US Marines expected to be charged with Haditha war atrocities

From BBC News, today:

The Haditha incident - where US marines are alleged to have killed Iraqi civilians last year - is the subject of growing concern in the United States.

Enough material has now been leaked to the media here to suggest to many Americans that the allegations are very serious and may well be true.

John Murtha, a former marine and Vietnam veteran who is now an anti-war Democratic congressman, said he believed civilians had been murdered in Haditha and senior officers had made an attempt to hide it.

"I know there was a cover-up someplace. They knew about this a few days afterwards," he told ABC television earlier this week.

"There is no question the chain of command tried to stifle this story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it.

"Something like this has to be brought out to the public and the people have to be punished. This thing has been going on for six months - they knew the day afterwards."

In the face of these charges, Gen Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - the president's most senior military adviser - is at the moment saying very little:

"Clearly the individuals involved - if they are responsible for the things they are being accused of - have not performed their duty the way that 99.9% of their fellow marines have.

"We'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action if there needs to be any."

What is interesting is that General Pace - himself a marine - does not dismiss the allegations out of hand or even suggest that they might be exaggerated.

And while he says he is waiting for the official investigations, others are not - the families of some marines who knew about the alleged incident have been talking.

One mother told ABC television that her son had been traumatised after being forced to photograph the bodies of civilians at Haditha, including a child who had been shot in the head.

The American public is generally very supportive of the troops and willing to accept that bad behaviour by a handful of soldiers or marines does not necessarily reflect on the whole mission.

But an atrocity on the scale being suggested now could well be a different matter."

The US must be getting more coverage of this than we are, as its just a breaking story over here. Are these people acceptable casualties of war?. I think not. Opinions please.

Why do you care?

Simple premise really. My Government is involved in this too, and our army is just as bad. I care, cos it would be nice if we could lead by example. No direct relatives, but friends and friends with relatives out there.

You don't care?

I bet he posts

What kinda car is that, Cath?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: What kinda car is that, Cath?

a 1968 Pontiac!

Yeah, I think you're right. A Trans Am, right?

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Yeah, I think you're right. A Trans Am, right?

Um.. I have no idea..

Defo a Trans Am.

Prime Detroit Iron

lets' bring out the Faux News nut jobs

hmm.. strange.. 2 trans am owners who cant agree..

Apparently the two dozen killed were in an insurgent stronghold, and the NY Times reported today that

A preliminary inquiry indicated that the civilians were killed during a four- to five-hour sweep, led by a handful of marines angry over the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, 20, of El Paso, Tex., who was killed as his patrol drove through the area.

Possibly it is just this small number of soldiers doing this (I'm guessing on my own that they may have rationalized amongst themselves that their enemy wasn't particular about avoiding civilians, so a 'let' give 'em a taste of their won medicine' line of argument got the best of their judgement).

Honestly, I've absolutely no idea about how I would react if I were in their situation, seeing my buddy's body blown apart might trigger a reaction in me.

Grateful Shed wrote: Faux News

a play on words I am fond of...

Pat McCrotch wrote: and Burt...yes...this story is just breaking on this side of the pond as well...

not having all of the facts in, it's very hard to know just what the hell happened...

but I can relay a story that my father told me about Vietnam...by the end of his second tour in Vietnam, he wasn't at all sure who to shoot at...he was on one helicopter, and as they were lifting off, the second chopper that was with them waited to pick up a (what they presume to be) mother and child that were running up to the chopper...thinking the pair might be running from the Viet Cong, they were going to whisk the pair off to safety...at the last moment, the woman tossed something into the second helicopter, and moments later, a grenade exploded in the chopper, killing several people, and obviously knocking the helicopter out of commission...the soldiers in the first helo immediately opened fire on the two that had run up, killing both of them...

doesn't really shed any light on the current situation...but just a little something to think about...

glad you brought this up, jeff. it's pretty obvious that what's happening in iraq isn't that different from what happened in vietnam: a conventional army fighting a guerrilla war. another my lai is bound to occur amongst all the confusion regarding who is a combatant and who isn't.

Nobs.

Is the situation in Iraq turning into a smaller scaled Vietnam here?

Al Jarvis wrote: The BBC appears to have left out details the Standard had earlier in the week about one of the murdered being gang-raped. One of the nastiest weapons of war in the modern age: rape.

Still, she was probably asking for it.

Dunno what offends me more really. Bunch of US squaddies going gung-ho (sad to say, as despicable a crime as they've committed you have to sit back and say, well you can kind of see why they did it and by saying that I'm by no way condoning their actions), er, or a select few hijacking this thread to talk about, um, cars. Is there a relevance with the car, I'm missing, or is this somehow supposed to be funny?!

Fcuking stomach-churning crimes though, whether committed by the US, by our boys (god forbid), insurgents or whatever.

Isn't the war so Americans can drive gas guzzlers?

