Terrorists Don't Take Prisoners

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Adam's Apple, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Amnesty Too Easy on Terrorists in Iraq, Too Hard on U.S. Effort
    By Debra J. Saunders for San Francisco Chronicle
    June 5, 2005

    Amnesty International's latest report didn't denounce conditions for U.S. troops captured and held in detention facilities in Iraq. That's because, as far as anyone knows, there are no camps for American prisoners of war in Iraq.

    According to Pentagon sources, there is only one U.S. soldier listed as missing-captured in Iraq. Sgt. Keith Maupin, 21, has been missing since April 2004.

    Terrorists in Iraq don't take prisoners. They fight to kill. Larry Greer, spokesman for the Pentagon's POW/MIA office, noted that while there is no way of knowing how the terrorists would treat U.S. detainees, it is clear how they treat hostages: "Their treatment appears to be torture followed by execution."

    So Amnesty International cannot refer to a POW camp run by Iraqi and foreign insurgents fighting the U.S.-led coalition as it does to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay--as a "gulag of our times--entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law. The dead don't talk.

    I do not believe that Amnesty International is indifferent to the carnage committed by what it calls "armed groups opposed to the presence of U.S.-led forces in Iraq." The group's 2005 report does cite "gross human-rights abuses which caused thousands of civilian casualties." It also reports that insurgents have engaged in kidnapping for ransom and, "Some kidnap victims, including children, were killed."

    I do believe, however, that Amnesty is too easy on terrorists in Iraq, and too hard on the U.S. effort.

    Note how Amnesty's language--"armed groups opposed to the presence of U.S.-led forces in Iraq"--cleanses the aim of the terrorists. Men who blow up mosques, kill children and butcher Iraqi police and military trainees are fighting more than coalition troops. They are fighting to keep Iraq from being free.

    The Washington Post editorial page, among others, scolded Amnesty for comparing Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet "gulag." There is, after all, a big difference between thousands of concentration camps housing more than 20 million people over decades and a detention camp that houses some 500 captured enemy combatants. A more apt comparison would be Stalin's gulag to the prisons of Saddam Hussein.

    I don't like bashing Amnesty International, which for years has done important work that shined the light on ruthless, bloody tyrants. But the group's leaders have wandered off the path if they think that President Bush is the planet's big bad guy. This is a man who has sent troops to risk their lives protecting U.S. interests, but also to free Afghans and Iraqis from tyrants. And Amnesty doesn't care.

    No, the folks at Amnesty International are too pumped up with the conceit -- shared by some of my brethren in the media -- that without Amnesty International, U.S. troops would be torturing every prisoner in sight.

    for full article:
    http://creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=dsa
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  3. Fmr jarhead
    Offline

    Fmr jarhead Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,119
    Thanks Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    SoFLA
    Ratings:
    +103
    By even calling the insurgents POW is a complete misnomer. In order to qualify as a POW TECHNICALLY, they must be fighting for a state or government and wear identifying uniforms of that nation. I am not sure, and have not read the Geneva Conventions for a while, either, but I also think they have to have a flag,as well.

    Some of the "rules" of warfare are a bit antiquated, and the current fight against terrorism is less a war that an outright struggle for the very existence of freedom, with no determinable end, that I can identify.

    Do you think the terrorists even give a rats ass that Amnesty International is fighting for their rights? These medieval thugs would just as well chop off every one of their grapes, if they are not practicing the same skewed version of Islam as Osama.

    (BTW...yesterday marked the anniversary of the death of Mohammad, I think it was 632 AD.)
     

Share This Page