Command Responsibility and Bush Failures

George Z. Bush wrote:

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

You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March 2003) of
OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused. According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it. I'm not arguing with what
happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the standard
since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts. The Red Cross had access to
Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past winter.

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?

Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago. Why was no
immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My guess
is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing the
pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

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

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

You'll have to point out where Geneva states that a third party national
conducting military operations in a foreign country is a "detainee" and not an
unlawful combatant.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities

While there were some "suspects" in Abu Gharib, most were captured unlawful
combatants.

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...snip

Once again George, you aren't following my argument. I'm not trying to justify
these horrible acts. I am making two points. First, while we choose to follow
the Geneva convention for *all* combatants, both lawful and unlawful, it does
not mean that all our prisoners are automatically entitled this protection.
Second, this abhorant behavior is not a reflection of anyone other than those
immediately involved. If you listen to our resident leftist troll Walt, Bush
ordered or at least condoned these abuses and should be held accountable. Walt
attempts to prove Bush's direct involvement by claiming U.S. forces, since
combat operations began, have never afforded Iraq PWs the treatment due the
under Geneva.

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....

Sorry George, every year we were required to take a test on the Geneva
Convention articles during our "Laws of Armed Conflict" training. I'm sure I've
either read or been briefed them many more times than you.

take another look - if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.

Who has said anything about non-combatants? This is the first introduction of
non-combatants into the issue. Do you have a point to make about
non-combatants?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"