't you see...because I think Bush is complicit in 9/11.

I'm sickened by that. It will do absolutely nothing. I have to wonder why they are doing this-timing and all.

I just cannot believe W was complicit in 9/11 - I have too much faith in the word - I do think he and his idiot staff should have listened to Clinton and his people and worried a whole hell of a lot more about OBL and maybe with a little luck it could have been prevented. So, from that vantage point, W was involved farting around about SH, who had not really been active in years and was already being somewhat closely watched. Yet, according to ALL sources, W was hell bent on SH. Perhaps we will give Iraq to the Saudi's even though they opposed our invasion. It is all so inter-related to me at least.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 11:17 PM

I just cannot believe W was complicit in 9/11 - I have too much faith in the word - I do think he and his idiot staff should have listened to Clinton and his people and worried a whole hell of a lot more about OBL and maybe with a little luck it could have been prevented. So, from that vantage point, W was involved farting around about SH, who had not really been active in years and was already being somewhat closely watched. Yet, according to ALL sources, W was hell bent on SH. Perhaps we will give Iraq to the Saudi's even though they opposed our invasion. It is all so inter-related to me at least.

His father had breakfast with the Bin Ladens on the morning of 9/11. He now dodges this question by saying he was "on the ground in Milwaukee" (true, he was in a plane grounded at the airport at one point on that day).
If Bush had in fact read the PDB of August 6, 2001 he would have known we were going to be attacked.
Ashcroft didn't even want to hear about terrorism.
Who gave the order to the military fighter jets to stand down? Nope, way too many coincidences for me.
Who had the most to gain from this?
I can understand why people have a hard time believing this. It is a very, very hard thing to swallow. And I respect your opinion. But this is all in the Projoct For A New American Century doctrine written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Baker (who is defending the Saudi's against the families of 9/11) and company that was written before W was ever selected. I'm not sure he even realized why they chose him as their man. But I think you can see it on his face in the video of Booker Elementary that day.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 11:23 PM

His father had breakfast with the Bin Ladens on the morning of 9/11. He now dodges this question by saying he was "on the ground in Milwaukee" (true, he was in a plane grounded at the airport at one point on that day).
If Bush had in fact read the PDB of August 6, 2001 he would have known we were going to be attacked.
Ashcroft didn't even want to hear about terrorism.
Who gave the order to the military fighter jets to stand down? Nope, way too many coincidences for me.
Who had the most to gain from this?
I can understand why people have a hard time believing this. It is a very, very hard thing to swallow. And I respect your opinion. But this is all in the Projoct For A New American Century doctrine written by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Baker (who is defending the Saudi's against the families of 9/11) and company that was written before W was ever selected. I'm not sure he even realized why they chose him as their man. But I think you can see it on his face in the video of Booker Elementary that day.

But, the 8.6 PDB did not say they were going to attack on 9/11 :shrug: And - other than the wedding OBL supposedly attended years ago (?) - there is no connection between OBL and his family. I mean I can see your set of facts, but they are loose and can be seen in many different ways. As for Wolfowitz - what a jerk :mad:

A Ha!!!! NOW I know why you are so hell bent on the video of Booker Elementary that day. I never got that because I think he probably should have gotten up, but am not all in arms about it.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 11:29 PM

But, the 8.6 PDB did not say they were going to attack on 9/11 :shrug:

Oh Condi, come on! You're a smart girl. Figure it out for chrissakes. You knew a lot more than that. :lol:

And - other than the wedding OBL supposedly attended years ago (?)

Three months-look it up. :nod: (prior to the attacks)

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 11:32 PM

Oh Condi, come on! You're a smart girl. Figure it out for chrissakes. You knew a lot more than that. :lol:

Three months-look it up. :nod:

Is there proof (pictures, video, etc.) he was there - and whose wedding was it? Were the people George the senior there. This family has hundreds of people in it :shrug:

As for Condi - I think it would have taken luck. I mean if the first date was really in April (?) - the Clinton admin, did not catch it either. Again, I think it would have taken a little luck, but they should have been looking is the significant point IMO and they were not. AND- surely we could plot against SH and look for OBL's threats at the same time - PUUHHLLEEZZEEEE

