[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Raymond Ingles wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, allen <amajorov at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>  >  Of course, there's Article 5 of the Geneva Convention. It's pretty short and
>>  > unambiguous. Here's the entire thing:
> [...]
>>  >  That last part, the "competent tribunal" stuff - that's what the U.S. has
>>  > avoided doing for, oh, about five years now.
> 
>>  Article 5 may be short but it's hardly unambiguous. If there were no
>>  doubt about the meaning of the article there wouldn't be any necessity
>>  to refer to another article, Article 4, to define what isn't defined in
>>  Article 5.
> 
>  For legalese it's almost amazingly pellucid, and there's a difference
> between 'ambiguous' and 'technical'. Sections of RFCs refer to other
> terms and sections of the documents, for example, but that doesn't
> mean that they are therefore ambiguous. I've been able to implement a
> working FTP client just from reading the RFC, for example.
> 
>>  About that "competent tribunal" provision, that only applies "Should any
>>  doubt arise". If it's clear that a captured combatant doesn't fall under
>>  the definition of a prisoner of war as described, no tribunal is necessary.
> 
>  The majority of people in Guantanamo were *not* captured by U.S.
> troops - they were turned in by others for reward money or other
> considerations. That's where the doubt comes in. And Aaron has stated
> specifically that people nearby when an IED goes off are routinely
> picked up on suspicion. But there hasn't been any legal scheme for
> handling them until very very recently.

That's true, but that doesn't warrant a trip to Gitmo...or anything
more than the local Iraqi Police station.

1: They're material witnesses to a capital crime.

2: Since the S.O.P. is to detain everyone, this provides
    cooperative civilians cover to discuss what they saw,
    and provide as detailed information as possible without
    arousing the suspicion of terrorist-cell members in the
    neighborhood.  ["I didn't want to talk to the police --
    but they picked me up and handcuffed me, just like
    everyone else.], and are soon released after they have
    been debriefed, unless they choose to stay in protective
    custody. [Many want to help, but fear for their lives
    if it appears that they are cooperating with the Iraqi
    government's investigation and prosecution of terrorist
    suspects.

3: Those who fail various tests ... think of standard
    police investigatory work here ... are taken to
    criminal detention facilities, and arrest warrants
    are sought in an Iraqi court.  If the judge grants
    a warrant, the detainee stays.  If the judge does
    not grant a warrant, the detainee is released.

Now...some things will probably NOT get a person detained...
such as pointing a camera at vehicles just before or
during an attack -- because the higher likelihood is
that the person will be shot on sight.

If someone is video recording an attack, there's a
reason for it.

> 
>  But even at that point, torture shouldn't be the default, go-to
> tactic.

Which source told you that this is the default tactic?

It's been used on THREE people -- and that's subject to
weather scaring someone silly constitutes torture, or if
torture requires actual physical abuse and/or prolonged
mental-anguish.

> It should be used carefully and judiciously, when needed,
> because there needs to be a clear difference between us and them - not
> just in degree, but in kind. And I think our administration and our
> soldiers are capable of living up to that standard. (It's not really
> clear to me that the current administration has, in fact, done so.
> They've shown a rather surprising disregard for the law at home; I'm
> dubious about their behavior when oversight's difficult.)

All that sounds nice and fine on paper.

> 
>  The treatment of detainees has so far been managed with stupefying
> incompetence in many cases. Abu Ghraib,

The activities at Abu Ghraib were being investigated FOR PROSECUTION
for several weeks already by the time one of the TV networks put
out the information.  I know of NO military personnel who defended
what happened at Abu Ghraib.

There's a reason that the two Specialists (a rank similar to
corporal, but not classified as a non-commissioned officer)
were the LEAST-harshly punished.  All of their superiors up
to the Brigadier General in charge of the prison were given
progressively harsher punishment the higher the rank.

The General didn't get jail time... but she was reduced in
rank to E-1 (lowest ranking private) and IIRC, her pension
has been revoked.  20+ years of service down the drain --
that is actually far more punishing than SPC Lindie's few
months in a stockade.  She has her whole life ahead of her
to recover, whereas the General is 50+ years old with very
little time to earn enough money to replace that lost pension.

And EVERY one of them has a court-martial conviction. ALL
court-martial convictions are considered a felony for any
and all purposes in the civilian world.  Many professions
specifically prohibit licenses to anyone with a felony
conviction.



 > Dilawar, Spc. Baker - look 'em
> up.

Yes, they were bad.  And the participants were prosecuted, and
punished according to their guilt and level of participation.

On the other hand, it's amazing how hairy these tales
get with the re-telling.

The Marines in Haditha being a primary example.  All
of the local Iraqis living in the neighborhood sided
with the squad (and lest anyone believe they were just
responding to pressure by the military, they testified
against the arguments of the prosecuting officers.)
One quote I recall from a neighbor was "they [the Iraqi
family living in the house where several IEDs had been
planted over the course of several weeks] got what
they deserved."

 > Without clear limits people in guard positions will do brutal
> things.

Yes, the military is aware of the Milgram experiment.
That's why senior NCO's and officers are specifically
tasked with monitoring the actions of enlisted personnel
who do most of the actual guard work.

Abu Ghraib was a leadership failure all the way up
through three or four levels of command.  Personally,
I was appalled at what happened there -- because the
treatment was committed against detainees without
regard for who was a member of a Geneva Convention
protected group, and who was not.


As for the ones who were being illegal combatants, I
have absolutely no sympathy for them...regardless of
whether they were a member of a Sunni group who were
attacking Shiite civilians, or a member of a Shia group
attacking Sunni civilians, or anyone taking part in
combat operations without wearing a uniform.


 >         This is human nature - look up the Stanford prison 
experiment.

I'm well aware of it... shut down after only 1 week of what
was supposed to be a 2-week experiment (and the 2nd half,
to be conducted in Germany, was never performed.  The
experiment was to investigate whether German citizens were
more likely to obey illegal orders than American citizens.




> The U.S. treats prisoners better than a Soviet gulag or Saddam's
> torture chambers, sure - but that's an awfully low bar to get over.
> Simply for propaganda purposes, we should be different in kind and not
> just degree.

I don't think you really have any clear idea of the kind
of enemy which we are fighting.

Kidnapping and torturing children is something that they
not only do...but they make videos of each other committing
these acts, and laugh and joke about it.  Calling them
cretins would be an insult to cretins.