Voice of the Mirror

[EFM The Firm, The Voice]

THE outrage and anger over the treatment of US prisoners of war by Iraq is very real.

 

Their brutal and humiliating treatment - compounded last night as US helicopter pilots were paraded on televison - is profoundly shocking.

 

But not everyone is entitled to be outraged. The warmongers in the White House are not.

 

Little more than a year ago, there were other prisoners of war. As United States forces swept victoriously through Afghanistan, they seized hundreds of men.

 

These prisoners were transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. They were blindfolded and shackled. And their plight was gloatingly recorded by official US photographers to be circulated around the world.

 

The treatment of American prisoners of war in Iraq is in flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention. But so is the treatment of Afghani prisoners in Camp X-Ray.

 

They were humiliated and their humiliation recorded so that the White House could take vengeance for the atrocities of September 11.

 

The US did not stop there in defying the rules of war. It has admitted that almost all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were tortured.

 

There is no difference between breaches of the Geneva Convention committed by America and Iraq. But the White House thinks there is.

 

Mr Rumsfeld says it's "illegal to do things to PoWs that are humiliating to those prisoners".

 

And a White House spokesman said yesterday there is a difference between the war on terrorism and "this additional conflict" in Iraq.

 

In other words, this US administration doesn't consider it is bound by other people's laws. It can do what it likes and expects others to do what it likes, too.

 

To yearn for vengeance is an understandable human emotion. But we are entitled to expect civilised people to control it. Particularly the people who run the most powerful nation on earth. Only yesterday, 19 Camp X-Ray prisoners were released. They had been incarcerated, humiliated and abused for more than a year. Yet now the US admits they are innocent.

 

What this White House did at Guantanamo Bay was an indication of how it would behave over Iraq.

 

It ignored the wishes of the United Nations. It defied international law. It invaded a sovereign state simply because it wanted to and had the military might.

 

That does not mean we shouldn't feel compassion and pity for the troops who have been captured by the Iraqis. It is not their fault they are in Iraq. They, like their comrades who have died, are paying the price of their leaders' actions.

 

The Iraqis would have dealt with them cruelly even without the way the Americans behaved at Guantanamo. They treated our own airmen similarly in 1991.

 

If the White House had followed the Geneva Convention, it might not have helped these prisoners of war. But it would have given America an essential moral superiority. Remember, we were told by President Bush and Tony Blair that this was a moral war. A crusade to rid the world of a tyrannical, bloodthirsty despot. Yet just about every rule and law that could be broken by the US has been.

 

Mr Blair cannot be happy. He has allied himself with a White House administration that steamrollers over all opposition, defying the rules and ignoring the relationships that could make this a better world.

 

War is at times a necessary evil, though this is not one of them. And some of its worst excesses can be eased by applying rules of decency and civilisation.

 

The world should condemn every nation and every leader who flagrantly breaches those rules. Whether it is Iraq or the USA, Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush.

 

There cannot be one rule for America and another for the rest of the world.

 

That way lies anarchy and the collapse of civilisation.

 

[EFM's Librarian]

Did you hear that Zeal? "Only yesterday, 19 Camp X-Ray prisoners were released. They had been incarcerated, humiliated and abused for more than a year. Yet now the US admits they are innocent."

Thats strange - you told me recently to stop going on about these people, I think you said "Its obvious they are all guilty - and therefore it doesn't matter how they are treated"

I never thought I would extol the virtues of a tabloid, but that is a very good piece, a very pleasant change from the nonsensical rantings of idiot Littlejohn.

 

[EFM The Firm, The Voice]

For a tabloid, the Mirror has actually been a credit to itself over the last few months.

 

And rants like "Its obvious they are all guilty - and therefore it doesn't matter how they are treated" I think just sum's up how much notice we should take of CZ, these are the rants of a right wing loony!

 

[MK James]

 

For the sake of political balance shouldn't someone post up the 'Voice Of The Sport' as well?

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Quote:

For a tabloid, the Mirror has actually been a credit to itself over the last few months.

Yeah, cos you regularly read the broadsheets, don't you?

This has amused me this morning. You've been moaning that I only get my political opinion from The Sun, and then five minutes later, you quote from The Mirror. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You don't know what you're talking about.

[GHA EFM]

I find it interesting how the words of Littlejohn are, to an extent, worshipped by Zeal, and therefore any other words are lies, not true, not believed, or ignored.

 

It also seems to me, Zeal, that when someone makes an argument, or puts across someone elses, their argument is not directly addressed. This thread is a good example. EFMTFTV makes a point about how Iraq are in breach of the Geneva Convention for showing POWs but so are USA for their treatment of suspects at Camp X-Ray. Your response, Zeal, is aimed at the fact that it's the Mirror, so it must be crap, and that EFMTFTV doesn't know what he's talking about. The argument is ignored.

 

Did I not make the point the other day that Iraq are in breach of the Geneva Convention, according to Rumsfeld, for showing POWs, but in my opinion USA are in breach of UN Resolution/s by invading, attacking and declaring war on Iraq??

[Colin Zeal EFM]

GHA. I admire your persistence on this issue, and I'm sure you fully believe what you're saying, however misguided.

 

On the other hand, Thornsy thinks he's an anarchist. He is anti-establishment. He is anti-America. This war has been the perfect vehicle for his blinkered views.

 

I don't need to argue. There is no argument. I am right. You are wrong. Simple.

 

 

[GHA EFM]

Quote:

I don't need to argue. There is no argument. I am right. You are wrong. Simple.

Zeal. Seriously now. Are you taking the Alger?

(Alger Hiss)

[mdetaylor]

I may be wrong but I believe that the American persisted in their claim that at least a number of prisioners held at Guantanamo Bay were not captured as combatants and were therefore no POWs and not subject to the Geneva convention.

 

The basics are that a force that fights without uniform, without clear leadership (or for a state), that fights with concealed weapons and generally does not abide by the laws of war so not have to be afforded the protections given to POWs under the Generva convention. Stan Bin Laden and his mates and to a lesser extent the Taliban both fought without keeping to the laws of war.

 

The Yanks therefore took it upon themselves to act as they pleased and hold without charge the prisoners. I believe they eventually accepted that some were combatants and afforded them marginally better treatment (although they should have been released ages ago as the conflict in Afganistan is effectively over).

 

For the record the Yanks were on very dodgy ground and I do not agree with most of their actions as they were in breach of the Geneva convention. There is a much stronger case that they are not in breach of UN resolutions