"That's a violation of the Geneva Convention." - R

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81911,00.html

Arabic News Channel Shows Alleged U.S. Prisoners







Sunday, March 23, 2003
By Liza Porteus


Arabic news channel Al-Jazeera showed footage Sunday of what it said were five U.S. prisoners, including one woman.





The station showed footage of the alleged soldiers being questioned by their captors and being asked things such as where they were from and their names. The tape that was broadcast was reportedly provided by Iraqi television and was edited.

"This is the first we've seen of it -- it looks like Iraqi TV propaganda," said a U.S. Defense Department spokesperson. "What they're doing is wrong -- we're trying to get to the bottom of what we're seeing. We're investigating the tape now."

Three prisoners -- including the woman -- said they were from Texas, another was from New Jersey and another from Kansas.

"They shot at me first so I shot them … I wouldn't kill anybody … they don't bother me, I don't bother them," said the Kansas man. "I was told to come here," he said when asked why he came to Iraq.

One Texas man said: "I follow orders," when asked why he was there.

When asked how the Iraqi people have received him -- whether it be with "flowers or guns" -- the Texas man said "I don't understand … they're people of their own country."

In the interviews, two of the prisoners identified their unit only as the 507th Maintenance. The woman said she was 30 years old. She had no shoes on.

The station said the prisoners were captured around Nasiriyah.

Al-Jazeera also showed at least one prisoner lying on a cot, appearing to be wounded. Two prisoners were bandaged.

One of the male prisoners, sitting up, was being interviewed by an unseen person holding a microphone labeled "Iraqi TV." The soldier spoke in English and at one point said: "I'm sorry. I don't understand you."

The station also showed a gruesome and disturbing video of bodies in uniform in an Iraqi morgue that it said were Americans.

While an Iraqi smiled at the camera over the bodies and shifted them to better display the wounds, the tape showed what is purported to be U.S. Marines in U.S. military attire lying on the floor with serious head and torso wounds -- many execution style.

At one point, Iraqis pulled out what appears to be a passport and other papers out of one deceased person's pocket. Soldiers' shirts were pulled up, and pants pulled down, to show the extent of the wounds.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, reacting to the video during an appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, said: "That's a violation of the Geneva Convention."

The convention prohibits photographing and humiliating captured troops.

Adopted in Aug. 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, in Geneva, the agreement says prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act -- including death or injury -- committed by detainees "will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention," according to the agreement.

POWs should not be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment. POWs "at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity," it states.

Defense officials said they were analyzing the video. They also said there is nothing in the tape that would lead them to believe the prisoners were not really U.S. troops.

"We will … get these men and women out of there -- there's no question in my mind," Fox News military analyst Maj. Gen Burton Moore said Sunday.

Referring to the tape showing the dead bodies, Moore said: "Make no mistake about it ... if in fact it is our people, the execution of these people is against the Geneva Convention."

"This is an outrage -- it's an outage to all Americans and it will continue to shore up our resolve" to win war," Moore continued. "This is Saddam Hussein through and through -- this is no surprise they would do this … this is still a terrible tragedy."

Fox News' David Lee Miller and Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

...........................

Yet some of you insist on supporting Saddam's cause..

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We love Saddam, Ronnie. I think it'll be the name of my first born.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Hmmmm.

No concern for the troops.

Just as I thought.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

That's a lie. My very opposition to this war has been based on a concern for ALL lives involved.

If Iraq is in violation, what do you propose we do? We're already going to destroy that government, even if it means destroying all of Baghdad. Look at the pictures of babies with burns from bomb blasts, and tell me about the fucking Geneva Convention, as if a conservative EVER cares about international treaties and agreements (only if they serve his purpose for argument, of course). How many men have we been glad to leave in places such as Pakistan in the war on terror?? We leave them there for interogation, why Ronnie???

This "support Saddam" shit is no better than Red baiting, much like your inept buddy Sean Hannity does to make up for his lack of an argument.

