Much like my earlier post about the war, I am still taking notes on the whole prisoner controversy.
Some initial thoughts:
1. If a soldier in Iraq littered, the major media would somehow make it seem like it was Bush's fault.
2. Many of the people grilling Mr. Rumsfeld yesterday, have equal (if not bigger) relationships with other past bad behavior.
3. Though I don't like to excuse bad behavior with WORSE behavior, to me, the pictures are a) not as bad as the World Trade Center tumbling to the ground, and b) not as bad as the mass murder of Iraqis.
In Iraq, where the last hangers-on to the old, failed regime STILL practice the extreme subjugation of women in every day society, the sight of naked Iraqi men (many of whom a) have attacked our forces, and b) are guilty, themselves, in disrespecting Iraqi women) being stacked up or pulled around by a collar by a WHITE, AMERICAN, FEMALE SOLDIER is demoralizing. But this is WAR, and again, different rules apply in a time of war.
When I think about what I'd do if some thug pushed my wife around, these men are getting off VERY easy.
But hey, who ever said I think like everybody else?
Posted by colrus at May 9, 2004 12:19 AM | TrackBackNo matter whose is at fault (and there are always going to be scapegoats), and no matter how bad the people are, there is a document called the Geneva Convention. It states:
(Article 3)
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Yeah, she's got you on the Geneva convention. However, isn't the idea of having a set of rules for war, or even post-war handling of prisoners strange? Yesterday I was firing mortars into your village, today I'm rebuilding your house, treating your wounds, and protecting your family.
BTW - I've heard that women in Iraq have far more rights than in any other Arab country. They could have jobs, go to school, do whatever they wanted in the eyes of the government, yet socially still subjegated by men because of religion.
Saddam's regime should never be equated to the Taliban. The "freed" people wanting to set up an Islamic government under Shari`ah law are more in line with those in Afghanistan.
Posted by: cmwillis at May 10, 2004 10:57 AMI concede on the Geneva Convention points...Though we seem to be the only country to face consternation when we don't follow them -- in comparison terms...
>BTW - I've heard that women in Iraq have far more >rights than in any other Arab country. They could >have jobs, go to school, do whatever they wanted in >the eyes of the government, yet socially still >subjegated by men because of religion.
"Far more rights than..." doesn't excuse a defecit
in the rights they SHOULD have, which, you're right, stems from certain religions.
It's hard to fight people on "religious missions" as all rules go out the window and they are often willing to suffer more and die to "win." And, if their victory is not on earth, but in the afterlife because they died, how do you win except for protecting your own?
Posted by: bcolrus at May 10, 2004 04:29 PMThis would be happening regardless of who the CinC or SecDef were. Rumsfeld may get caught up in it and take the fall, but it's not directly his fault.
Posted by: podge at May 10, 2004 10:07 PM