The reality of war hits Baghdad...

[p_p_man]

From today's Guardian...

19 March 2003

Said 4 year old Amr's mother...

"But he doesn't really get it. He wants to know why there is going to be a war. He wants to know what Bush looks like. He wants to know if Bush is very angry with us. He wants to know if Bush has planes and guns.

"I tell him, 'Bush has everything'."


"Reality finally came to Baghdad yesterday. Overnight, sandbags sprouted on football fields and roundabouts. In the evening the authorities rustled up yet another peace demonstration.

The number of fatal car accidents seemed to surge, with drivers in a panic to get home, or to get out. Chemists sold out of valium. Queues at petrol stations broadened and lengthened in a country where fuel is ridiculously cheap and plentiful. The price of mineral water doubled. Tinned foods and packaged soups disappeared from supermarket shelves. Young couples rushed to get engaged. Workers stored the files and fixtures from Iraqi government office buildings.

Although Iraqis have talked of little else but war since last September - when it would break out, how long it would last, would their soldiers fight or flee, would Saddam Hussein let his grandchildren be slaughtered in a final stand - it never seemed entirely real.

Until yesterday morning, that is, when news spread of President George Bush's speech to the Americans.

After months of waiting and worry the prospect of imminent attack was here, all too suddenly, and horribly real.

In the kitchen of the Abdel Hamid family you could see it had arrived. A young boy, Amr, was making his own final preparations for the onslaught. He was performing the last rites of a four-year-old. In his hand he brandished a plastic gun. Whacking the ammunition clip into the toy, he held it to his stomach and put on a fierce expression. Then he raised it to the heads of the surrounding adults. "Where are my bullets?" he screamed.

In neighbourhoods like Amr's all over Baghdad, they are dreading the next few days. People are exhausted before it has even begun.

Amr's mother, Myasaa Abdel Hamid, is four months' pregnant and bone tired. "I've started talking to him about the war during these last few days," she said. "I told him, 'If you hear loud noises outside the house, don't worry, they aren't coming in.'

"But he doesn't really get it. He wants to know why there is going to be a war. He wants to know what Bush looks like. He wants to know if Bush is very angry with us. He wants to know if Bush has planes and guns.

"I tell him, 'Bush has everything'."

ppman

 

[Lost Cause]

That sounds familiar...

Let's see, Germany 1945. The town outside of Dachau, where the citizens had no idea what was going on, why everyone was mad at them, until they had to help with the bodies.

So the guardian interviews a village idiot.

Long live PM Blair! Huzzah! Huzzah!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: That sounds familiar...

Let's see, Germany 1945. The town outside of Dachau, where the citizens had no idea what was going on, why everyone was mad at them, until they had to help with the bodies.

So the guardian interviews a village idiot.

Long live PM Blair! Huzzah! Huzzah!

Much like Americans not knowing what's going on in Cuba's camp X-ray...

ppman

 

[Lost Cause]

Camp X-Ray...

Let's see, they can pray 5 times a day, they have Korans, their cells are marked with the direction to mecca for prayer, we have Islamic clerics for them, 3 meals a day (menu according to their faith), free dental, free medical, beachfront property, warm breeze, showers/shitter(if they use them), and they play question and answer under human rights overwatch.

Yep! Sounds like Dachau to me!

Thanks for diverting the subject.

Long live PM Blair! Huzzah! Huzzah!

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Camp X-Ray...

Let's see, they can pray 5 times a day, they have Korans, their cells are marked with the direction to mecca for prayer, we have Islamic clerics for them, 3 meals a day (menu according to their faith), free dental, free medical, beachfront property, warm breeze, showers/shitter(if they use them), and they play question and answer under human rights overwatch.

Yep! Sounds like Dachau to me!

Thanks for diverting the subject.

Long live PM Blair! Huzzah! Huzzah!

And they're still held without charge...

ppman

 

[Mad_Jack_Rabbit]

They are also being held as 'ilegal combatants' - a phrase that has no meaning in law and the use of which shows that the US constitution is dead.

 

[]ooooo(chained)]

They should have been turned over for more merciful treatment back in Afghanistan. At least that way, they'd all be dead now and p_p_ would have less to whine about...

 

[Lost Cause]

What part of illegal don't you understand?

Plus, non-US persons are NOT guaranteed the rights and priviledges of an American citizen.