Hank Wiseass© wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote: The BBC appears to have left out details the Standard had earlier in the week about one of the murdered being gang-raped. One of the nastiest weapons of war in the modern age: rape.

Still, she was probably asking for it.

Dunno what offends me more really. Bunch of US squaddies going gung-ho (sad to say, as despicable a crime as they've committed you have to sit back and say, well you can kind of see why they did it and by saying that I'm by no way condoning their actions), er, or a select few hijacking this thread to talk about, um, cars. Is there a relevance with the car, I'm missing, or is this somehow supposed to be funny?!

Fcuking stomach-churning crimes though, whether committed by the US, by our boys (god forbid), insurgents or whatever.

Isn't the war so Americans can drive gas guzzlers?

I saw on CNN this morning that the "high" gas prices have caused an increase in "gas rage", people yelling at gas station attendants and/or driving off without paying for gas. Americans are so damn spoiled in this regard. One of my pet peeves is people bitching about the price of gas while they drive their damn Hummers and the people in Europe pay twice what we pay. Get real, people, there are more important things to complain about.

Hank Wiseass© wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote: The BBC appears to have left out details the Standard had earlier in the week about one of the murdered being gang-raped. One of the nastiest weapons of war in the modern age: rape.

Still, she was probably asking for it.

Dunno what offends me more really. Bunch of US squaddies going gung-ho (sad to say, as despicable a crime as they've committed you have to sit back and say, well you can kind of see why they did it and by saying that I'm by no way condoning their actions), er, or a select few hijacking this thread to talk about, um, cars. Is there a relevance with the car, I'm missing, or is this somehow supposed to be funny?!

Fcuking stomach-churning crimes though, whether committed by the US, by our boys (god forbid), insurgents or whatever.

Isn't the war so Americans can drive gas guzzlers?

according to our president, whom i support blindly and without question, it's to bring democracy to a land that badly needs it. and also according to our president, whom i support blindly and without question, we are winning! hurrah!

AgentWood wrote:

according to our president, whom i support blindly and without question, it's to bring democracy to a land that badly needs it. and also according to our president, whom i support blindly and without question, we are winning! hurrah!

Correction.....you HAVE WON! remember he said so on some aircraft carrier like years ago.

Doctor? wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

according to our president, whom i support blindly and without question, it's to bring democracy to a land that badly needs it. and also according to our president, whom i support blindly and without question, we are winning! hurrah!

Correction.....you HAVE WON! remember he said so on some aircraft carrier like years ago.

now he's reverted to using the present tense again. who's the flip-flopper here?

My apologies Agent...I wasn't aware of that as I avoid listening to him speak on health grounds ;)

this story never made our local news and i don't watch that cable junk. kind of sad that the best sources for what's going on in my country are foreign

I wanna see BUSH charged with crimes against Humanity

Apparently all US Marines are now going to have 'ethics' lessons...

Like, hello, doesn't anyone teach them about the GENEVA CONVENTIONS which are suppoused to be incorporated into military standard operating procedures and taught to military personell all over the world!!!???

May they all when they :rip: !!!!!!!!!!

Oh, sorry, GENEVA is in Europe and the U.S. military forces don't seem to be aware that the land of the free and ideas of decency do actually extend beyond the Western & Eastern seaboards!

I guess I was summoned a little while ago with the 68 Firebird.

First, if I could ask that when typing Marines that you capatalize the "M". I appreciate the courtesy.

This is a mixed bag, I think. It really is difficult to make a full decision on this matter without more facts. I don't trust the press, especially Iraqi press out there. . .however, I do see how it could be a possible coverup. What ever the case, this is dangerous for the men and women currently deployed out there.

With this investigation, will come more rules and regulations atop of the normal Geneava Convention rules. It will make it more difficult to make split second decisions, which are life and death decisions. Here's an example : At one time there was a roadblock. Signs everywhere in Arabic to go around, makeshift barriers, bright yellow tank barriers. . .so basically it was extremely identifiable . Military members were directing traffic around the area. It was rush hour, so there where 100's of cars going in the same direction, around the road block. Out of nowhere this bus gases it straight for the roadblock (about 200 feet from the directed traffic), drives over some signs, so the immediate thought is that it is a suicide bomber. The military unloads on the bus. It comes to a halt, and everyone inside is killed. No explosives or weapons found, and no one knows why the driver did what he did.

Because of this incident, new rules came out that stated that if a vehicle is obviously not stopping and a threat, to fire a warning shot at the ground. If they keep coming, then to fire into the engine compartment (hopefully disabling the engine). If it keeps coming then to fire at the driver.

Now at first this sounds like a good rule of thumb, but put yourself in the guard's position. Three shots with given time between each to ensure the driver can react, and time to aim in, about 10 seconds. . .a car doing 30 MPH can cover 440 feet. If the warning shots aren't done the guard's life might be saved, but he will be court martialed. If he does the warning shots, high chance he will die, but his record is clean. Hell of a decision to make in a split second.

