Rumsfeld ordered prisoner hidden from Red Cross

[Lefty Wilbury]

also wasen't there a big brewhaha after 9-11 because the red cross wasen't using the money people donated for 9-11? they were using it on other things like office equipment?

 

[acludem]

Just a note, the article posted here is about the American Red Cross the prisoner was hidden from the International Red Cross - these are two different organizations.

Also, Rumsfeld admitted to hiding the prisoner but claims they were treated humanely.

acludem

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Does it really matter? No orginization should be sticking their nose in until it could be confirmed if a prisoner is a hostile or not.
But of course you wont see it that way as their right's are being infringed upon.

Isn't it their right to be determined a hostile or not? and within some sort of timely fashion?

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Isn't it their right to be determined a hostile or not? and within some sort of timely fashion?

Where are thier rights derived from and who is qualified to make such a decision? I'm curious.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I think the CIA should take president over the Red Cross. Everyone want's to complain about the poor intelligence being recieved but is it any real surprise when they can't do their job.

I agree in a timely fashion that these prisoners should be determined hostile or not, but who would you rather determine that?

CIA for President? :

 

[Merlin1047]

Let's see - Democrat administration murders dozens of Americans. Janet Reno runs for Gov in Florida instead of being indicted for depraved indifference and gross incompetence in office. Libs still line up ten deep to kiss Clinton's butt, elect his power-mad wife to the Senate and not a single one says a peep about justice for Janet Reno.

Republican administration - hides a terrorist prisoner and has the misfortune of having a few folks humiliate other terrorists. Libs line up ten deep to throw rocks.

Why is it that libbies have so much trouble with perspective?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
OK Flasher, I know that you are just dying to rip my point of view here, let's here what you think on this issue.

Actually, I kind of agree with you that the CIA should take precedence over the American Cross in some instances. They are, however, a neutral organization with good guiding priciples whose values and opinions I respect.

source: redcross.org
Humanity: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

Impartiality: It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

Neutrality: In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

Independence: The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.

Voluntary Service: It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

Unity: There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.

Universality: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Ok, just wanted to mock on my screw up in words eh? that's ok, I do it all the time!

really though, the red cross, the international red cross whatever should not be allowed to stick their nose in until further intelligence can be made upon these prisoners. At one time or another these things go on behind the publics back, and to think that it would not happen with a dem in the seat now would be plane ignorant. I say let the job get done, then let these orginizations do their part. Just my opinion though.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Where are thier rights derived from and who is qualified to make such a decision? I'm curious.

geneva convention maybe? I'd say our bill of rights and constitution as well as the declaration but then I'd be shot down because they aren't citizens, even though the documents state about all men created equal and all rights being granted by their creator, not the US.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Let's see - Democrat administration murders dozens of Americans. Janet Reno runs for Gov in Florida instead of being indicted for depraved indifference and gross incompetence in office. Libs still line up ten deep to kiss Clinton's butt, elect his power-mad wife to the Senate and not a single one says a peep about justice for Janet Reno.

Republican administration - hides a terrorist prisoner and has the misfortune of having a few folks humiliate other terrorists. Libs line up ten deep to throw rocks.

Why is it that libbies have so much trouble with perspective?

that came out of left field, didn't it?

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
geneva convention maybe? I'd say our bill of rights and constitution as well as the declaration but then I'd be shot down because they aren't citizens, even though the documents state about all men created equal and all rights being granted by their creator, not the US.

worth a shot----what do they have in the way of enforcement?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
worth a shot----what do they have in the way of enforcement?

currently, since the US is the occupying force with an iraqi interim government, we and they do.

 

[dilloduck]

I must be missing something sorry. The US or the interim Iraqi govt would enforce a breach of the Genveva convention against ourselves?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I must be missing something sorry. The US or the interim Iraqi govt would enforce a breach of the Genveva convention against ourselves?

seems that you and I have had a miscommunication. I was referring to documents that would provide these rights. Not something that would provide for prosecution

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by menewa
In the article, Taguba is quoted as saying it is a violation of international law. And human rights groups said it was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

Having studied international law. i can promise you that most these people dont understand it whatsoever.

 

[acludem]

I also have studied international law including the Geneva Convention. When the U.S. government signed the Geneva Convention Treaty, we in fact promised the rest of the world we would act a certain way. Now we are renegging on that promise. That's why it's a violation of international law - the treaty became international law when it was signed. As for the International Red Cross it's an organization that for over 100 years has been called upon to observe and comment on treatment of soldiers, POWs, refugees, etc. IRC is probably the most trusted Non-governmental organizations doing work internationally.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by acludem
I also have studied international law including the Geneva Convention. When the U.S. government signed the Geneva Convention Treaty, we in fact promised the rest of the world we would act a certain way. Now we are renegging on that promise. That's why it's a violation of international law - the treaty became international law when it was signed. As for the International Red Cross it's an organization that for over 100 years has been called upon to observe and comment on treatment of soldiers, POWs, refugees, etc. IRC is probably the most trusted Non-governmental organizations doing work internationally.

acludem

So if we have violated international, what are our rights, who conducts the trial and who enforces the punishment if the is any? If IRC is the most trusted NGO then the world is REALLY in trouble.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by dilloduck
So if we have violated international, what are our rights, who conducts the trial and who enforces the punishment if the is any? If IRC is the most trusted NGO then the world is REALLY in trouble.

The US is not subject to international law-we refused to join the ICC after Clinton signed in December of his last term, knowing that Congress would never consent to it.

Clinton signed the ICC Convention on Dec. 31, 2000, even though the U.S. Senate has made clear it never will approve ratification if the treaty is submitted for advice and consent. Under the agreement U.S. servicemen, or indeed any U.S. citizen, could be brought before an international court at the behest of foreign nations driven by anti-American zeal. “Not a shred of evidence indicates that the ICC will deter the truly hard men of history from committing war crimes and crimes against humanity,” commented John R. Bolton, a former assistant secretary of state widely expected to play a major role in the Bush administration. “The ICC’s supporters have an unstated agenda resting at bottom on the desire to assert the primacy of international institutions over nation-states.” Bolton and other conservatives have been urging President Bush to “unsign” the agreement.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7b52063125.htm

Bush did 'unsign' the agreement.

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks Kathianne--I get it----an attempt to redistribute world power.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Thanks Kathianne--I get it----an attempt to redistribute world power.

Yep, which is leaving Britain via Tony Blair vunerable from groups like AI regarding the prison scandals. The ICC can go after Britain and Blair, while Britain goes after the individual soldiers. Even the Congress wouldn't approve that treaty.