RE: Re: RE: From Amnesty International
JKS writes: > You are an unpatriotic rotten doctor Commie rat!< how did you know? (BTW, JKS quotes from an old Bob Dylan song, "Motopsycho Nightmare.") JD
Re: RE: From Amnesty International
"Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: why can't the Iraqi government declare "coalition" prisoners to be unlawful combatants? oh yes, I forgot: it's might that makes right. Some people can't keep hold of the fundamentals. Our combatants are never unlawful. Our actions are never war crimes. You are an unpatriotic rotten doctor Commie rat! jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
RE: From Amnesty International
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36142] From Amnesty International why can't the Iraqi government declare "coalition" prisoners to be unlawful combatants? oh yes, I forgot: it's might that makes right. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! > -Original Message- > From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:09 AM > To: pen > Subject: [PEN-L:36142] From Amnesty International > > > Actually Iraq could very well claim that captured US troops > are not governed > by the Geneva Convention. Since the war is illegal they > could very well > have joined the US dept of inventive terminology and called > them illegal > combatants and put them in 7 by 8 ft containers. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > > AI-index: AMR 51/045/2003 25/03/2003 > Public > 25 March 2003 > AI Index: AMR 51/045/2003 > http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452003?Open&of=COUNTRIES\USA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > International standards for all > > "There are international standards that civilized regimes > adhere to and then > there are regimes like Saddam Hussein['s] ...". US Secretary > of Defence, 23 > March 2003(1) > > On 23 March 2003, following the news that US soldiers had > been captured by > Iraqi forces during the US-led attack on Iraq, President > George Bush said > that "we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any > prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely... If not, the people who > mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."(2) > > Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld added that "the Geneva Convention > indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass > or humiliate > prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or > coalition ground > forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention > indicates how they > should be treated."(3) His statement came after interviews with five > captured US soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television.(4) > > On the same day, about 30 more detainees were flown from > Afghanistan to the > US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. This brought to about 660 the > number of foreign nationals held in the base.(5) They come > from more than 40 > countries. Most were taken into custody during the international armed > conflict in Afghanistan. Some have been held in Guantánamo, > without charge > or trial, and without access to lawyers, relatives or the > courts, for more > than a year. Their treatment has flouted international standards. > > >From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of > the Guantánamo > detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status > determined by a "competent tribunal" as required under > Article 5 of the > Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International > warned the US > administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions > threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international > humanitarian law > protections for any US or other combatants captured in the > future.(6) The > organization received no reply to this or other concerns it > raised about the > detainees. > > On the 9 February 2002, the International Committee of the > Red Cross (ICRC), > the most authoritative body on the provisions of the Geneva > Conventions, > revealed that there were "divergent views between the United > States and the > ICRC on the procedures which apply on how to determine that > the persons > detained are not entitled to prisoner of war status".(7) The ICRC news > release said that the organization would pursue its dialogue > with the US > Government on this issue. Nevertheless, to this day none of > the Guantánamo > detainees have been granted POW status or appeared before a tribunal > competent to determine their status. > > The US has ignored not only the ICRC on this issue, but also > the United > Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the > Inter-American Commission > on Human Rights. More recently, on 16 December 2002, the UN > Working Group on > Arbitrary Detention noted that "the authority which is competent to > determine prisoner-of-war status is not the executive power, but the > judicial power", as specified under article 5 of the Third Geneva > Convention. > > When the first of the detainees arrived in Guantánamo in > January 2002, the > Pentagon released a photograph of the detainees in orange jumpsuits, > kneeling before US soldiers, shackled, handcuffed, and >
From Amnesty International
Actually Iraq could very well claim that captured US troops are not governed by the Geneva Convention. Since the war is illegal they could very well have joined the US dept of inventive terminology and called them illegal combatants and put them in 7 by 8 ft containers. Cheers, Ken Hanly AI-index: AMR 51/045/2003 25/03/2003 Public 25 March 2003 AI Index: AMR 51/045/2003 http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452003?Open&of=COUNTRIES\USA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA International standards for all "There are international standards that civilized regimes adhere to and then there are regimes like Saddam Hussein['s] ...". US Secretary of Defence, 23 March 2003(1) On 23 March 2003, following the news that US soldiers had been captured by Iraqi forces during the US-led attack on Iraq, President George Bush said that "we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely... If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals."(2) Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld added that "the Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they should be treated."(3) His statement came after interviews with five captured US soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television.(4) On the same day, about 30 more detainees were flown from Afghanistan to the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. This brought to about 660 the number of foreign nationals held in the base.(5) They come from more than 40 countries. Most were taken into custody during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan. Some have been held in Guantánamo, without charge or trial, and without access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, for more than a year. Their treatment has flouted international standards. >From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of the Guantánamo detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status determined by a "competent tribunal" as required under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International warned the US administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international humanitarian law protections for any US or other combatants captured in the future.