[ETWolverine]

Ordinaryguy,

First of all, we were talking about government policy. The policy is exactly as I have stated. Whether that policy is violated or not, the policy is to grant the POWs the protections of the GC. The GC does not call for POWs to be released until THE END OF HOSTILITIES. Thus, the idea that they are being held "indefinitely without charge" is within the guidelines of the GC.

Second, I don't take anything that ICRC says seriously anymore. This is the same organization that has been bashing the USA and Israel for years with no real cause, while at the same time completely ignoring REAL human rights violations in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia for years. And in fact, by their wonderful ability to look the other way at violations of their own charter, the ICRC has directly contributed to human rights violations and terrorism. Please keep in mind the fact that the ICRC ignored violations by the Palestinian Red Crescent in which the RC used ambulances to transport weapons for use against Israel... a direct violation of the ICRC charter that was ignored by the ICRC. Please also note that despite these violations, the Red Crescent was admitted to the ICRC while Magen David Edom, the Israeli version of the Red Cross, was rejected for decades. The ICRC is an unbiased body, and they have clearly proven that time and time again.

But, even assuming that their report is correct, let's read the report itself and break it down:

Treatement During Arrest

Protected persons interviewed by ICRC delegates have described a fairly consistent pattern with respect to times and places of brutality by members of the CF arresting them.

Gee, what a shock. Prisoners are claiming that they have been brutalized and abused... like that is never claimed by prisoners and criminals no matter where they are. I used to be an Auxiliary Police Officer. I have yet to meet a prisoner who didn't claim brutality by the cops. Plus, please also keep in mind that the terrorists are INSTRUCTED on how to claim brutality and abuse, regardless of the reality.

Arrests as described in these allegations tended to follow a patterns. Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property. They arrested suspects, tying their hands in the back with flexi-cuffs, hooding them, and taking them away. Sometimes they arrested all adult males in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people. Treatment included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles. Individuals were often led away in whatever they happened to be wearing at the time of arrest - sometimes in pyjamas or underwear - and were denied the opportunity to gather a few essential belongings such as clothing, hygene items, medicine or eyeglasses. Those who surrendered with a suitcase often had their belongings confiscated. In many cases personal belongings were seized during the arrest with no receipt being issued.

Uh... in the real world we call that a raid. There's nothing illegal or particularly brutal about any of it. In fact, it is exactly how cops around the world are trained to capture criminals in their strongholds. And I love the part about suitcases being confiscated... the ICRC is aware of the fact that terrorists have been using suitcases to hide bombs for the bette part of a century, aren't they? Why in the hell would any soldier in their right mind allow a terror suspect to carry a suitcase... or allow them "the opportunity to gather essential items"... like a bomb or a weapon. I think the ICRC is grasping at straws in order to prove brutality where none exists.

Now lets talk about the "lack of notification of families"... which is the next subject discussed in the report. We should keep in mind that terrorist groups are often clan-based and family-based associations. Thus, informing the family that a particular terorist has been captured is the same as informing the terrorist cell that their group has been compromised. The GC specifically states that informing the families of POWs must take place when such is militarily feasible. Warning the terrorists that one of their number has been captured and is being interrogated for information about them is NOT militarily feasible.

Moving along...

Treatment during transfer and initial custody

The ICRC collected several allegations indicating that following arrest persons deprived of their liberty were ill-treated, sometimes during transfer from their place of arrest to their initial internment facility. This ill treatment would normally stop by the time the persons reached a regular internment facility, such as Camp Cropper, Camp Bucca or Abu Ghraib.

Gee... that's convenient... no witnesses to corroborate the accusations of brutality. Of course that also means no witnesses to any brutality if it actually to place as well. So to that accusation I say, "prove it."

And the one case of death that is discussed in the report stated clearly that the commander of unit in question was conducting an investigation into that death and promissed the punishment of the responsible parties. Seems to me that a system to prevent and investigate such brutality is in place.

Let's move on to interrogations, shall we?

The ill treatment by the CF personnel during interrogation was not systematic, except with regard to persons arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an intelligence value.

Not systematic... hmmm. That must have been a hard admission for the ICRC. I'm sure they would have rather reported wholesale brutality of all prisoners. But you can't have everything, can you.

In these cases, persons deprived of their liberty, supervised by the military, were subjected to a variety of ill treatments ranging from insults and humiliation...

Boo hoo...

... to both physical and psychological coercion that in some cases MIGHT amount to torture, in order to force them to cooperate with their interrogators. In certain cases, such as in Abu Ghraib military intelligence section, methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information. Several military intelligence officers confirmed to the ICRC that it was part of the military intelligence process to hold a person deprived of his liberty naked in a completely dark and empty cell for a prolonged period to use inhumane and degrading treatment, including physical and psychological coercion, against persons deprived of their liberty to secure their cooperation.