So to conclude, I think the importance of this topic isn't whether or not this is a cover up, but how will this effect those 99.9% others that are doing their job properly.

JHC

we had the same thing here in terms of shooting out cars at roadblocks. the way I see it, if someone says (or implies by the presence of a roadblock) "stop or i will shoot", and you choose to be shot it's yer own fault.

Having said that, all Armies have their share of bloodthirsty dickheads.

End of the day, you lot signed up to defend your country and are being used to line Bush and Cheney's pockets.

Pat McCrotch wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: First, if I could ask that when typing Marines that you capatalize the "M". I appreciate the courtesy.

JHC

Would you prefer I just call them jarheads?

just like God?

Doctor? wrote: we had the same thing here in terms of shooting out cars at roadblocks. the way I see it, if someone says (or implies by the presence of a roadblock) "stop or i will shoot", and you choose to be shot it's yer own fault.

Having said that, all Armies have their share of bloodthirsty dickheads.

I completely agree with the roadblocks. . .but when something high profile happens over there that would evoke mass media attention, the highers throw out more rules and regulations.

I understand that the civilian population can see many of us as "bloodthirsty". In 9 years and many different operations, and units, I have yet to meet anyone that is bloodthirsty, not to say they don't exist, but it's an image-thing.

What could lead these Marines to such actions can be complicated. Here are some of the things they are up against:

• The fog of war - a term to describe the confusion that happens during war. This can be failure of comm equipment, lack of intel, bullets being fired from many directions, being tired, etc.

• Mass amounts of patrols. Most patrols are done on foot. Imagine walking for 3 hours with 50lbs on your back,constantly being alert for any enemy or IED in the area. It gets tiring, and sometimes there is a lack of sleep involved.

• Anger - due to loss of buddies, killed by the enemy.

• Constantly surrounded by death/injuries - After a long time of being surrounded by this, there starts to be a mentality that you could and will die at any moment. You lack the care and the normal fear of death. You feel that you won't ever come home, and change to a different person.
  the more deployments that one goes on the less toll this takes on the individual, but first deployment military members get effected by this substantially.

• Everyone looks the same,and all the Iraqi civilians are being decpetive. It builds to a lack of trust and a division between the civilians and the military.

• There are so many rules that it has become more burdensome to accomplish the mission.

• The simple becomes difficult. This is the course when a skirmish ensues, and trying accomplish many life-important decisions all within a few seconds. . .add more rules and it makes it even more so.

• We are trying to act like a police force within a war. There have become so many rules that we have to spend time investigating, CSI style. Time that could be used more efficiantly towards the war.

• The enemy has no rules. While we are burdening ourselves with Genevea Conconvention rules, rules to appease the press and the world, the enemy is not doing so. It hurts us in two ways:

1. The enemy looks more terrible in the press, which aides to thier cause.
2. They can move about and use thier time more efficently to thier cause.

• Alot of the press have thier own selfish careers or agenda in how they report then to give the cold hard facts.

• Many 18 - 22 yearolds are making decisions that are on the world's microscope. Imagine if all your decisions held world-politics in the balance at that age.

There are other things as well. My main point is that these Marines might have caused an autrocity, but there is alot more leading up to it than a casual murder.

We have training, assistance, etc. in place to help us through these things. . .but training and real life are two different animals.

JHC

Maybe...

My grandfather did his life in the army. When it turned to a professional army (by 1996), he told me that it was not a good idea. He said that it was better to keep appelés ("called" I do not know the word in English to name the ones who do their national service) within it. In his idea, professionals drill and drill whereas the others are here for a shorter time term, having another state of mind, the ones of the outside of the barracks. They do not have this will to shoot at once even if they are the first to be out of ammunitions when shooting is needed...

So after this little, erm, foreword, don't you think that too many people in professional armies are here to be a soldier, an hero ? I do not know if I express myself clear. It is quite a romantic way of thinking... Be one of the ones who landed on Normandy's beaches, Guadalcanal, the battle of the Ardennes rather than being a policeman in a crazy place ? In my opinion there is a need to face the fact that, in matters of military actions, the invasion of Iraq was more a trip comparing to a campaign with all kind of embushes on the way... Where was the third more powerful army ? Where were the aircrafts ? Navy ? Tanks ? And so on ? How many times the soldiers of the coalition faced Iraqi soldiers, in a wartime action ? In a few weeks time, the allied found themselves in the city centre of Baghdad... And no warm welcoming like on Broadway... Meanwhile in this short period of time, the Iraqi may have lost their pride because, even if they disagreed with Saddam Hussein, they realised that their army was shit and that their country capitulated in a while. In this situation, you find yourself in a position of some kind of occupying "colonialist" army which has already bombed some places around before (a plus for logistics I guess). Then, the ennemy becomes invisible - which was almost already the case with Iraqi's army, which is translated by more stress. He is not in a uniform and with a helmet warning you that he is around...

