Even if it were true that Bush & Co act out of principle, they're just so staggeringly bad at it. Incompetence has marred every principle this adminstration migh have had. They're screwing up, they bumble about most of the time while the rest is shrouded in secrecy.

I'm not ready to applaud Rumsfeld just yet. I usually wait until the facts are known before I make judgements. I know a few people who I am confident will behave ethically and properly, but I can count them on one hand and none of those people are in this "administration."

Fintstone"I think it is funny how the "unnamed sources" are always quoted in these silly articles and how quick some folk believe the quotes in spite of everyone who was there saying otherwise."

Except UN weapons inspectors, huh?

No unnamed sources there. Mr. Ritter admits to taking $400,000 to "produce a video" from an Iraqi-american that financial records show was taking a huge amount of money from Saddam for no apparent services rendered. Mr. Ritter claimed there were WMDs when the US was paying him and then that there were not when the iraqi was payiong him. Make your own conclusion. No unnamed sources there.

I have mixed & conflicting opinons on this one.
1. Abuse of prisoners has always occurred in wartime, even by countries that consider themselves more civilised than the those that they are fighting. German prisoners died of disease and starvation while in American POW camps in 1945. Treatment of VC/NVA prisoners was just as bad. And the British army is no better, though they like to think they are. Sexual humiliation is really pretty mild by historical standards, though not very effective as an interrogation tool, as the Israelis pointed out today.
2. By all means, punish those responsible according to the relevant military and international laws, but don't make it out to be an indictment of US culture, war aims, foreign policy, etc.
3. According to the tradition of ministerial repsonsibility, Rumsfeld ought to take responsibility for it even if he had no knowledge of the activity. However, there is no way Bush would accept his resignation, even if it were to be offered. Bush has tied himself irrevocably to the Rumsfeld/Cheney war policy, and to let Rumsfeld go now would be a damaging confession of failure. The director of the CIA is still in office, despite the appearance of massive organisational incompetence.
4. I think it safe to assume that some of these prisoners would happily chop off your head if they had a chance, so it is hard to feel sympathy for them. These prisoners are not innocent civilians and they have not been killed or tortured.

A while ago I listened to a call-in program on NPR, the subject being whether a terrorist should be tortured to reveal details about a future 9/11 type attack. The responses ranged all across the spectrum. The one I liked the best was the caller who said: "torture him, but don't tell me about it."

I heard on NPR a spokesperson from the Bush gov and a independant "expert" argue the prisoners status. Are they subject to the Geneva conventions or not? Bush admin says most of them are not due to the lack of uniforms, and the lack of ability to mark them as "Iraqi Army". But civilians are accorded some rights too under the conventions.
Hard call but all of the prisoners should atleast have a "hearing" as quickly as possible to decide their fate.

Geoff

Unlawful combatants have little or no protection according to the Geneva Convention. Pretty much anyone that was captured fighting that was not in an Iraqi military uniform falls into this category.

The issue for a lot of us is not the abuse of those captured fighting, but what happened to those people seized off the street or in home raids. The 30 to 70% (depending on your sources) who were innocent but detained.

And, by the way, I don't think you can designate an "unlawful combatant" if the war itself is "unlawful."

Of course you know the war was indeed lawful per historical standards as an extension of the earlier gulf war when Saddam failed to meet the conditions of his surrender.

30-70% That is like saying my car has between 160 and 280 HP

"Of course you know the war was indeed lawful per historical standards as an extension of the earlier gulf war when Saddam failed to meet the conditions of his surrender."

You mean the UN conditions?

One would think the UN would be the only body in a position to make an invasion 'lawful'.

But if you remember, the majority of the UN was unsure Saddam had not met the conditions. So since we didn't have their support, I don't think you can say they legitimized our attack.

By the way, you know the U.S. blocked an earlier UN censure of Iraq for using chemical weapons, right? That was back when we were more open about Saddam being our 'friend.'

Unlawful combatant is not a term of the Geneva convention, but Rummyspeak. You will not find in the Geneva convention any provision that allows torture.
Rummy does exactly what the Germans did when they invaded Russia in 1940: they declared civilians to be 'partisans' because they had the hostile intention to defend their country, and thus allowed them to be tortured and killed.

No, UN permission is not required to make it lawful...

No, the conditions Saddam agreed in the first gulf war to so that we would not remove him from power.

Fintstone: "No, UN permission is not required to make it lawful..."

And this is based on...?

Of course the term "unlawful combatant" is not in the Geneva Convetion. The reason is that the Convention provides protection to "Prisoners of war" and to "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" and defines both carefully. Anyone who does not fit in one of these categories enjoys no protection from the Convention. Those termed "unlawful combatants" are those engaging in hostilities that do not meet the test required to be a POW.

Obviously if our country has subscribed to no treaty or convention prohibiting it..there is no law to break...it cannot be unlawful

In this case, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 supported action against Iraq.

The UN Charter Article 51 permits signatory nations to go to war in self defence. It does not define how a country is to determine they are defending themselves.

The point is that it's the invader who decides who is an unlawful combatant. It sounds like a legal term, but it isn't. There's national or international law that allows torture.

Your point, fintstone, has been argued extensively by the attorneys of Nazi generals during the Nuremberg trials. The judges (many of them American) finally decided that might is not right--that just because you declare someone unlilaterally 'unlawful' does not give you the right to disregard basic human rights of those you capture.

That's the legal side. The ethical side would be whether you could actually live with yourself if you did such a thing--there, I fear, the majority of Americans males would probably say "sure, why not?"

The GC requires the occupying power to use its discretion to maintain law and order and provides no protection or rules regarding interrogation of those who are not members of a protected category and are "unlawful combatants" per my previous post. It does allow us to to execute them though...my preference.

The 1949 convention is quite clear on what defines a POW or a "person not engaged in hostilities"..Any other combatant that does not fit in one of these categories simply has no protection under the convention ..... by virtue of their own choice not to adhere to the convention. Anyone fighting (or terrorist) that is not wearing a uniform identifying him as a combatant shoud be executed. Their unlawful tactics are what are causing so many civilian casualties.

Wow, fintstone, if that's your position you're gonna cause a mighty bloodbath. But that, I guess, is what you want.
Again, the only historical precedent where people in custody have been declared unlawful combatant and executed was the German army in WWII. Your middle name isn't Adolf, by any chance?