From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat Aug 10 2002 - 23:35:36 MDT
On 10 Aug 2002 at 20:55, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees] These people have been rightly classified as neither POW
> (for they were fighting on behalf of no recognized government - the
> Taliban itself was not UN recognized as the government of Afghanistan,
> and only three countries DID recognize them - the Saudis, the Pakis
> and the UAE, and they all withdrew their recognition) nor entitled to
> the rights conferred by US citizenship (since that was not the country
> of their origin, except in a couple of cases where court trials are to
> be held, barring plea agreements), but as non-state terrorists, which
> they most indubitably are. Plus, a scad of court cases would result
> in both intel communications between these thugs and their
> as-yet-unapprehended compatriots as to perceived weaknesses to be
> exploited in anything they can view, and offer those same
> unapprehended terrorists a plethora of ready-made propaganda terror
> targets. They wanted to be terrorists - well, fine; they are thus not
> entitled to the protections of the Geneva!
> Convention (although most of them have been supplied), and are
> subject not to civilian court, but to military tribunal.
>
> [Hermit] Getting the basics wrong again, as usual Joe.
>
> Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
> (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) Article 2In addition to the
> provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present
> Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other
> armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High
> Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one
> of them.
>
> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total
> occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the
> said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
>
> Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the
> present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
> bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound
> by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts
> and applies the provisions thereof.
>
> [Hermit 2] Notice the last clause. The US is bound to honor the
> Geneva Conventions even if it did not recognize the Afghan
> government.
>
First, there is no evidence that the Taliban ever observed the Geneva
Convention; in fact, far from it. Second, the Taliban does not qualify as
a Power, as it is itself not recognized by the UN. This provision was
written to apply to governments that were both recognized members of
the UN, but which did not recognize each other.
>
> [Hermit 2] Now look at who is covered:
>
> Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
> (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) Article 4A. Prisoners of
> war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to
> one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the
> enemy:
>
> 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
> members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
> forces.
>
> 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
> including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
> Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
> even if this territory is occupied
>
> [Hermit 2] al Qu'aeda members are covered - indeed, even "unlawful
> combattants" are covered. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment
> of Prisoners of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) Article
> 5Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong
> to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall
> enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as
> their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
>
Nope, because the Taliban are not recognized as a legitimate Party to a
Conflict, not being recognized by the UN as legitimate, and a forteriori
to the Al Quaeda.
>
> [Hermit 2] Further the US while claiming to the World that these are
> not combatants - as you attempt here, while simultaneously
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50845-2002Aug6.html]cla
> iming "Under the fundamental separation of powers principles
> recognized by the 4th Circuit . . . in justifying the detention of
> captured enemy combatants in wartime, the military should not need to
> supply a court with the raw notes from interviews with a captured
> enemy combatant" in American Courts.
>
> [Hermit 2] In otherwords, the entire argument is a wash.
>
In other words, you are attempting to exploit a perceived (as opposed to
actual) linguistic slip; enemies need not be states,, and thus would not
fall under Geneva Convention provisions; the Barbary pirates were not
(although they were pre-Geneva).
>
> [Hermit 2] Finally Aschcroft has acknowledged that except for the two
> American prisoners, the US has no charges which can be proferred
> against any of those held at Guantanamo's Camp X-Ray.
>
Any charges will be submitted in military tribunal; he is certainly
unwilling to submit charges to any civilian trial court, for it has been
determined that they are outside court jurisdiction.
>
> [Hermit 2] Meanwhile, while the above is a hot potato, the following,
> if accurate, is gelignite.
>
> Why is the US media blacking out documentary on war crimes in
> Afghanistan?
>
> Source: World Socialist Web Site
> (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/maz-j21.shtml) Authors:
> Kate Randall Dated: 2002-06-12
>
I notice, once again, the source of what is most probably a 'Silent
Scream" type propaganda piece. It will probably show footage of
people apparently dressed in US military fatigues shooting at poor
turbaned and berobed wretches, and their subsequently falling to the
unforgiving ground. Yawn. I could make that here.
>
> Massacre in Mazar, a documentary by Irish director Jamie Doran, was
> screened last week before select audiences in Europe. The film
> documents events following the November 21, 2001 fall of Konduz, the
> Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan. [See:
> “[url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtmlAfghan
> war documentary charges US with mass killings][/url]”]
>
> The film presents powerful testimony from Afghan witnesses that US
> troops collaborated in the torture and killings of thousands of
> Taliban prisoners near Mazar-i-Sharif. The film, which has prompted
> demands for an international commission of inquiry on war crimes in
> Afghanistan, received widespread coverage in the European press, with
> major stories in the Guardian, Le Monde, Suddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt
> and other papers.
>
And of course, even if these are actual Al Queda prisoners (and it is
hard to imagine that they are, since there is not in place a policy of
letting such bloodthirsty scum go), it is a soul-saving move to lie to
infidels for the greater glory of Allah. I also note the peanut gallery that
has picked this piece up. The Guardian? Le Monde? Die Welt? I
know that they're dear to your dear old unreconstructed socialist heart,
Hermit, but Puh-LEEEZE!
>
> This major story, however, has received virtually no coverage in US
> newspapers or on network or cable television. Aside from stories on
> some alternative Internet publications, and a June 16 article on
> Salon.com, the story has been essentially blacked out in the US.
>
The tabloids saw no way to make monet out of this particular screed;
otherwise ir would've been right up there with Elvis' Alien LUV Child!
