Rumsfeld ordered prisoner held
 

Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law.


It’s the first direct link between Rumsfeld and questionable though not violent treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

The Iraqi prisoner was captured last July as deadly attacks on U.S. troops began to rise. He was identified as a member of the terrorist group Ansar al Islam, suspected in the attacks on coalition forces.

Shortly after the suspect’s capture, the CIA flew him to an undisclosed location outside Iraq for interrogation. But four months later the Justice Department suggested that holding him outside Iraq might be illegal, and the prisoner was returned to Iraq at the end of October.

That’s when Rumsfeld passed the order on to Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, to keep the prisoner locked up, but off the books.

In the military’s own investigation into prisoner abuse, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross were “deceptive” and a “violation of international law.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226957/

Stuff like this will probably force him to resign or retire eventually.

Terrorists shouldn't be protected by international law.

If they are, that's why the US doesn't recognize the international court.

Actually I thought that the recognition of the legal rights of all individuals was a cornerstone of American society and law... and this was one of the essential freedoms that Bush cited in his address to Congress in his arguement for war in Iraq.

My thought on this is that some people are more entitled to rights than others. If you make a choice to make it your profession to kill innocent people and operate in an organization whose sole purpose is to kill and deprive others of their rights, I don't believe you are entitled to the same rights as regular, average citizens. Bush's speach was not about giving equal rights to terrorists. It was about being at war with these people and trying to eradicate them through any means necessary.

Sometimes war ain't pretty. The Geneva convention and other international law items were created for the purpose of ensuring that POW's on each side were treated humanely.

I don't know about you, but I personally think the other side by decapitating its hostages doesn't really respect international law in that area -- I'm willing and most Americans are willing to condone torture, violence, whatever needs to happen if it saves innocent lives. In my mind these terrorist thugs are not human, they're animals and should be treated as such.

We've afforded their soldiers a completely different level of respect. In fact, all but their highest leaders walked free (and many of their leaders have walked free as well). Terrorists and insurgents are not afforded the same rights and that's fine with me.

Thats whats messes y'all up.

You are looking for consistancy, nobility, moral correctness. That way lies madness when dealing with people in government.

Might makes Right. I am much more comfortable with the Us against Them theory versus the Right against Wrong.

It simplifies my life.

I am more worried about 4th amendment righs being circumvented here than any number of dead or abused Iraqui.

News Flash: We went to WAR with them. That entails a lot of killing, abuse and blowing things up.

If people have a problem with killing, abusing and blowing up Iraquis they should not have advocated war and/or should withdraw support now.

I believe that they should be held under the protection of the law, but that law cuts both ways. While it may protect them from unjust treatment it also means that they are subject to the law... now under international law these terrorists and insurgents are guilty of war-crimes such as directly targeting civilian populations, and the mistreatment or murder of prisoners. Since this is the case they should be tried as such, and if convicted then punished according to the law....ironically if the US subscribed to the international court and it's legal authority the arguement would be mostly moot.

Winners make the law. So stop.

We kill plenty of civilians in our attacks. I am sure it is small comfort to them and their families that they may not have been deliberately targeted.

So its a little thin for us to justify our killing them . . . and as far as them killing us . . .

We really don't need to justify what we do, they are losing. They are getting caught. So they have to face the consequnces of losing.

It is a violation of international law, Geneva Convention, rules of war.... to deliberately target non-combatants for no other reason than to inflict terror or suffering. So it is perfectly legal to blow the crap out of a population centre as long as you are going after it manufacturing or transport capactity or whatever... so hold these examples of human filth and subject them to the full extent of the law; because no matter how deplorable and disgusting their actions are, they are still techniquely human and therefore entitled to basic human rights.

You are no longer a civilian once you engage in military activity. You give up that right.

To receive other rights you have to fall into a category and be labelled under some group that has rights.

If you want to play legal games, we can.

-Rudey

here is a little humor

http://www.photodump.com/direct/myst...ter-orange.jpg

I think Rumsfield is doing an excellent job. If some terrorist psycho has his "rights" infringed on because he had to be taken out of the country, then I don't care. If it means saving American lives, then do whatever the hell necessary. That was the thought behind dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
I'm not for torture and pointless stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib (which was done by a very, VERY few corrupt soildiers), but sometimes a terrorist is gonna have to be a little uncomfortable if we're going to win this war on terror. If our military knows he's a terrorist, and knows he possesses information that could save even one American life, then I'm not gonna care if they attach jumper cables to his nipples to get the info out of him. These are American lives we're talking about!

well very, very few soldiers.... and contractors.... and OGAs.... and who else knows....

But as for your last part... oh I see so American lives are worth more than other people's lives... oh well at least you now have something in common with the terrorists, in that you value some lives more than others.

The Canadian military doesn't have rules of engagement concerning Canadian lives over other lives??

And stop making it a view that terrorists hold. It is a view that everyone holds. The difference is that terrorists want to kill the enemy no matter what and it isn't to save their lives. Your drive planes into buildings without demands and you're not there to save lives.

-Rudey

The Canadian military does not have ROE regarding the treatment of Canadian lives as more important or valueable than others... the exact phrasing of the specifc guidlines always seek to establish equality, were no group is accorded special treatment, which is in fact in keeping with the Geneva Convention.

That's why Canada is Canada. Funny how you became an expert on the Geneva Convention. You're able to quote Fox and not remember the name of the reporter (swearing you have a good memory and didn't copy and paste), you know all about beheadings, you know all about how to fight wars, you know all about America, you know all about France, know all about psychology and now you know all about the Geneva Convention.

-Rudey

Wow... for once we agree... yep that's why Canada is Canada... Respect and Equality are pretty much the foundations Canadian law.

Being an "expert" on the Geneva Convention I guess just comes from being a Canadian soldier... after all it is covered during basic training, again in trades training, every year as part of the legal review lectures, again when go to any combat leadership training, and finally before any deployment... so you can't help but become familiar with it...

As for quoting FOX.. wow I remembered a sentence yah for me... it's not like I quoted an entire broadcast... and no I didn't copy and paste (I proud to say I haven't even visited the FOX news website).

I know about beheadings because I witnessed one personally and cleaned up after a half dozen more while with the UN. It is one of the things that I wish I didn't know about....

I know how to fight wars and the military because one I was in the military, two I'm a guide for the UofT War Memorial, three I'm a member of CISS (Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies), and four I have a undergradute degree in Military Science (which is why I'm back in school... not much you can do with that degree).

I now a bit about France because my younger brother lived there for two years (hockey), I have visted four times, and my family has hosted six exchange students from France... I repeat I know a bit, not everything.

I know all about America from the news, newspapers, magazines, radio, internet, history courses, visits from American LCAs, from the Americans in my chapter, visits from US Marines, my yearly visits to my family and friends, from the Fraternity and school conferences... I think it would be hard for you to understand the level of information from the US that your exposed to on a daily basis here in Canada...

As for the psychology... I have taken three years of psychology, anthropology, and sociology as part of my many many years at school.

See Randy when your old like me (as you so often point out) you tend to pick-up a lot of experience and information....

Besides, everybody places value on human life. Me placing greater value on American lives is no different, and makes me no more of a 'terrorist', that me placing greater value on the life of a family member than some schlub on the street. Would I kill someone if it meant the life of my children? Id kill a hundred. People can act as holy as they want when others do so, but if you dont put your own mother ahead of someone else, you have no soul.

You're a terrorist!!!

I can't believe people fight wars. I mean a death is a death so does it matter which side the soldier shoots at? NO!

You are a terrorist good sir!!!

-Rudey
--You are against the Canadian way of life and while Canada can do little about that we'd like you to know that.

See now this makes sense... it is much easier to argue or debate as long as you remain detacted.

When you have a personal investment in the people involved ethical guidlines go out the window (I'm just as guilty)... which is why at least people should be screen in advance (and perhaps druing) foreign deployments to make sure that personal feelings and attatchments are not conflicting with their objectivity. The importance of maintaining or realizing that your objectivity has been compromised is the first step in maintaining it...

From the GreekChat TOS:

By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you.