There's a lesson here... if a military intelligence officer asks a prisoner a question, that prisoner should answer the question. But nothing here constitutes torture. Intimidation isn't torture. Being naked isn't torture... in fact under the right circumstances, it can be downright fun. Even causing discomfort doesn't constitute torture in the legal sense. It isn't even brutality under the laws of war or the GC.

This post is getting long... so I will just state that the "methods of ill treatment" discussed next do not constitute torture in the legal sense.

Frankly, given the biased nature of the ICRC itself, and the fact that the report itself doesn't highlight anything that violates the rules of war, the GC, or the normal activities that can be expected during wartime vis-à-vis treatment of prisoners, I tend to take the report with a grain of salt. I think you should as well.

Elliot

[ordinaryguy]

First of all, we were talking about government policy. The policy is exactly as I have stated. Whether that policy is violated or not, the policy is to grant the POWs the protections of the GC.

No, the policy is not as you have stated. The policy is that NONE of the detainees are entitled to POW status (yet you continue to refer to them as POWs), and that the Government may, at its sole option and discretion, grant them some, but not all of the rights that the GC requires.

The GC does not call for POWs to be released until THE END OF HOSTILITIES. Thus, the idea that they are being held "indefinitely without charge" is within the guidelines of the GC.

And how will we know that hostilities have ended? Oh, of course, the Government will tell us. Your childlike faith in the benevolence, fairness and competence of the Government is touching. Will you be as comfortable with the unlimited government power that you advocate when the political pendulum swings the other way and these powers are in the hands of people who believe all the "PC crap" that you revile so? If you wouldn't want a government you despise to have these powers, you better not give them to one you admire.

Second, I don't take anything that ICRC says seriously anymore. This is the same organization that has been bashing the USA and Israel for years with no real cause, while at the same time completely ignoring REAL human rights violations in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Asia for years.

And how do you define "REAL human rights violations"?

Gee, what a shock. Prisoners are claiming that they have been brutalized and abused... like that is never claimed by prisoners and criminals no matter where they are. I used to be an Auxiliary Police Officer. I have yet to meet a prisoner who didn't claim brutality by the cops. Plus, please also keep in mind that the terrorists are INSTRUCTED on how to claim brutality and abuse, regardless of the reality.

So because prisoners always allege brutality, it is never true. Impeccable logic.

Uh... in the real world we call that a raid. There's nothing illegal or particularly brutal about any of it. In fact, it is exactly how cops around the world are trained to capture criminals in their strongholds.

Criminals in their strongholds, civilians in their homes... a trivial difference to you, apparently.

Now lets talk about the "lack of notification of families"... Warning the terrorists that one of their number has been captured and is being interrogated for information about them is NOT militarily feasable.

All of your objections are predicated on the assumption that all suspects are already known to be guilty. If that were true, then of course there would be no need for a presumption of innocence, or due process of law to determine guilt.

Gee... that's convenient... no witnesses to corroborate the accusations of brutality. Of course that also means no witnesses to any brutality if it actually to place as well. So to that accusation I say, "prove it."

By your standards, what would constitute proof?

There's a lesson here... if a military intelligence officer asks a prisoner a question, that prisoner should answer the question.

Not only that, but it better be the answer the officer wants to hear.

But nothing here constitutes torture. Intimidation isn't torture. Being naked isn't torture... in fact under the right circumstances, it can be downright fun. Even causing discomfort doesn't constitute torture in the legal sense. It isn't even brutality under the laws of war or the GC.

This post is getting long... so I will just state that the "methods of ill treatment" discussed next do not constitute torture in the legal sense.

Thank you for your legal opinion. I feel so much better about all this now.

[CaptainRich]

As a side note:
The whole idea that "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or "a soldier is just a terrorist in uniform" is false... an attempt at moral equivocation. That's fine and good during a time of peace, when we don't have enemies at our doorstep trying to kill us. I disagree with it even then, but I accept people's rights to go with that idea. But not during wartime, when we have to respond to a direct threat from an enemy that uses that sort of moral equivocation as a shield.

Nor do I believe that "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Because in order to be a "freedom fighter", one must, of necessity, be fighting for freedom. The Islamofascist terrorists aren't fighting for freedom. Quite the opposite; they are fighting for religious intolerance and the death and destruction of anyone who doesn't follow their religion.

I bring this up, because your questions about who is a terrorist vs. who is a criminal, vs. who is a civillian defending his country smack of trying to make them the same, morally and legally. They are not, nor should they be seen as such. And the differences between them are easy to see, if you are willing to open your eyes to see the differences. But it takes getting past the PC crap to the real issues of how to defend ourselves against an enemy bent on our destruction.

Elliot

This shouldn't be read as a "side note." This is quite remarkable!