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 11:38 PM

Here is some stuff on the January 2001 wedding of his son in Afganistan:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/564810.asp?cp1=1

"The Saudi exile was most recently seen in January [2001], reading poetry at his son’s wedding in Kandahar.
U.S. officials are so frustrated by the lack of intelligence on bin Laden that they say they were even happy to hear the Taliban mistakenly complain last year about the possible presence of U.S. special forces inside Afghanistan."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/18/osama.brother/

"Sheikh Ahmad said he and his mother last saw bin Laden at the January 2001 wedding of one of Osama's sons in Afghanistan. It was at that wedding that Sheikh Ahmad said his infamous brother told him that stories he required kidney dialysis were not true."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen010110.html

"This time he was caught on tape smiling, shaking hands and playing the role of proud father, at his son's wedding in Afghanistan.
According to Qatar's al-Jazeera television, which broadcast exclusive footage of the ceremony, bin Laden was celebrating the marriage of his son Mohammad to the daughter of one of his aides."

The footage shows a beaming bin Laden sitting on a carpeted floor in a tent with his son and other unidentified men."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1110108.stm

"The Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden has celebrated the wedding in Afghanistan of his son to the daughter of one of his aides, according to the Qatari Al-Jazeera TV channel.
It said the wedding took place in the southern city of Kandahar on Tuesday."

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 11:39 PM

Is there proof (pictures, video, etc.) he was there - and whose wedding was it? Were the people George the senior there. This family has hundreds of people in it :shrug:

I think one of the networks had video of it at one point.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 11:41 PM

Here is some stuff on the January 2001 wedding of his son in Afganistan:

I'm not sure if this is the wedding in question. You do have to cede that this is not "years" though.

gldstwmn

06-26-2004, 11:44 PM

But, the 8.6 PDB did not say they were going to attack on 9/11 :shrug: And - other than the wedding OBL supposedly attended years ago (?) - there is no connection between OBL and his family. I mean I can see your set of facts, but they are loose and can be seen in many different ways. As for Wolfowitz - what a jerk :mad:

I never said they knew Osama. Salem did set George up in his first oil business though.

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 11:47 PM

I'm not sure if this is the wedding in question. You do have to cede that this is not "years" though.

:laugh: - I was not calling you on the time frame :cool: I was just posting info. because I did not know about it. :cool:

strandinthewind

06-26-2004, 11:48 PM

Also, there is no question the BL's and the Bushes are in bed together. None- and W does not exactly broadcast that, although MM sure did.

gldstwmn

06-27-2004, 01:31 PM

Perhaps you do not think rendering medical aid to OBL's upper level guy and then setting him free is insignificant, but I do not (we already had this discussion). So, once again, the whole "no link between SH and Al-Q" is just not true - no "significant" link is closer to the truth, but it is still incorrect IMO.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305085/site/newsweek
Iraq and Al Qaeda
Forget the 'Poisons and Deadly Gases'
Flip flop: Was Saddam working with Al Qaeda or not?

By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
NewsweekJuly 5 issue - A captured Qaeda commander who was a principal source for Bush administration claims that Osama bin Laden collaborated with Saddam Hussein's regime has changed his story, setting back White House efforts to shore up the credibility of its original case for the invasion of Iraq. The apparent recantation of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a onetime member of bin Laden's inner circle, has never been publicly acknowledged. But U.S. intelligence officials tell NEWSWEEK that al-Libi was a crucial source for one of the more dramatic assertions made by President George W. Bush and his top aides: that Iraq had provided training in "poisons and deadly gases" for Al Qaeda. Al-Libi, who once ran one of bin Laden's biggest training camps, was captured in Pakistan in November 2001 and soon began talking to CIA interrogators. Although he never mentioned his name, Secretary of State Colin Powell prominently referred to al-Libi's claims in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations; he recounted how a "senior terrorist operative" said Qaeda leaders were frustrated by their inability to make chemical or biological agents in Afghanistan and turned for help to Iraq. Continuing to rely on al-Libi's version, Powell then told how a bin Laden operative seeking help in acquiring poisons and gases had forged a "successful" relationship with Iraqi officials in the late 1990s and that, as recently as December 2000, Iraq had offered "chemical or biological weapons training for two Al Qaeda associates."