Here's some schoolwork-



Treachery in war is readily distinguishable from legitimate forms of surprise, because it always involves a pretence that legal protection is being offered or requested. A company of soldiers who conceal their true numbers in order to induce their opponents to expose themselves imprudently have engaged in a legitimate ruse. A soldier who feigns surrender -- or, for that matter, civilian status -- for the same reason has engaged in treachery, because he has invited his enemy's confidence in a legal norm that he intends to betray. The steady expansion of the legal protections extended to civilians in war -- which have grown in proportion to the steady brutalization of war itself in the twentieth century -- have only heightened the sense of treachery that attaches to any effort by a combatant to conceal himself among the general population. This is not simply a matter of perception, but of the logic of the law itself.

The ultimate reason to have legal rules defining combatant status is not simply to ensure that the right of combatants to employ vicarious violence is respected, but simultaneously to ensure, as far as possible, that such violence is not directed against civilians. The essence of combatant status is to be liable, at any time, to deliberate attack. The essence of civilian status is to be immune from deliberate attack. Any legal norm that expands the rights of civilians to function as combatants is certain to erode that basic immunity. In legal terms, what is good for the guerilla must inevitably be bad for the civil society within which he hides. To suppose otherwise is to imagine the legal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, which seeks to draw a circle that cannot be closed, but must inevitably spiral in upon itself. A terrorist or other "illegal combatant" who trades upon his adversary's respect for the law is, in effect, using the law as a weapon. He cannot simultaneously use it as a shield, and he may well deprive those around him of its aegis as well.

 

[The Plunger]

pp_man is once again trying to paint the picture with the victim, in this case the Iraqi people and the villian, of course the United States. The sickening thing is the fact that you really don't care about the Iraqi citizen, instead opting to use them as a convienent victim for your purposes.

 

[Mad_Jack_Rabbit]

"illegal combatant" is still a phrase that has no legal meaning.

The big concern is not that it is being applied to inmates at camp X-ray but that it has been thought up by the US Government to avoid having to treat these people as either civillians or prisoners of war. It's the idea of 'we have a problem but we can overcome it if we just redefine them as something else' that is grave cause for concern.

Now that door has opened, the American people will find it hard to close.

You may have the US constitution to protect your rights but only so far as it doesn't hamper the Gov. from doing what it wants. As soon as that starts to happen, you'll see more 'redefining' going on.

 

[p_p_man]

pp_man is once again trying to paint the picture with the victim, in this case the Iraqi people and the villian, of course the United States. The sickening thing is the fact that you really don't care about the Iraqi citizen, instead opting to use them as a convienent victim for your purposes.

Rather than point the finger at me and say that I have no feelings for the citizens of Iraq, you would do better to point the finger at Bush.

His speech the other night where he said the US is at war with Saddam Hussein and not with the Iraqi people is the same old cop out invaders have been using for centuries.

The mere fact that he was willing to allow Turkish troops enter the Kurdish held area in Norther Iraq in return for Turkey allowing the US to launch an attack on Iraq from their soil, shows what a nasty, evil pile of shit the man really is.

He has no concern for civilians, he has no concern for the suffering of others. And what makes it even more vile is that he wraps his package of unrelenting savagery up in a package of patriotism and piety.

The man is just plain nasty...

ppman

 

[Lost Cause]

Okay...

But that distinction between a uniformed soldier of a standing national entity, and a terrorist that hides among the population, knowing full well that the rules of engagement insure the safety of those dressed in civilian clothing, is a violation of the rules of war. They've cut their own throats, when is a criminal not a criminal?

Gitmo policy-

United States Policy.

-- The United States is treating and will continue to treat all of the
individuals detained at Guantanamo humanely and, to the extent
appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner
consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

-- The President has determined that the Geneva Convention applies to
the Taliban detainees, but not to the al-Qaida detainees.

-- Al-Qaida is not a state party to the Geneva Convention; it is a
foreign terrorist group. As such, its members are not entitled to POW
status.

-- Although we never recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan
government, Afghanistan is a party to the Convention, and the
President has determined that the Taliban are covered by the
Convention. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, however, the
Taliban detainees do not qualify as POWs.

-- Therefore, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaida detainees are entitled
to POW status.