So it leads me to conclude that a lot of soldiers there live in a state of anger on one hand and nonstop fear on the other. They must feel undesigned for the job, also disappointed by it... Also... the fact that when some soldiers of the coalition are killed, there is no way of having an eye-to-eye response because the ennemy does not play with the same rules : the military ones.

Easy to understand that some may have a heavy finger on the trigger...

It is only a point of view and you can laugh at me because I never found myself in these situations.

Jify, Wrote up something and the damn thing disappeared on me. Have to go to bed, but I'll get back to you tommorrow.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Doctor? wrote: we had the same thing here in terms of shooting out cars at roadblocks. the way I see it, if someone says (or implies by the presence of a roadblock) "stop or i will shoot", and you choose to be shot it's yer own fault.

Having said that, all Armies have their share of bloodthirsty dickheads.

I completely agree with the roadblocks. . .but when something high profile happens over there that would evoke mass media attention, the highers throw out more rules and regulations.

I understand that the civilian population can see many of us as "bloodthirsty". In 9 years and many different operations, and units, I have yet to meet anyone that is bloodthirsty, not to say they don't exist, but it's an image-thing.

What could lead these Marines to such actions can be complicated. Here are some of the things they are up against:

• The fog of war - a term to describe the confusion that happens during war. This can be failure of comm equipment, lack of intel, bullets being fired from many directions, being tired, etc.

• Mass amounts of patrols. Most patrols are done on foot. Imagine walking for 3 hours with 50lbs on your back,constantly being alert for any enemy or IED in the area. It gets tiring, and sometimes there is a lack of sleep involved.

• Anger - due to loss of buddies, killed by the enemy.

• Constantly surrounded by death/injuries - After a long time of being surrounded by this, there starts to be a mentality that you could and will die at any moment. You lack the care and the normal fear of death. You feel that you won't ever come home, and change to a different person.
  the more deployments that one goes on the less toll this takes on the individual, but first deployment military members get effected by this substantially.

• Everyone looks the same,and all the Iraqi civilians are being decpetive. It builds to a lack of trust and a division between the civilians and the military.

• There are so many rules that it has become more burdensome to accomplish the mission.

• The simple becomes difficult. This is the course when a skirmish ensues, and trying accomplish many life-important decisions all within a few seconds. . .add more rules and it makes it even more so.

• We are trying to act like a police force within a war. There have become so many rules that we have to spend time investigating, CSI style. Time that could be used more efficiantly towards the war.

• The enemy has no rules. While we are burdening ourselves with Genevea Conconvention rules, rules to appease the press and the world, the enemy is not doing so. It hurts us in two ways:

1. The enemy looks more terrible in the press, which aides to thier cause.
2. They can move about and use thier time more efficently to thier cause.

• Alot of the press have thier own selfish careers or agenda in how they report then to give the cold hard facts.

• Many 18 - 22 yearolds are making decisions that are on the world's microscope. Imagine if all your decisions held world-politics in the balance at that age.

There are other things as well. My main point is that these Marines might have caused an autrocity, but there is alot more leading up to it than a casual murder.

We have training, assistance, etc. in place to help us through these things. . .but training and real life are two different animals.

JHC

Fook's sake, they fookin' gang-raped some poor woman before killing her, apparently. How does any of this tripe account for that?

These Marines are un-American. They've brought shame on America, and have done more damage to this country than any anarchist flag-burner could ever have hoped to have done.

I spent a little time watching telly today...

Enough to see the images of this affair. Well, a bit shameful to talk frankly...

Funny, after that, I watched a programm about the battle of Sedan (1871). That was the first time that the Red Cross was involved in a war and that the Geneva agreements were to be the new rules of a new kind of war...

Then, a bit confusing when you have seen the pictures of Haditha... and the way the US general said that the soldiers were not guilty...

1. The soldiers should be charged with something...
2. The general deserves the guillotine for what he has said. His behaviour is a motorway to impunity...

Digital Mike Binoshed wrote: I wanna see BUSH charged with crimes against Humanity

what are you talking about? he has god on his side!

and as for this turning into another vietnam: it very well may be. keep in mind that it took several years before vietnam became a major conflict. the first few years had minimal (i use that word loosely) combat causalties, and then it all went to hell. plus, as i said before, it's extremely difficult to defeat guerrillas. especially on their own territory.

You better stow that attitude Christie or you'll be waiting for NO to announce their Cuban Dates.

Tis true what was said above tho...shooting up a car coming at a roadblock is just darwinism, you;ve removed some fucking morons from the world....gang rape? SLIGHTLY harder to explain away. Can you imagine if one of those "filthy iraqis" gang rape a Marine LOL....fuckwitt would nuke the place.

I suppose americans are just worth more eh?

PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

AgentWood wrote: what are you talking about? he has god on his side!

this old man should change his glasses...

Doctor? wrote: PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

Actually, that is incorrect. By all legalities, Genevea Convention rules do not apply to terrorists or insurgents. The rules apply to national armies.