But more recently, sources said, U.S. interrogators went back to al-Libi with new evidence from other detainees that cast doubt on his claims. Al-Libi "subsequently recounted a different story," said one U.S. official. "It's not clear which version is correct. We are still sorting this out." Some officials now suspect that al-Libi, facing aggressive interrogation techniques, had previously said what U.S. officials wanted to hear. In any case, the cloud over his story explains why administration officials have made no mention of the "poisons and gases" claim for some time and did not more forcefully challenge the recent findings of the 9-11 Commission that Al Qaeda and Iraq had not forged a ?"collaborative relationship."

The debate, however, is far from over. Vice President Dick Cheney has sought to more vigorously defend the Iraq- Qaeda link, even reading to one TV interviewer from a U.S. intelligence report recounting a meeting between an Iraqi intel official and bin Laden on a farm in Sudan in the summer of 1996. (One possible problem: bin Laden had left Sudan for Afghanistan in May of that year.) Meanwhile, NEWSWEEK has learned, Pentagon officials are culling through captured Iraqi documents they say will provide hard evidence of multiple contacts between Iraqi officials and Qaeda members over a decade. Current plans call for a massive "document dump" before the election. But officials acknowledge ultimate proof may prove elusive. "It all depends on what your definition of a relationship is," said one.

strandinthewind

06-27-2004, 03:00 PM

That is what happens when we take the word of terrorists. But, this is yet to be a proven fact (who knows what the truth is) - nor does it obviate the significance of SH rendering medical assistance and then letting the other guy go. The latter is a link - pure and simple - the significance of which I think is rather large. I think it is the same as treating and letting OBL go. This guy was that high up in the organization that was resp. for killing thousands of innocent Americans and he was complacent in other terror acts. Yet, SH just lets him go. To me, that smacks of collusion. Why else would he go to the apparently very accomodating Iraq, which was very, very far away? Did he just wind up there by chance? That is too coincidental for me :shrug:

gldstwmn

06-27-2004, 06:33 PM

Did he just wind up there by chance? That is too coincidental for me :shrug:

That's too coincidental for you but you don't think the Bush/Bin Laden coincidences are too much that he could be complicit in 9/11?

strandinthewind

06-27-2004, 06:42 PM

That's too coincidental for you but you don't think the Bush/Bin Laden coincidences are too much that he could be complicit in 9/11?

Well, there is a difference. This guy chose to travel through seceral countries to Iraq, a country that reportedly hated OBL and his ilk and he finds a safe haven where he gets medical attention and then is let go. They defies belief in coincidence IMO.

On the other hand, I think it would be next to impossible for the Bush family to have kept that large under wraps for all that time (almost 15 or so years) and there are just too many people involved IMO for everyone to keep quiet. But, I am not saying W and the Bush family are not in bed with the Saudi's. They are. I am just saying I do not think the facts 100% support that theory and the facts can be read in the opposite light. But, you are certainly entitled to think that :shrug: I just cannot believe the Pres. of the US would allow OBL and SA to coordinate an attack on the US and do nothing about it. All for oil, which the Saudi's already have :shrug: That is just too much for me to believe. Now, do I think W could have done more to stop 9/11, yes I do. But I also think Clinton could have as well and certainly he was not part of W's plot? In the end, I think OBL operates on his own but has little disturbance from the Saudi govt. Anyway, that is what I think :cool:

gldstwmn

06-27-2004, 09:49 PM

Well, there is a difference. This guy chose to travel through seceral countries to Iraq, a country that reportedly hated OBL and his ilk and he finds a safe haven where he gets medical attention and then is let go. They defies belief in coincidence IMO.

It's not enough to justify war.

