"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

January 19, 2005
Read During Lunch

Jennifer Van Bergen's discussion in this article:

[...] preliminary draft of a soon-to-be published scholarly legal article written by a former military officer who currently presides in a U.S. federal court concludes that the Abu Ghraib prison abuses were the reasonably foreseeable results of a decision by President Bush to ignore the mandates of the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners of war.

Interesting paragraph:

The United States signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1956. In 1996, Congress passed the War Crimes Act, criminalizing breaches of the Conventions. A "grave breach" of Geneva is a federal crime, punishable by imprisonment "for life or any term of years," and Geneva explicitly states that no nation "bound by the Convention can offer any valid pretext, legal or other, for not respecting the Convention in all its parts."

Let's get this straight. The Bush Administration claims they're waging "war" on "terrorists" but when they take "prisoners" in that "war" they're different kinds of prisoners, not Geneva Conventions prisoners, so...if they storm someone's house at night, arrest him, and haul him to prison, they have no responsibility to prove the guy ever did anything wrong or to refrain from torturing and humiliating him?

There's a name for that, you know.

And let's not forget that the CIA is reportedly exempt from the Geneva Conventions anyhow.

Or that civilian companies implicated in torture are being severely punished...with juicy new Pentagon contracts.

(While I was at Counterpunch, I glanced through Alexander Cockburn's short article, We Aren't Dealing With Rationality on the subject of the Bush Administration and Iraq.)

Recapping: The national media? Is an embarrassing, conservative mess.

Posted by AnneZook at 02:54 PM


Comments

Wow, that's an excellent point. I had been wondering about that as well... It's a war, but the prisoners in the war aren't prisoners of war. Odd, that. Also, one other thing that rather bothers me about the whole line of reasoning is the idea that because they aren't prisoners of war, we can do whatever the heck we want to with them.

Know this is a redundant comment to your post, but I still shake my head in shame whenever I am reminded of this point.

Posted by: Hal at January 19, 2005 04:00 PM