>
> A search for news about the documentary in the major dailies—including
> the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the
> Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe and the Miami Herald —turned up
> empty. Web sites for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News and CNN have likewise
> carried nothing on the film.
>
And they're competing. If they would buck Nixon, the most revengeful,
vicious and vindictive politico who ever swore on a Supreme Court
Bible, during the Vietnam war, of all things (Kent state, and all that),
don't you think at least one of them would've run a certain Pulitzer
scoop if they had found the least scintilla of credibility within it?
>
> Repeated telephone calls by the WSWS to these news sources, inquiring
> why they have failed to cover the story, went unanswered. How is
> possible that not a single major US media outlet chose to cover such
> an important news event? There is no innocent or journalistic
> explanation.
>
I just gave a good one: journalistic integrity (and yes, it does apply in
egregious cases of manufactured propaganda such as this appears to
be). You're a good (not great) Al Quaeda mouthpiece; are they paying
you in opium? It could begin to explain some of your recent posts and
claims.
>
> This wholesale political censorship cannot be justified on the basis
> that Massacre in Mazar —or the events it depicts—are not “newsworthy.”
> The two screenings of the documentary in Germany prompted calls by a
> number of European parliamentary deputies and human rights advocates
> for an independent investigation into the atrocities exposed by the
> film. Calling for an inquiry, prominent human rights lawyer Andrew
> McEntee commented it was “clear there is prima facie evidence of
> serious war crimes committed not just under international law, but
> also under the laws of the United States itself.”
>
If he's so prominent, why is this the first time I've seen his name? I get
it; it's because I don't usuially frequent stories of shills frothing off at the
mouth over tripe. And European politicos have a default position of
calling for investigations into alleged US abuses; whether the abuses
are subsequently proved to have actually happened or not, it always
plays well to the inferiority-complex-ridden home voting base that
craves to slap that infant upstart world power across the chops, even
during the break.
>
> The film includes scenes of the aftermath of the massacre of hundreds
> of Taliban fighters who were taken prisoner outside Mazar-i-Sharif, at
> the Qala-i-Jangi prison, showing captured troops who were apparently
> shot with their hands tied. The filmmaker also interviewed
> eyewitnesses, who describe the torture and slaughter of 3,000
> prisoners, who were allegedly driven to a desert area and massacred.
> These witnesses—who were not paid—have offered to provide testimony
> before any independent investigation into the events.
>
Yeah, I'll bet; and look raptly forward to fucking 72 virgins in Paradise
for their Allah-serving lies.
>
> The film footage is so damning that both the Pentagon and the US State
> Department were compelled within days to issue statements denying the
> allegations of US complicity in the torture and murder of POWs, which
> are powerfully pointed to by the film. If the US government is so
> concerned over the implications of what the documentary exposes, why
> has the US media chosen not to report on it?
>
Because it is bullus shittus, and all that was necessary was to issue a
pro forma denial and move on. If a network could win a Neilsen-
boosting Emmy by showing it tomorrow, it would be on tonight.
>
> Since September 11, this same print and broadcast media has
> consistently toed the Bush administration’s propaganda line; and there
> has been no shortage of coverage on the Afghan war. The government’s
> flouting of international law and the Geneva Conventions in the
> treatment of Afghan war prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in
> Cuba and proposals for secret military tribunals have gone virtually
> unchallenged.
>
They've been both challenged and refuted - point by point - as I just did
with your objections.
>
>Assaults on the democratic rights of both immigrants and
> citizens—including secret detentions and suppression of protests—have
> been reported as legitimate aspects of the government’s “war on
> terrorism.”
>
What protests have been suppressed? And if they had been
suppressed, how would you know about them? In fact, if secret
detentions were indeed secret, we shouldn't know about them, either,
now should we?
>
> One topic that has received short shrift in the American press is the
> civilian death toll in the US air raids in Afghanistan, which human
> rights advocates estimate at more than 3,500, not including the
> thousands facing death from starvation and displacement.
>
And you once threatened millions. Sic transit Hermetica prophetica.
>
> The well-known motto of the New York Times, “All the news that’s fit
> to print,” increasingly masks a practice by that newspaper and all the
> media of choosing to print only that which fits the war propaganda
> needs of the Pentagon and the White House.
>
Rampant total news blackout conspiracy; are you SURE you're not
Scatflinger's less evil twin?
>
> The refusal of the press to report on the charges of US complicity in
> the torture and mass killings in Afghanistan shown in Massacre in
> Mazar —or even to acknowledge the existence of the film—serves one
> purpose: to keep the American people in the dark about the Bush
> administration’s military actions and human rights violations.
>
It serves another purpose entirely: to maintain journalistic integrity in
the face of a blatant attempt to use them as a conduit by means of
which to pump pro-Al Quaeda propaganda down the infopipes of the
stateside multitudes.
>
> The media’s silence makes it complicit in what are horrific war
> crimes. It also provides an even more sinister service to the Bush
> administration. Filmmaker Jamie Doran decided to release a rough cut
> of his documentary before final editing because he feared Afghan
> forces were preparing to destroy evidence of the mass killings,
> scattering the remains of the victims. Self-censorship by the US media
> only facilitates such a grisly cover-up.
>
If he had already filmed the alleged atrocities, no amount of subsequent
earthen scattering could have possibly affected film already in the can.
The grisly part of all this is how gullible some allegedly otherwise
intelligent people can be, when the color of the smoke and mirrors
match their political hue. You have gone beyond scraping the bottom of
the barrel to scooping the scum from under it.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26019>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:52 MDT