Jiphy wrote: Then, a bit confusing when you have seen the pictures of Haditha... and the way the US general said that the soldiers were not guilty...

1. The soldiers should be charged with something...
2. The general deserves the guillotine for what he has said. His behaviour is a motorway to impunity...

Jiphy, A general's position is highly political. For him to stand out on the limb like this is not usual, and could cost him his career if proven incorrect.

I was not aware of the rape portion, as the news I saw on this was a couple days ago and did not include this. If this is true, than it is a sad day. (I had more to say on your other post, but it would get lost amongst the rest of this stuff)

Before everyone does jump to conclusions we do have to take in account the source. The Iraqi Press does not have the best credibility. Hell, all press for that matter doesn't. I've seen firsthand how the press can twist things around for certian career advancements and political stances. I'd wait for the trial to happen before jumping to conclusions.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

Actually, that is incorrect. By all legalities, Genevea Convention rules do not apply to terrorists or insurgents. The rules apply to national armies.

WRONG!.. The term 'terrorist' was not generally used in 1950 when the Convention was last revised. It refers to treatment of prisoners of war, and doesnt specify. If such a distinction was made you could class anyone as a terrorist and treat them like shit. Don't forget no one person in Guantanamo Bay has been charged with anything, so classifying them as terrorists four years on, is a bit rich. If the camp was on US soil, the UN would have gone crazy by now. Its been a long standing US policy to move 'suspects' to countries not recognising the Geneva Convention, in order presumably to 'extricate' information from them by dubious means. Shamefully the Blair administration supports this policy too.

Perhaps this is where the US Marines are going wrong; they are classifying Iraqis as insurgents and terrorists and paying scant regard to the Convention. The amazing thing is, is that the US are the invading force. You can hardly blame them for being insurgent can you?

Weren't the people killed and tortured civilians?

Cath wrote: Weren't the people killed and tortured civilians?

Certainly were, as far as we know. Mebbe they were insurgent civilians. Mebbe they shouted nasty words at the invading Marines.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Cath wrote: Weren't the people killed and tortured civilians?

Certainly were, as far as we know. Mebbe they were insurgent civilians. Mebbe they shouted nasty words at the invading Marines.[/quote

People sitting in ther homes praying aren't insurgents.

There's no excuse for what occured.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Doctor? wrote: PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

guantanamo bay is american soil. it was sold to the US and cuba has no jurisdiction over the land.

Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

AgentWood wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Doctor? wrote: PS...as far as I am aware, neither the USA nor UK are actually signatories to the Geneva convention...leaving them free to ignore it while contantly yipyapping about others violations of it.

The USA and UK are both early signatories of the Geneva Convention. The US had a major part in instigating it in 1864, finally signing it in 1882.

Your confusion Doc, might come from George Bush's torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, which is outside the Geneva Convention. This is because it is on Cuban soil; Fidel Castro has not signed the Geneva Convention.

guantanamo bay is american soil. it was sold to the US and cuba has no jurisdiction over the land.

A) cath: fix your post! B) Guantanamo is a perpetual lease from Cuba, and the U.S. has complete jurisdiction and control of the base, but ultimately it is under Cuban sovereignty.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

The Bush regime argues that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to the prisoners because they're illegal combatants. The Bush regime has also argued somewhat less successfully that the prisoners have no constitutional rights.

Yep, they're stuffed, just like democracy in the United States.

United States of America, 1776-2001, R.I.P.

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

do you think they wouldn't be stuffed if they were considered terrorist suspects held in a supermax in the US? i think not!

AgentWood wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

do you think they wouldn't be stuffed if they were considered terrorist suspects held in a supermax in the US? i think not!

Aye. The good thing about democracy is that you have to eventually charge people with a crime. That would actually be enforced in a a supermax. When you are held in Cuba, who gives a fuck about rights?

The Brit detainees that finally got sent home last year, after much pressure from the UK, are now regarded as clinically insane, following their ordeal. They were released, without charge.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Aye. The good thing about democracy is that you have to eventually charge people with a crime. That would actually be enforced in a a supermax. When you are held in Cuba, who gives a fuck about rights?

israel is a democracy (technically), but palestinians can be held for an indefinite period without being charged with a crime.

and, i believe, the bush administration is planning on eroding the right to due process as part of the homeland security act. fun, fun, fun.

cath, you chicken.

ghost rider wrote: cath, you chicken.

balk balk

chicken

Burt Reynolds wrote:

WRONG!.. The term 'terrorist' was not generally used in 1950 when the Convention was last revised. It refers to treatment of prisoners of war, and doesnt specify. If such a distinction was made you could class anyone as a terrorist and treat them like shit. Don't forget no one person in Guantanamo Bay has been charged with anything, so classifying them as terrorists four years on, is a bit rich. If the camp was on US soil, the UN would have gone crazy by now. Its been a long standing US policy to move 'suspects' to countries not recognising the Geneva Convention, in order presumably to 'extricate' information from them by dubious means. Shamefully the Blair administration supports this policy too.