On the other hand, I think it would be next to impossible for the Bush family to have kept that large under wraps for all that time (almost 15 or so years) and there are just too many people involved IMO for everyone to keep quiet. But, I am not saying W and the Bush family are not in bed with the Saudi's. They are. I am just saying I do not think the facts 100% support that theory and the facts can be read in the opposite light. But, you are certainly entitled to think that :shrug: I just cannot believe the Pres. of the US would allow OBL and SA to coordinate an attack on the US and do nothing about it. All for oil, which the Saudi's already have :shrug: That is just too much for me to believe. Now, do I think W could have done more to stop 9/11, yes I do. But I also think Clinton could have as well and certainly he was not part of W's plot? In the end, I think OBL operates on his own but has little disturbance from the Saudi govt. Anyway, that is what I think :cool:

Well, a couple of things. Complicity could be as simple as him not reading the August 6, PDB, which I don't think he did. I haven't figured out the level of complicity yet.
When I asked who has the most to gain, you seem to think Saudi Arabia has the most to gain but they already have all the oil, so you answered your own question there. They didn't have the most to gain. Bushco did.
Also, why is Bushco seemingly uninterested in finding Bin Laden? He's stated that he "doesn't care" where Bin Laden is. What the hell is that about?

strandinthewind

06-27-2004, 10:02 PM

It's not enough to justify war.

It was more like the straw that broke the camel's back. In the end, I agree we should have waited to go into Iraq. But, that does not negate the justification for the need to do it - at least to me and the Democratic party. :wavey:

Well, a couple of things. Complicity could be as simple as him not reading the August 6, PDB, which I don't think he did. I haven't figured out the level of complicity yet.
When I asked who has the most to gain, you seem to think Saudi Arabia has the most to gain but they already have all the oil, so you answered your own question there. They didn't have the most to gain. Bushco did.

Well, the Saudi's do have a ton of oil, but SH has been a thorn in their side for a long time in that he was against them from day one. Yet, it is widely rumored and can be somewhat supported that the Saudis would not let Bush I remove SH. So, that makes no sense other than that was 10 years ago and things changed :shrug: In the end, the Saudis talk a great games, but they IMO do not do enough in their own country to help us. Having said all of that, I have no clue what the solution to all of this is :shrug:

dissention

06-27-2004, 10:52 PM

As for Condi - I think it would have taken luck. I mean if the first date was really in April (?) - the Clinton admin, did not catch it either. Again, I think it would have taken a little luck, but they should have been looking is the significant point IMO and they were not. AND- surely we could plot against SH and look for OBL's threats at the same time - PUUHHLLEEZZEEEE

The early word is that the 9/11 commissions report will find that the attacks could have been prevented. :wavey:

Just last week, however, they were strong-armed by the White House to edit their finding that the supposed call to Bush on 9/11 by Cheney seeking permission to shoot down the planes never happened. That's democracy for ya. :xoxo:

strandinthewind

06-27-2004, 11:04 PM

The early word is that the 9/11 commissions report will find that the attacks could have been prevented. :wavey:

Just last week, however, they were strong-armed by the White House to edit their finding that the supposed call to Bush on 9/11 by Cheney seeking permission to shoot down the planes never happened. That's democracy for ya. :xoxo:

Interesting conclusion. I do not see it from the evidence we saw. I think, however, it could have been with a little luck and with the various depts. playing fair. But, the exact event was never described and the exact date or exact method (which airline, which airport, etc.) was never described.

If the Commission concludes W could could have prevented 9/11 - I wonder if that will implicate Clinton. I mean the evidence indicates they were planning this while Clinton was in office and April 200 was supposed to be the original date :shrug: It will be interesting no matter what they conclude.

gldstwmn

06-28-2004, 10:50 AM

It was more like the straw that broke the camel's back. In the end, I agree we should have waited to go into Iraq. But, that does not negate the justification for the need to do it - at least to me and the Democratic party. :wavey:

Foul. The democratic party alone does not hold the majority in the House nad Senate. :distress:

Well, the Saudi's do have a ton of oil, but SH has been a thorn in their side for a long time in that he was against them from day one. Yet, it is widely rumored and can be somewhat supported that the Saudis would not let Bush I remove SH. So, that makes no sense other than that was 10 years ago and things changed :shrug: In the end, the Saudis talk a great games, but they IMO do not do enough in their own country to help us. Having said all of that, I have no clue what the solution to all of this is :shrug:

Again, I don't think the Saudi's have the most to gain from this.

gldstwmn

06-28-2004, 10:54 AM

=strandinthewind
If the Commission concludes W could could have prevented 9/11 - I wonder if that will implicate Clinton. I mean the evidence indicates they were planning this while Clinton was in office and April 200 was supposed to be the original date :shrug: It will be interesting no matter what they conclude.