Well RACooper is a liar. He posts lies. He can't think. And it seems that when I expose those lies, my posts get erased but his are kept. You said you would stop talking to me though so I expect you to keep your promise. You are also not a moderator for this forum, so please stick to the forums in which you are.

-Rudey

Geneva Convention: You know nothing about but a couple basic things. You are not an international lawyer. Again please stop acting as if the military (small peanuts) in which you served not even as an officer role prepared you to be an expert on the Geneva Convention.

Fox: You quoted more than a couple words. You post lies about Fox and when you're challenged, you act like you didn't copy and paste from another website.

Forensics: Yes they train forensic scientists by having them experience a beheading once. Once they see it they earn their PhD.

Leading wars: Yes being a tour guide often does prepare you to lead wars. Some prefer to say they learned through many years in the service after actually leading but hey, not everyone is a tour guide or a soldier without rank.

France: You know about France because your brother lived there? Wow. I know about France and American relations because I read on it. I also lived in France...so did my whole family so I one upped you on your "brother".

America: You can see what goes on all you want but again you are not American, don't vote, have no say, nor do we desire to ask your Canadian opinion.

Psychology: First you say you were exposed to the psychology for a couple hours, a couple days a week, a couple months on native populations. Now you have an undergraduate background (hardcore by the way) in several subjects (some not even psychology). Get your story straight RAPooper.

-Rudey
--This post does not violate any Greekchat TOS and exposed the lies which do violate the TOS.

Look Rudey if you have a problem with me why not start a thread? Otherwise why not discuss.. oh I don't know the actual topic of the thread instead of trying to sound oh so very intelligent.


On that note did anyone else watch the news conference today acutally discussing the prisoner "XXX"? More questions were raised other than the highly questionable detition (I mean come on 7+ months?)... like for instance the fact that this high value prisoner wasn't questioned or interogated other than when he was first captured? I mean come on if your going to break or push the bounds of international law at least make it worth it :rolleyes:

PS> Did anyone else think that the lawyer hated being put on the spot by Rumsfeld when the question of what a timely manner in logging prisoners was.

Not as a moderator, but a member of GreekChat, with the same rights as other members, I would like to be able to read and post messages without being offended.

There are some posts which, in my opinion, violate the letter and spirit of the TOS.

As a member, it is my right to object to them and to hope that something is done about them.

The fact that a number of members and moderators choose not to enter into discussions that they might normally enjoy is regrettable. The fact that some members have chosen to leave GreekChat entirely because of their treatment in this particular forum (Politics) is a travesty.

DA, there's a saying that gets used (a lot) in our undergrad chapter around Rush time: "Gentlemen never discuss religion or politics with strangers".

It's because even people who are normally good people often have VERY strong opinions about certain things and often have a tough time maintaining decorum. That's often the case here. I'm not saying it's right, but it's to be expected.

KT,

I've heard that before. However, Fraternity Men are supposed to be gentlemen -- at least in public.

I am the best of gentlemen.

In other news, the terrorist was held. Everyone values their lives more than the other side's. He will get rights when and if he qualifies for them. Should the military choose to put his head in a vice and turn it until he talks, I see it fitting.

-Rudey

Just because being a Fraternity Man is sometimes sufficient to remind you to be civilized in discussion does not mean that it will always happen.

Although it should.

I agree. When you choose to be a terrorist and attempt to deprive others of their right to live, in my mind, you give up your rights. You become a non-person.

The terrorsists made a choice to commit their evil acts and deprive others of freedom, life, and comfort.... so we (the rest of the world) must make sure that we do not make the same choice and deny others those rights. The terrorists must be caught and subject to the full power of the law, so that people in the region see that the law has power and applied equally.. now if they are tried under Iraqi or US law the maximum penalty is death so I don't see the problem with staying in the bounds of the law. The problem arises if they are captured and tried under the law of the only other main partner in the coalition.. the UK does not support the death penalty and hasn't for years even in the face of terrorism.

I respectuflly have to disagree.

These SOB's need to be shot like animals. What do you do when a wolf threatens your sheep? You kill it. Death for them is justice for their victims.

The same goes to the Mullahs that preach for the Jihad against the West. If their own more moderate muslims do not want to grant these terrorists justice, they will find it in bullets and bombs from America and her allies.