http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20030726%2F150663499.htm&sc=rontz

Oh boy o boy....what do we have here.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four U.S. soldiers have been charged in an investigation into suspected abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war, a U.S. military official said on Saturday.

Good, it's about time!

You advocate the harsh treatment of Iraqi soldiers or the actions taken against the US soldiers?

my guess is that the US soldiers didn't do anything outside their orders, but the US has to demonstrate how nice they are... these 4 will be made an example of :(

So you're saying that they were ordered to break the bones of Iraqi POWs in violation of the Geneva Convention then?
That means that they need to be charged, not only with the assault itself (which, by the way, is a war crime by legal definition), but also with obeying an illegal order, which is an offence as I understand it under the US military code of justice.

Hasn't the US government already proven its will to order violations of the Conventions?

I'm thinking of the word X-Ray, but I don't know why ... ;)

Okay, okay, okay, I didn't really need to tell you that.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Indeed Tiassa :)
The truly horriffic undertone here that noone seems to be grasping, is that the several hundred years of work that established the international body of law that Junior and PNAC are trying to machete through served an important role and that there are only two available futures from here:
1) Someone stops the US from further transgressions.
2) We revert to where we were without international law.

1. Implies that someone gets OPEC to switch to a euro standard and institutes trade sanctions with the US. And thereby commits the US population to a horrific economic future that makes '29 look trivial by comparison. Not something I'd wish on my friends and family in the US.

2. Implies that the deaths of untold millions of people (the six million jews in WW2, the hundreds of millions in every war prior to it) and the international conventions on conduct in time of war that came from their deaths, are worthless. Which I don't think we can accept.

:(

sparks, don't twist my words.
they said it was in self defense, and i do believe that.
and no US commander would tell his troops "go break this POW's bones, soldier"
but nice theory:eek:

Originally posted by otheadp
sparks, don't twist my words.
they said it was in self defense, and i do believe that.
and no US commander would tell his troops "go break this POW's bones, soldier"
but nice theory:eek:
Interesting... Nothing to do with the US soldiers that die everyday? :rolleyes:

they said it was in self defense, and i do believe that.
On what basis?
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the fact the Amnesty International has been denied access to the US POW camps, and that US POW camps in Guantanamo and Kandahar have been practising torture for over a year now.