Clinton was actively pursuing terrorists.

estranged4life

06-28-2004, 11:03 AM

Clinton was actively pursuing terrorists.

he was pursuing the ones overseas while here in "the Heartland" someone missed the markings of a large terror attack that was "rumored" to take place at a Federal Building on the date of April 19th (Anniversary of the Waco fiasco)...And history showed that someone definitely dropped that ball (I don't blame Willie or his administration).

strandinthewind

06-28-2004, 01:20 PM

Clinton was actively pursuing terrorists.

Well, SH was a terrorist by any definition.

I am not saying Clinton was not, but clearly he did not know of the 9/11 stuff which was initially scheduled to take place in April 2001. Moreover, some of the training and plotting occurred under Clinton's watch. In the end, I do not think Clinton or W should be blamed for not stopping it. I do not think that the puzzle could be put together by anyone without a very lucky break. Clearly, the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were working on this during W's watch. The documents generated support that. They just did not put it all together and neither did Clinton :shrug: - although there was more to put together for W. So, I think they are both to blame if blame is to be assigned, unless of course, you think the planning did not start until W took office, which the evidence does not support.

estranged4life

06-28-2004, 01:37 PM

I am not saying Clinton was not, but clearly he did not know of the 9/11 stuff which was initially scheduled to take place in April 2001. Moreover, some of the training and plotting occurred under Clinton's watch. In the end, I do not think Clinton or W should be blamed for not stopping it. I do not think that the puzzle could be put together by anyone without a very lucky break. Clearly, the FBI, CIA, and other agencies were working on this during W's watch. The documents generated support that. They just did not put it all together and neither did Clinton :shrug: - although there was more to put together for W. So, I think they are both to blame if blame is to be assigned, unless of course, you think the planning did not start until W took office, which the evidence does not support.

my problem with the Clinton administration is how they were not informed of "possible terrorist" plots, When yet the ATF, FBI & federal court judges (Including a judge whose office was across the street from the Alfred E.Murrah building, He was scheduled to testify in Terry Nichols case vs. the State of Oklahoma, But he was alas never called.) were notified via a memo "to not be in your office on April 19th due to a possible and legitmate threat from unknown terror sources".

(Note: The local OKC FBI offices were not based in the Murrah building but ATF did have offices in the building and the ATF suffered no casualities that morning. Witnesses who survived the blast noticed the ATF office was oddly closed that morning.)

gldstwmn

06-28-2004, 05:24 PM

he was pursuing the ones overseas while here in "the Heartland" someone missed the markings of a large terror attack that was "rumored" to take place at a Federal Building on the date of April 19th (Anniversary of the Waco fiasco)...And history showed that someone definitely dropped that ball (I don't blame Willie or his administration).

Another story we'll never completely know.

gldstwmn

06-28-2004, 05:25 PM

Well, SH was a terrorist by any definition.

So is Sharon. You want to invade Israel?

estranged4life

06-28-2004, 05:33 PM

Another story we'll never completely know.

a possibly larger conspiracy than anyone could guess that will never receive the attention that 9/11 receives.

strandinthewind

06-28-2004, 06:02 PM

So is Sharon. You want to invade Israel?

Don't get me started on Isreal :laugh:

But, Sharon was not in direct violation and material brieach on like 20 UN respoutions and he has not gassed his own people and invaded another country - at least not technically :cool:

gldstwmn

06-28-2004, 06:38 PM

Don't get me started on Isreal :laugh:

But, Sharon was not in direct violation and material brieach on like 20 UN respoutions and he has not gassed his own people and invaded another country - at least not technically :cool:

Okay, Libya?

strandinthewind

06-28-2004, 07:10 PM

Okay, Libya?

Well, ya gotta admit one good thing about blowing Iraq from here to hell is it got Libya in line. Unfortunately, it did not scare anyone of merit like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. I am terrified of Iran right now. They, like North Korea have no fear of us. At least with NK we have China who is not above annexing NK if they piss them off. Who is going to do that with Iran. Although now at least in theaor with Agganstan, pakistan, and Iraq, "we" have Iran sandwhiched :shrug:

gldstwmn

06-28-2004, 07:13 PM

Well, ya gotta admit one good thing about blowing Iraq from here to hell is it got Libya in line.

This week. :lol: