Article

2004-06-10 Home Front: WoT

Lindh Interrogation in Iraq Marked New DoD Policy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-10 8:50:28 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mike, why do you keep posting this crap? Yeah, the press wants to pin Abu Ghraib on Bush, we get it. We got that point months ago. We've also gotten the point that the press will lie to do that.

For example:

The memos show that top government lawyers believed the administration was not bound by the Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners because "Al Qaeda is merely a violent political movement or organization and not a nation-state" that had signed the international treaty.

Oddly enough, this is exactly what the Geneva Conventions say!!! But there's no "bite" to reporting 'Administration Follows Letter and Spirit of Geneva Conventions', so reporters leave that out.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-10 8:57:44 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-10 8:57:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 You don't need a bunch of lawyers to find out that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists.

So after he was "stripped and humiliated", did they bring in the comfy chair?

Posted by True German Ally 2004-06-10 9:48:59 AM|| 2004-06-10 9:48:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Robert, read the headline above the posting.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-10 9:54:13 AM|| 2004-06-10 9:54:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Actually John Walker Lindh's probably had worse than a glowstick up his ass, voluntarily

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-10 10:08:16 AM|| 2004-06-10 10:08:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 read the headline above the posting
Hell, I saw "The Los Angeles Times" and stopped right there. No reason to read further.

Posted by eLarson 2004-06-10 10:46:31 AM|| 2004-06-10 10:46:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Mike, I don't understand the headline over the posting. Johnny Walker Lindh was interrogated in Iraq nearly three years after being captured in Afghanistan?

Posted by Tibor 2004-06-10 11:30:30 AM|| 2004-06-10 11:30:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 The concept of Geneva Convention protections applying to al-Qaida as much as they do to American GIs is based on the mistaken assumption that al-Qaida is an organization that operates according to First World military doctrines and would treat Americans - period - as well as mandated by the Conventions ... which as far as I know America never actually signed* ...

* I read from Rainbow Six that the US military simply has the Geneva Convention written into its rules but is not bound to the convention itself; is that true?

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-06-10 11:35:44 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-06-10 11:35:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#8
When I responded in #3, I was in a hurry and so answered more curtly than I should have. I'll try to answer better now.

If we decide that a prisoner is not covered by the Geneva Conventions, then we still must decide how to treat that prisoner. We might nevertheless treat the prisoner in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, or we might treat him according to some other rules.

The issue of proper treatment of prisoners is an important issue of great interest to many of us who are interested in the War on Terrorism, even though it apparently is of little interest to some of you who have made up your minds about it.

This particular article points out that the capture of Lindh was an important historical moment in the Defense Department's articulation of the policy that has governed our treatment of prisoners since then in the War on Terror and more particularly in the military operations in Iraq.

That policy has become controversial. If you aren't interested in articles about that controversy, then don't read them. Other people are interested.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-10 12:46:39 PM|| 2004-06-10 12:46:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Mike, just don't argue that these POS's deserve anything better. If we decide to treat them better, based on our values or rational choices, that's one thing, but we do it because we choose to, not because the Geneva accords apply. I, for one, would not be so nice to these terrorists...

Posted by Frank G 2004-06-10 1:13:39 PM|| 2004-06-10 1:13:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Nooooo...not the comfy chair!!!

Posted by Sgt.DT 2004-06-10 1:34:31 PM|| 2004-06-10 1:34:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Wait, I think they expect us to be sympathetic to this POS.

Posted by someone 2004-06-10 3:24:37 PM|| 2004-06-10 3:24:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 That POS should have been summarily shot after he was interogated. Since that didn't happen I hope Bubba in cellblock C is having his way with little Johnnie boy.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-06-10 3:32:29 PM|| 2004-06-10 3:32:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 My understanding was that part of Lindh's torture was watching Mister Rogers videos continuously for 24 hours, forced to sing, "It's a beautiful day for a terrorist" throughout.

Posted by MinneMike 2004-06-10 3:50:44 PM|| 2004-06-10 3:50:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Ed I retired four years ago and yes the military is still bound by that treaty. If fact EVERYONE has to get a briefing every six months with respect to weapons used, prisoners, and international law according to your mission. ALL of the 'Al Queda' people do not have an once of proctection under international law. We would have been well within our right to line them all up and dispatch them the day they were caught. The President made a decision not to do that, although he would be well within his rights to change that. As far as torture goes, it is a VERY effective way to extract information from the like of Al Queda (no matter what human rights groups say). The stuff at Abu Grab Ass was NOT interrogation, it was some strange guards abusing prisoners.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2004-06-10 5:13:49 PM|| 2004-06-10 5:13:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Cyber Sarge is right on. The conventions plainly state they apply only between signatories.

Posted by Ptah 2004-06-10 6:39:34 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-06-10 6:39:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 ...nor was he advised of his Miranda rights against self-incrimination.

Another idiot reporter working for the LAT. Johnny Jihadi was not arrested by a cop in the US. He was an unlawful combatant fighting US troops. He has no Miranda rights.

On top of that he's a US citizen aiding and abetting the enemy. He should have been roughly interrogated and shot on the spot, like US citizens caught fighting for Germany were.

Posted by Parabellum 2004-06-10 7:38:55 PM|| 2004-06-10 7:38:55 PM|| Front Page Top

01:57 Mark Espinola
01:22 Silentbrick
01:19 Mark Espinola
08:19 Howard UK
07:57 Mitch H.
04:18 Howard UK
00:39 Super Hose
00:24 Super Hose
23:56 painterdave
23:47 Rafael
23:35 OldSpook
23:32 Alaska Paul
23:32 Infidel Bob
23:26 Alaska Paul
23:18 RWV
23:09 RWV
23:05 Zenster
23:00 RWV
22:55 Mike Sylwester
22:52 Mike Sylwester
22:51 RWV
22:49 Bomb-a-rama
22:46 Alaska Paul
22:41 tu3031