Rumsfeld ordered prisoner held

[The1calledTKE]

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.

[Kevin]

Terrorists shouldn't be protected by international law.

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

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by RACooper
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.

[James]

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.

[RACooper]

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.

[James]

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.

Originally posted by RACooper
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.

[RACooper]

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
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

[The1calledTKE]

here is a little humor

[Pike1483]

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!

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Pike1483
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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
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

[RACooper]

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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
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