-- Even though the detainees are not entitled to POW privileges, they
will be provided many POW privileges as a matter of policy.

All detainees at Guantanamo are being provided:
-- three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
-- water
-- medical care
-- clothing and shoes
-- shelter
-- showers
-- soap and toilet articles
-- foam sleeping pads and blankets
-- towels and washcloths
-- the opportunity to worship
-- correspondence materials, and the means to send mail
-- the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to
security screening

The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or
cruel treatment. The International Committee of the Red Cross has
visited and will continue to be able to visit the detainees privately.
The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their
conditions and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent
with security.

Housing. We are building facilities in Guantanamo more appropriate for
housing the detainees on a long-term basis. The detainees now at
Guantanamo are being housed in temporary open-air shelters until these
more long-term facilities can be arranged. Their current shelters are
reasonable in light of the serious security risk posed by these
detainees and the mild climate of Cuba.

POW Privileges the Detainees will not receive. The detainees will
receive much of the treatment normally afforded to POWs by the Third
Geneva Convention. However, the detainees will not receive some of the
specific privileges afforded to POWs, including:
-- access to a canteen to purchase food, soap, and tobacco
-- a monthly advance of pay
-- the ability to have and consult personal financial accounts
-- the ability to receive scientific equipment, musical instruments,
or sports outfits

Many detainees at Guantanamo pose a severe security risk to those
responsible for guarding them and to each other. Some of these
individuals demonstrated how dangerous they are in uprisings at
Mazar-e-Sharif and in Pakistan. The United States must take into
account the need for security in establishing the conditions for
detention at Guantanamo.

Background on Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949
is an international treaty designed to protect prisoners of war from
inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors in conflicts covered
by the Convention. It is among four treaties concluded in the wake of
WWII to reduce the human suffering caused by war. These four treaties
provide protections for four different classes of people: the military
wounded and sick in land conflicts; the military wounded, sick and
shipwrecked in conflicts at sea; military persons and civilians
accompanying the armed forces in the field who are captured and
qualify as prisoners of war; and civilian non-combatants who are
interned or otherwise found in the hands of a party (e.g. in a
military occupation) during an armed conflict.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Hello PP. How are you? I hope things are going well for you.

I thought President Bush's speech a couple nights ago did show compassion for the citizens of Iraq. He told them how they could safeguard themselves in clear and concise language. Leaflets are being distributed throughout Iraq providing steps people can take to stay out of harms way. I thought it was good that he made the same offers to the military of Iraq. I hope there's very little bloodshed.

Do you not think that the speech was a prudent step?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Re: What part of illegal don't you understand?

Plus, non-US persons are NOT guaranteed the rights and priviledges of an American citizen.

Here's some schoolwork-



Treachery in war is readily distinguishable from legitimate forms of surprise, because it always involves a pretence that legal protection is being offered or requested. A company of soldiers who conceal their true numbers in order to induce their opponents to expose themselves imprudently have engaged in a legitimate ruse. A soldier who feigns surrender -- or, for that matter, civilian status -- for the same reason has engaged in treachery, because he has invited his enemy's confidence in a legal norm that he intends to betray. The steady expansion of the legal protections extended to civilians in war -- which have grown in proportion to the steady brutalization of war itself in the twentieth century -- have only heightened the sense of treachery that attaches to any effort by a combatant to conceal himself among the general population. This is not simply a matter of perception, but of the logic of the law itself.

The ultimate reason to have legal rules defining combatant status is not simply to ensure that the right of combatants to employ vicarious violence is respected, but simultaneously to ensure, as far as possible, that such violence is not directed against civilians. The essence of combatant status is to be liable, at any time, to deliberate attack. The essence of civilian status is to be immune from deliberate attack. Any legal norm that expands the rights of civilians to function as combatants is certain to erode that basic immunity. In legal terms, what is good for the guerilla must inevitably be bad for the civil society within which he hides. To suppose otherwise is to imagine the legal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine, which seeks to draw a circle that cannot be closed, but must inevitably spiral in upon itself. A terrorist or other "illegal combatant" who trades upon his adversary's respect for the law is, in effect, using the law as a weapon. He cannot simultaneously use it as a shield, and he may well deprive those around him of its aegis as well.

So by this, is the entire population of the US going to be sent to Cuba, soon? Hmmm... there must be some definition of international law I'm not familiar with...