Perhaps this is where the US Marines are going wrong; they are classifying Iraqis as insurgents and terrorists and paying scant regard to the Convention.

Burt,

Your point might be correct about Cuba, but alot of it I think has to do with "out of sight out of mind".

The Genevea Convention rules state that they apply if they are a prisoner of war (WAR being the key word). A couple things on why that one word is so important:

1. Wars are only between two or more acknowledged countries, which have their own standing armies with specific uniforms.

2. The war in Iraq officially ended the day Bush was on the carrier and stated "we won the war in Iraq". It is no longer a war, but an occupation.

Terrorists and insurgents do not fight for any recognized country. They do not, by legalities, fall under the rights of the Genevea Convention.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Terrorists and insurgents do not fight for any recognized country. They do not, by legalities, fall under the rights of the Genevea Convention.

JHC

Yes until the day when...

Last time that my country was occupied, Nazis used to say, according to the Genova Convention, that Patriots were terrorists... And when the Allied landed to free us, these terrorists became heroes - at least the ones who were not communist... By the time, it was all about ideology, not religion...

And, by the way, as some may think I am an horrible anti-American Frenchman, I would like to thank all the ones of your families (Americans, British and others) who landed on the beaches of Normandy 61 years ago... This is already June 6th on the Continent.

Jiphy wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Terrorists and insurgents do not fight for any recognized country. They do not, by legalities, fall under the rights of the Genevea Convention.

JHC

Yes until the day when...

Last time that my country was occupied, Nazis used to say, according to the Genova Convention, that Patriots were terrorists... And when the Allied landed to free us, these terrorists became heroes - at least the ones who were not communist... By the time, it was all about ideology, not religion...

And, by the way, as some may think I am an horrible anti-American Frenchman, I would like to thank all the ones of your families (Americans, British and others) who landed on the beaches of Normandy 61 years ago... This is already June 6th on the Continent.

You're right. Actually to be "right", in short and sometimes long historical perspective, you have to win. That's why we must win the new war by any means, since we got stuck in that war.

Pat McCrotch wrote: Kill 'em all...

Let God sort 'em out....

hmmm...where have I seen that before?

Simon de Monfort, 1209, Béziers.

Somehow I've actually not read the news about Hadiitha, until last night. They shot babies in the head? Babies? It's beyond the pale.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Somehow I've actually not read the news about Hadiitha, until last night. They shot babies in the head? Babies? It's beyond the pale.

Yeah Comrade.. But apparently its ok., cos as Pontiac said, its now an occupation. This is because Bush declared the war was over, cos suddenly he can apparently do that, with or without the UN involved. Apparently, the Geneva Convention doesnt apply to occupations etc etc.

Al Jarvis wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: You're right. Actually to be "right", in short and sometimes long historical perspective, you have to win. That's why we must win the new war by any means, since we got stuck in that war.

Bless.

Enola Gay perhaps?

Yeah!.. Why not!.. would be fantastic irony when ya think of the reasons as to how it all started.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Al Jarvis wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: You're right. Actually to be "right", in short and sometimes long historical perspective, you have to win. That's why we must win the new war by any means, since we got stuck in that war.

Bless.

Enola Gay perhaps?

Yeah!.. Why not!.. would be fantastic irony when ya think of the reasons as to how it all started.

We won't go there.

There is no excuse.

You don't go shooting / raping non-combatants and CHILDREN just because some of your mates got killed.

Where is everyone getting this information that theywere raped? I have watched and read countless items on this, including a whole 30 minute explination on CNN about what both sides are saying, and not once have I seen or heard of this raping, people here are talking about.

Everyone is out to crucify these guys right now, but this is information the IRAQI press is giving us. . .let the court system work to find out if these guys truly are guilty. There might be information that we are not recieving.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: Where is everyone getting this information that they were raped?

In this post:

Al Jarvis wrote: The BBC appears to have left out details the Standard had earlier in the week about one of the murdered being gang-raped. One of the nastiest weapons of war in the modern age: rape.

Still, she was probably asking for it.

Dunno what offends me more really. Bunch of US squaddies going gung-ho (sad to say, as despicable a crime as they've committed you have to sit back and say, well you can kind of see why they did it and by saying that I'm by no way condoning their actions), er, or a select few hijacking this thread to talk about, um, cars. Is there a relevance with the car, I'm missing, or is this somehow supposed to be funny?!

Fcuking stomach-churning crimes though, whether committed by the US, by our boys (god forbid), insurgents or whatever.

I have watched and read countless items on this, including a whole 30 minute explination on CNN about what both sides are saying, and not once have I seen or heard of this raping, people here are talking about.

Everyone is out to crucify these guys right now, but this is information the IRAQI press is giving us. . .let the court system work to find out if these guys truly are guilty. There might be information that we are not recieving.

