From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
us
both verbally and in writing since February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq that were in violation of the
Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of detainees?

Because Bufdrvr is in a dream world of slaveish devotion to Bush and his
agenda.

Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
public knowledge?

Many have not been. In fact, I don't know that the record shows that any
large
number have.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the
detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

According to the Genevea Convention, he certainly is.


Where do you see that?

This is part of the 4th Geneva Convention, enacted in August 1949, to which
both
the U. S. and Iraq are signatories:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party
to
the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances
be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour,
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and
accorded no rights whatsoever

If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention.....take another look - if
they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with
the
Geneva Conventions?

Good point.


Walt