So you can say "support Saddam" and "love Saddam" and "cheer for Saddam" all you like, just as long as you acknowledge that you "love to see death," "love to see destruction," "love to see innocent BABIES burned," "love to see civilians dying," etc. etc.

[AChimp]

If it's against the Geneva Convention to photograph or humiliate POWs, what about those dudes from Afghanistan that the U.S. is holding?

... Oh yeah, the White House used some political faggotry to say they don't "count."



Ah well. If Americans were captured, it's because they were overconfident and foolish.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"That's a lie. My very opposition to this war has been based on a concern for ALL lives involved."

Where was your (and people like you) concern for the innocent in Iraq in 98' and in Kosovo when a democrat was bombing civilain targets? The fact that you deny the hypocracy shown by the left makes me doubt your concern. Kevin, I know you don't like Saddam but you actions and Anti-war attitude supports that of Saddam. Do you disagree?

"If Iraq is in violation, what do you propose we do?"

First of all, there is NO doubt that he is.

Second, we should do exactly what we are doing right now.

"We're already going to destroy that government, even if it means destroying all of Baghdad."

You know that's not going to happen. Just look how hard we are trying to limit civilian casualties. Do you disagree?

"Look at the pictures of babies with burns from bomb blasts, and tell me about the fucking Geneva Convention,"

We have in NO way violated the Geveva Convention. We have treated our prisoners very well. Do you disagree?

"as if a conservative EVER cares about international treaties and agreements (only if they serve his purpose for argument, of course)."

WHAT!? The reason we are in Iraq right now is because of one!!

Most international treaties are set against us. But still, I would lake an example.

"How many men have we been glad to leave in places such as Pakistan in the war on terror?? We leave them there for interogation, why Ronnie???"

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

"This "support Saddam" shit is no better than Red baiting, much like your inept buddy Sean Hannity does to make up for his lack of an argument."

Hannity never loses a debate. How do you explain that?

"So you can say "support Saddam" and "love Saddam" and "cheer for Saddam" all you like, just as long as you acknowledge that you "love to see death," "love to see destruction," "love to see innocent BABIES burned," "love to see civilians dying," etc. etc."

I was hearing that way before I ever said anything about you supporting Saddam. The fact is, you ARE supporting Saddam if you are anti-war. If you are pro-war you are for the liberation of the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant.

NOW!

Back to the Geneva Convention.

[FS]

You're a bastard, Ronnie.

[Ronnie Raygun]

......more love from the anti-war crowd.

[FS]

People have been wounded and died in battle and you try to make use of the occasion to once again label war protestors as Saddam-lovers.

Therefore, you are a bastard.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

Where was your (and people like you) concern for the innocent in Iraq in 98' and in Kosovo when a democrat was bombing civilain targets?

Your naive and ignorant if you DON'T believe people like myself have held, and maintain criticism of Clinton's foreign policies.

But the fact remains that this is different than Kosovo, it's different than Desert Fox, and it's even different than the FIRST Gulf War. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this only proves how blinded you are by your desire to see this war.

The fact that you deny the hypocracy shown by the left makes me doubt your concern. Kevin, I know you don't like Saddam but you actions and Anti-war attitude supports that of Saddam. Do you disagree?

I disagree completely, because unlike yourself, many opposing the war can think and analyze on multiple levels. It's like saying "if you buy gas, you support terrorism." As cute and amusing as that line is, it's not all that true, and far too simplistic, wouldn't you agree?

First of all, there is NO doubt that he is.

Like Choimp said, maybe Iraq has decided American soldiers don't "count" in terms of Geneva.

You know that's not going to happen. Just look how hard we are trying to limit civilian casualties. Do you disagree?

I didn't say it will happen, but to blindly assume that it won't happen is ridiculous. Saddam's "best" troops have pulled back to Baghdad, they will do ANYTHING, I have no doubt. They will use civilians, they will play very, VERY dirty. It will be nearly impossible I think to get them without causing a considerable amount of damage.