JHC

Not sure what you mean by "both sides" or "The Iraqi Press." The facts are, Marines killed civilians, including babies. They shot babies, 68. We know this as a result of the investigation conducted by the U.S. Military, not by reading Iraqi press accounts. The story was broken in the U.S. by Rep. John Murtha, not by the Iraqi press. What we know about Haditha comes from the investigation conducted first by the Marines, and subsequently, by the Army. Despite your efforts to disparage the news as Iraqi lies, we know what happened at Haditha. We know that the Iraqi journalism student who videotaped the bodies told the truth about Haditha; We know that the initial Marine response was lies and coverup. Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool, who first announced

"A U.S. Marine and 15 Iraqis were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bombin Haditha. Immediately after the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wonding another."

responded to press questions about what really happened at Haditha with this email to the press corps: "I cannot believe that you're buying any of this."

If you can't find accounts of what people in Europe are reading, think about the possibility that the news we're reading has been sanitized for U.S. consumption.

They shot babies, 68. There's no "Two sides" when it comes to that. They shot babies. They're war criminals, and they've dragged the United States through the mud with their war crimes.

And yes, they're still innocent until proven guilty.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

The Bush regime argues that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to the prisoners because they're illegal combatants. The Bush regime has also argued somewhat less successfully that the prisoners have no constitutional rights.

Yep, they're stuffed, just like democracy in the United States.

United States of America, 1776-2001, R.I.P.

Comrade, as I remember, you stood for W and the war in 2001-03. What happened?

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote: Ok Woody. Guantanamo Bay is not actually 'sovereign US territory'; it is effectively leased from Cuba. The prisoners therefore have no constitutional rights, as per the Geneva Convention. This was the final verdict in a trial brought in 2003 by lawyers representing some of the detainees.

So they are basically stuffed then.

The Bush regime argues that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to the prisoners because they're illegal combatants. The Bush regime has also argued somewhat less successfully that the prisoners have no constitutional rights.

Yep, they're stuffed, just like democracy in the United States.

United States of America, 1776-2001, R.I.P.

Comrade, as I remember, you stood for W and the war in 2001-03. What happened?

I've never been for W. I was neither "against the war" nor "for the war" leading up to it. Saddam Hussein had played too many games with the U.N. inspectors for too long for me to care (not to mention he was a an evil, brutal dictator). His cat-and-mouse games with the U.N. inspectors made it seem plausible that he was hiding WMDs.

However, W's ever-shifting justifications for the impending war, coupled with his refusal to consider any other alternatives, and the shifting goalposts he set for avoiding a U.S. invasion convinced me that W was lying through his teeth about the real reason we were invading Iraq.

By the time the invasion began, I had mixed feelings about it-- I knew W was lying, but didn't give a rat's arse about Saddam Hussein. I never once believed W's nonsense that Iraq is a part of our eternal "war on terror," and it's apparent now that W-- a classic Republican chickenhawk, right up there with Dick Cheney-- has no idea how to get us out of Iraq, and he doesn't give a damn, because he'll be out of office (assuming he allows democratic elections to go forward in 2008) and it won't be his problem.

So W is not fighting a "war on terror," because he went to Iraq instead, but he has been subverting the Constitution and "interpreting" international law to exclude P.O.W.s and to allow torture. The real war W has been fighting, it turns out, has been against America, and that is why I hold him in such contempt.

Just a quick point to throw in re: the 'Iraqi Press' as described by Pontiac.

Recently various news agencies, notably Reuters, have employed a number of young English-speaking Iraqis to gather information for news reports. They are fully equipped and well paid, but ultimately the job has a 50% mortality rate.

The reason for employing them is to get a grip on news reality from the Red Zone, somewhere which is basically a no-go area to Western journalists, and ultimately a huge area of Baghdad. The policy was brought in, to get a more accurate picture of the real situation, rather than a sanitized Western version, as has been largely written from the Green Zone. This policy has been supported by the general consensus that stations such as Al-Jazheera have been producing more balanced news, simply due to having people around when the news happens.

A Reuters spokesman recently praised the young journalists efforts as 'invaluable, in giving an impressively accurate balanced view of the horrors of war, from both sides'.

Comrade,

A couple things.

1. Still didn't answer where you got the "raping" from. I haven't heard anything about this.

2. There are two stories going on right now about this. The first is the afteraction report as written by the Marines. The second is from the Iraqi journalist.

I am not siding with either side right now as both could be doing some sort of cover-up.

The Marine side could be a cover up because they killed civilians and don't want to be punished for it. (This is the immediate one everyone is believing). In this story there was a firefight on both sides of the street.

The journalist could be doing his own slanted story as well. First he took pictures and had interveiws with the people. At first this sounds reasonable, but there is the culture factor not added in. Iraqis embelish stories to let the person understand the emotional aspects of thier experience. The way they embelish so elborately is different than Western culture, as a small incident will sound like a national escapade. Their words can not be taken at face value. Also in this story, there was no firefight.

