Do Iraqis Have Any Rights Under US Military Control?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
It seems your brain has mistranslated the text or something, because I rather distinctly said "represented". And guess what the declaration says?

You're right - I made the jump from representation to voting in the last post. Apologies. In any case, that makes it even better - its vague enough to allow a government to decide HOW people are represented. If people can take responsibility for children as not being competent to represent themselves, the same can be said for Nazis or criminals.

But I see you are too busy giggling over the idea that children have opinions.

Covered above. Children's opinions are most certainly irrelevant. Others decide what is best for them without regard for the opinion of the child (if desired).

Having formed one that is utterly to it's wishes. The US has never promised to respect the will of the Iraqi people no matter if it disagrees with it. It has instead insisted that it's will is to select the choices available for the election, thus crippling the new democracy.

As I said, until it happens, its academic. We'll just have to wait and see.

I refer to the failure of the US to achieve this, or to undertake the other alternatives. The prisoners I refer to where not considered at military prisoners by the occupying party.

Ok, so the US is responsible for setting up the mail and/or getting the phones working. Thats fine - we're working on it. Its tough though since terrorists continue to blow up much of the infrastructure we build.

Read ONE line down from where you quoted me to find your example. You owe me what? 50 bucks?

You misread your own exampmle - and I covered that... about one line down from that quote

*shrug* Also works. Still an example.

Ahh good - so you accept the other side of the coin - that you misread your own example... Ok, now you can argue that unlawful imprisonment if you choose. Good luck.

But it is the basis of all laws relating to human rights. Additional laws add further rights, not reduce ones that are establish here in principle.

Certainly... so now you are conceding that there can't be a war crime that comes from a "violation" of this? Ok, good... So why are we discussing it? I asked for war crimes.

Yes it does. It says all parties are equal before the law regardless of the entity they belong to.

If it were only that simple when reconciling the laws of two separate countries - especially one that is not even halfway set up. But in any case, that's part of the thing we just agreed isn't a war crime. So not relevant.

Might the fact that these were attributed to sanctions be a hint as to how you are taking this out of context?

I *LOVE* using people's own statistics against them.

I am saying that there is serious and credible evidence for human rights abuses of at least the level you denied existed, and so you were wrong.

That was what I was trying to settle.

Well that's nice. So you concede that though you find some things that may or may not happen in the future unsettling you do NOT have any evidence of actual war crimes that have acutally been comitted? Well why did we even have this conversation? I asked for evidence of war crimes. You gave me ONE, which I conceded (while laughing at it). Somehow I doubt that anyone in the US will be convicted by the Hague for not providing adequate mail service to the Iraqi POW's.

Next step...

Fair enough. But my question remains open for anyone who wants to answer it. Maybe I'll start a new thread.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Please reread that paragraph of satire.

A thousand pardons, your subtleties eluded etc. I read in Newsweek that an official in Iraq said "there's no structure here -- at least the UN has structure."
Was one of the 'beaurueacratic reasons' for this war to intentionally flaunt the UN or at least break alliances with them?

RWAt some point, the US will release all control over the Iraqi government.

That's totally true of course, but when? When it's handed back to the UN in an oil-depleated impoverished ruin? Ok, more optimistic - in 2 years when a sane person regains the title of commander in chief.

FZ+Get this through your head. Represent does not mean vote. It means that someone can put their views forward, in the forum of government, without being pre-selected by what a foreign power thinks of them.

That's a constitutional right in this country, but our presence and the UN's in Iraq is being attacked on all sides by religious fundamentalist terrorists. Of course they have the "right" de-facto to express their views because the government does not exist. Our few tens of thousands spread over a city of 5 million people are not going to stop any massive uprising.