(6) The organization received no reply to this or other concerns it raised about the detainees. On the 9 February 2002, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the most authoritative body on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, revealed that there were "divergent views between the United States and the ICRC on the procedures which apply on how to determine that the persons detained are not entitled to prisoner of war status".(7) The ICRC news release said that the organization would pursue its dialogue with the US Government on this issue. Nevertheless, to this day none of the Guantánamo detainees have been granted POW status or appeared before a tribunal competent to determine their status. The US has ignored not only the ICRC on this issue, but also the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. More recently, on 16 December 2002, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted that "the authority which is competent to determine prisoner-of-war status is not the executive power, but the judicial power", as specified under article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. When the first of the detainees arrived in Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon released a photograph of the detainees in orange jumpsuits, kneeling before US soldiers, shackled, handcuffed, and wearing blacked-out goggles over their eyes and masks over their mouths and noses. The photograph shocked world opinion and led Secretary Rumsfeld to acknowledge that it was "probably unfortunate" that the picture had been released, at least without better captioning. He added: "My recollection is that there's something in the Geneva Conventions about press people being around prisoners; that - and not taking pictures and not saying who they are and not exposing them to ridicule".(8) The USA's selective approach to the Geneva Conventions has been widely noted. For example, with US soldiers captured in Iraq and shown on Iraqi television to the anger of US officials, a Saudi Arabian newspaper, claiming to be receiving one million visitors a day on its website, wrote: "Rumsfeld's newfound affection for the Geneva Convention is remarkable... The US does not believe that the prisoners now being held at Guantánamo Bay are prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Pictures of the men there, shackled and living in cages, were distributed by the Bush administration to the world's media."(9) Meanwhile the US continues to hold the Guantánamo detainee
[PEN-L:7059] (Fwd) Urgent Action appeal from Amnesty International
Obviously we should bomb Mexico City! --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:42:41 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject:Urgent Action appeal from Amnesty International Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 Subject: UA 111/99 Mexico From: Marilyn McKim <[EMAIL PROTECTED] Essential accents for this email version: Acute (/) accent on a in Vazquez, a in Sanchez e in San Jose first e in Tellez second e in Rene, a in Juarez (Governor) I in Diaz, I in Garcia (Attorney General) e in Mexico PUBLIC AI Index: AMR 41/08/99 UA 111/99 Fear for safety/Extrajudicial execution 17 May 1999 MEXICO Francisca Santos Pablo (f), 33 Victoriana Vazquez Sanchez (f), 50 Community of Barrio Nuevo San Jose Killed: Antonio Mendoza Olivero, 12 Evaristo Albino Tellez, 27 Amnesty International is calling on the Mexican authorities to protect the entire Mixteca indigenous community of Barrio Nuevo San Jose, in Guerrero state, after members of the Mexican armed forces apparently summarily killed two men and raped two women from the community. According to reports on 21 April 1999, Evaristo Albino Tellez and Antonio Mendoza Olivero left Barrio Nuevo San Jose, part of the autonomous municipality of Rancho Nuevo Democracia, to harvest their crops. As they had not returned home the following day, Francisca Santos Pablo, Evaristo's sister in law, and Victoriana Vazquez Sanchez, Antonio's grandmother, went to look for them. Near their plots of land the women found a military. The women tried to run away, but report that the soldiers caught and raped them. Both women managed to return to Barrio Nuevo San Jose, and told community leaders what had happened. Because they feared further attacks, members of the community were only able to visit the site of the camp on 28 April 1999, once the soldiers had left. They apparently found bloodstained military gloves and sandals that belonged to either Antonio or Evaristo. On 27 April, members of the community attempted to report what had happened to both the State and National Commissions of Human Rights. The State Commission warned them not to pursue the case, which they interpreted as a threat. For two days a lower court judge refused to accept their request to obtain the equivalent of a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that both Antonio and Evaristo be presented before the authorities. On 7 May, a full 17 days after they had last been seen, the State Commission for Human Rights apparently informed Evaristo and Antonio's relatives that they had been killed by soldiers, who claim the two attacked them with guns. The Public Prosecutor's Office in Ometepec, Guerrero, where the army took the bodies, knew of the deaths long before the families and community members were told. When the families went to the Servicio Medico Forense (SEMFO), Forensic Medical Service, in Acapulco, Guerrero to retrieve the bodies, they found that Antonio had apparently died of blood loss from a single bullet wound to the leg. Amnesty International has received reports of increased troop movements near Barrio Nuevo San Jose since 8 May, increasing fears for the safety of the community and others living in the region. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Reports of violence by the Mexican security forces in Guerrero, including attacks on Mixteca activists campaigning for autonomy, date back to the Aguas Blancas massacre of June 1995, when 17 peasants were killed in an ambush set by state police and government officials. In a 1998 report the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded that "the emergence of new dissident armed groups of various types has led not only to a resumption of measures of control by the security forces but also to the indiscriminate repression of social organizations and leaders". RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send telegrams/faxes/airmail letters in Spanish or your own language: - asking the authorities to take adequate measures to guarantee the safety of Francisca Santos Pablo, Victoriana Vazquez Sanchez and all the Mixteca indigenous community of Barrio Nuevo San Jose; - calling on the Governor of Guerrero to open an independent and thorough investigation into the involvement of members of the armed forces in these events, suspend from duty those under investigation, make all results and prosecute those found responsible in a civil court; - calling on the authorities to clarify any irregularities in due process that occurred surrounding the notification, investigation and forensic procedures in this case; - reminding the Mexican authorities that in August 1998 the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities called on them to combat "the impunity of per