I DO agree that the military has been cautious, I mean, about as cautious as you can be when basically throwing a large explosive into a solid structure. And much like GAsux said, I feel you can thank the peace movement for this caution. A few months ago the Bush administration wasn't "ruling out" WMD against Baghdad. Do you think if there wasn't such a global outcry against war, that our military would be acting with such strict concern? I doubt it.

We have in NO way violated the Geveva Convention. We have treated our prisoners very well. Do you disagree?

I'm not even TALKING about our prisoners or the fucking Geneva convention. Soldiers are soldiers. Our troops should NOT be submitted to anything cruel and unusual, but the bottom line is that they ARE soldiers, and they ARE at war.

Children don't know war. Babies don't understand the Geneva Convention. Half of Iraq's population is under the age of 15, to my understanding.

WHAT!? The reason we are in Iraq right now is because of one!!

1441? Cuz of the SCUDS that haven't been fired? Because of the WMD that haven't been found? Cuz of the bio-weapons and the gasses that haven't been found?

You hate the UN, and you likewise could care less if we abided by their decisions. The new found love and respect for the "sanctity" of the UN and global treaties is a joke. Youuse it for your own personal advantage now.

"How many men have we been glad to leave in places such as Pakistan in the war on terror?? We leave them there for interogation, why Ronnie???"

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

Why lock men up in Cuba? Why interogate men IN Pakistan?

Hannity never loses a debate. How do you explain that?

How do I explain the wax in your ears?

I was hearing that way before I ever said anything about you supporting Saddam. The fact is, you ARE supporting Saddam if you are anti-war. If you are pro-war you are for the liberation of the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant.

Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?

There's a long list, sport. We better buy more guns and bombs.

If you are anti-war you're this, if you're pro-war your that. You should write for Sesame Street.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm.

No concern for the troops.

Just as I thought.

Actually Ronnie, the manner and tone in which you posted this information tells me that YOU in fact do not care about the troops nor their families, and the only reason you care at all about this situation is that you seem to want to use it to gloat over it.

I find this post you made very crass.

[theapportioner]

Kevin's been on a tear lately.

Half of Iraq's population is under the age of 15, to my understanding.

Hrm, this is rather interesting...

[CaptainBubba]

Hey Ronnie. Do you like food? Just answer it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Hrm, this is rather interesting...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/iz.html

The CIA factbook has it at about 40%, I've heard other numbers, still a sizable amount of young people (not to mention that the largest bracket, 15-64, is vague).

[VinceZeb]

And those young people will never have to live and grow up more within the tyranny of Saddam.

And yes, they violated 1441 when they would not let the inspectors have FULL, UNBLOCKED access to whereever they wanted. Just from that they broke it. Also, all that info given to the inspectors about the disarmament and the procedures was said to be not helpful whatsoever. Who said that? Hans Blix.


Man, you all believe any good evil disinformation campaign. If Lucifer acended from Hell right now you would believe he was the good guy in the whole situation as long as they said the right things.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

And those young people will never have to live and grow up more within the tyranny of Saddam.

I pose the same question to you that I posed to Ronnie. When do we liberate the North Korean children? The Saudi women? the Chinese children? the Pakistani children? etc. etc.

I don't disagree with you that an Iraq without Saddam is desirable, I just disagree with you on the measures that have been taken to do so, and the pretext under which it will/has been done.

And yes, they violated 1441 when they would not let the inspectors have FULL, UNBLOCKED access to whereever they wanted. Just from that they broke it. Also, all that info given to the inspectors about the disarmament and the procedures was said to be not helpful whatsoever. Who said that? Hans Blix.

Originally Posted by Hans Blix

"We had made rapid start," he said. "We did not have any obstacles from the Iraqi side in going anywhere. They gave us prompt access and we were in a great many places all over Iraq."
(BBC News, 3/20/03)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2867913.stm

Who said that?