3. There are parts of this story that are not lining up with experience I have.

The main motive given is that the Marines went on a murdering rampage because they were angry after one of their Marines were killed. My problem with this is:

• These Marines were new in country. Their first deployment, and this was their first firefight. Anger for losing a comrade (no pun intended) usually takes time. . .a couple days, weeks, maybe even months to surface. The immediate reaction is being unbelievably scared. You mind goes into shock, and your training more or less takes over. There are no real emotions happening other than being scared shitless. Every door you walk up to could have the enemy behind it, in which the enemy is already prepared for you. It could be booby-trapped or insurgents ready to kill you. Every step you take could be your last if you aren't careful. The first firefight usually has the person more interested in self preservation, than any other emotion.

After each firefight, the stress of being scared disappears as you get accustomed to the stress. Anger may surface from past events. However, in your first deployment, first firefight, I have strong doubts that the Marines would have had the ability to get angry then purposefully kill and murder civilians for revenge.

• Another thing noted is innocent young college students were murdered as they were driving by. It is unlikely that they were innocent. The neighborhood and townspeople know when something bad is going to happen. When firefights like this happen, everyone will be off the streets, even during rush hour, way before it happens. It will be a ghost town. That this car didn't know is possible, but highly unlikely. They were also all college-aged males, the age of those doing the fighting.

My guess is that the IED exploded, and a firefight ensued. The Marines saw the car approach, seeing that they were college males, they killed them thinking they were insurgents. They then proceeded to the houses the gunfire was coming from, and over reacted by kicking in the door and firing randomly into the room if they saw movement (which at the time they immediately considered dangerous).

In either case the Marines reacted poorly. However, in one they are cold-blooded murderers and the other are those that are trying to defend themselves. One is murder, the other manslaughter.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

In either case the Marines reacted poorly. However, in one they are cold-blooded murderers and the other are those that are trying to defend themselves. One is murder, the other manslaughter.

JHC

Looks like murder to me JHC. I believe this is the same case which had VT footage shown in Europe, of US Marines in a room full of corpses and injured civilians, shouting something along the lines of 'He's still moving', followed by a spatter of gunfire and another marine chipping in 'he isn't now'.

As you said, these things happen; but currently the number of Iraqi deaths since 2003 is estimated to be 900,000 (including internal troubles), and the number of Allied deaths is close to 3,000.

Just heard on the hourly news, that three Guantanamo Bay prisoners have successfully committed suicide.

Is it just me, that feels sorry for the poor bastards stuck in there, un-charged?

Apparently after four years of being in a living hell many more want to commit suicide...

What has happened to human rights in America (or Cuba)?

Burt Reynolds wrote: Just heard on the hourly news, that three Guantanamo Bay prisoners have successfully committed suicide.

Is it just me, that feels sorry for the poor bastards stuck in there, un-charged?

Apparently after four years of being in a living hell many more want to commit suicide...

What has happened to human rights in America (or Cuba)?

Sure I'll get a rashion of s*** for this, but good ridance. I don't feel sorry or remorseful for them. They don't go to Cuba for being an acciedental pickup. They go to Cuba when we know damn well that they aren't just insurgents, but they are a very strong source of terrorism.

I've seen many Iraqis picked up, and be returned to the streets because we didn't have enough evidence that they were insurgents. We have to be CSI out there to get anyone locked up. Just to get to Abu Grab we have to have evidence that proves they helped the insurgency, without a shadow of a doubt. For them to get flown all the way to Cuba is only for those that are in charge of terrorst cells, or have strong ties that would increase the insurgency tenfold.

There is no mistake why they are there, and the World is a better place with them gone.

JHC

American Soldiers are just cannon fodder sent by this TWAT

Burt Reynolds wrote: information for news reports. They are fully equipped and well paid, but ultimately the job has a 50% mortality rate.

This policy has been supported by the general consensus that stations such as Al-Jazheera have been producing more balanced news, simply due to having people around when the news happens.

http://english.aljazeera.net is a complete site with Science and Technology, Space, World Cup, etc. and political cartoons. reuters.co.uk is very polished.

the selective stupidity of this war when so much other global disparity is all but getting ignored. Saddam Hussein had to go and al -Zarqawi is dead. But the fundamental Eastern Idealogies and 'Western civilization's way of equating human life don't equate. Basic Ethics are not being respected or practiced very much at all. 1. This war should not have been started. 2. The two sides aren't fighting by the same rules toward any Clear goals. so it looks.

14 -K wrote: But the fundamental Eastern Idealogies and 'Western civilization's way of equating human life don't equate. Basic Ethics are not being respected or practiced very much at all. 1. This war should not have been started. 2. The two sides aren't fighting by the same rules toward any Clear goals. so it looks.

To me, the very idea of "war" is obsolete. It sounds rather barbaric and meaningless (considering that almost all wars are started by a small group of people, if not by a single person's ambition).

I was bemused to see contemporary wars break out in Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, etc.