Man, you all believe any good evil disinformation campaign. If Lucifer acended from Hell right now you would believe he was the good guy in the whole situation as long as they said the right things.

[VinceZeb]

Last time I checked, back in 1998 the inspectors were kicked out.... and the last time I checked after the last time... Blix said the Iraq reports were really not that helpful.

Hans Blix also thinks the enivorment is more important than the weapons inspections when it comes to global events. Said it in an interview on MTV that they have on their web site.

[The_Rorschach]

I've seen the footage, even took the time to find my own copy of it on the web, and while the people they show on the video fairly convincing, I'm not sure I buy it.

As Kelly can attest, in boot camp they drill you instruction on proper conduct as a prisoner of war, and one thing you are expressly forbidden from doing is reading or responding to any statements on video which could possibly incriminate the US. (This is for the same reason that we're not supposed to officially speak with media without our command's position, lest what we say be taken as an official statement).

On a purely personal note, I still get my silly little DoD emails about eight times a day, which normally just say what areas are upgrading their alert status and, what billets are coming open, and noting anyone who died in uniform. . .And I haven't heard anything about anyone missing from the 507 yet. Which, while I'm not necessarily saying I would be told, but General Burton surely wouldn't be saying 'we're looking into it.' He would already damn well know one way or the other. As often as the military screws the pooch, we're not so fucked up that we would miss the loss of a score of people ion the front lines without having any idea what happened to them.

[FS]

Perhaps the POWs were drugged before put on camera.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Last time I checked, back in 1998 the inspectors were kicked out....

Weren't kicked out, were PULLED out.

and the last time I checked after the last time... Blix said the Iraq reports were really not that helpful.

Well now you know you were wrong. And knowing's half the battle.

Hans Blix also thinks the enivorment is more important than the weapons inspections when it comes to global events. Said it in an interview on MTV that they have on their web site.

Okay, so first you were ready to crown him Sir Blix for supporting your claims, and now that you realize he doesn't, well, then he's a bastard...?

Great logic.

[mburbank]

"you ARE supporting Saddam if you are anti-war."

THIS, Naldo, is how Hannity 'never' loses a debate. If you pre-define your terms and refuse to budge on them, anyone can 'never lose' a debate. You do it yourself all the time. These are not debates in any sense of the word. You do not debate.

And how do you know he never loses? Do you go to debatewinners.com, or do you just rely on your own narrow assesment, boxed in as it is by arbitrary definitions. Show me if you can in what way my being against the war actively supports saddam.

But before you do, here is my pre-defined conciet.

"You ARE supporting the death of innocent non combatants if you are pro-war."

[Anonymous]

[VinceZeb]

I'm only reporting what Blix said. I have always thought the guy was useless and stupid. He knows nothing about weapons, and is not the guy I would want inspecting someting he knows nothing about. But the problem is that you are not arguing what the man said, you are only trying to discredit me. Which in itself is useless, because I did not possess blix via mindlink and cause him to so what he said.

Nice picture. I love how the left is good at telling and making jokes but when it comes to anything serious their claims dry up like a sponge in Death Valley. That is why people who think like me are in the majority in this country. Jokes can only take you so far until you have to confront reality. Then, and if, you tell jokes, you are just seen as a shallow idiot with no depth perception when it comes to reality.

[VinceZeb]

Besides, the war is on TERROR, not on liberation. Liberating Iraq is a great side effect of this war. Now, if any other country wanted to sponsor or carry out terror, then we would blow them away as well.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I love how the left is good at telling and making jokes...That is why people who think like me are in the majority in this country. Jokes can only take you so far until you have to confront reality. Then, and if, you tell jokes, you are just seen as a shallow idiot with no depth perception when it comes to reality.

Absolutely. Anger and waving your metaphorical penis about is by far the best way to 'get the job done right.'