Thursday, May 13, 2004
That's about right
A friend wrote and had a comment/question. Here it is in full:
SF chronicle:
"Rumsfeld again condemned the abuse of Iraqis at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison but said that such Pentagon-approved practices were legal...
'The Geneva conventions apply to conflicts between states, parties to the conventions. In the case of Afghanistan, it is a state, and therefore the Geneva Convention applied to Afghanistan as a state. It did not apply to the al Qaeda that was using that state,'' Rumsfeld said."
so let me see if I get this straight:
1) the abuse was wrong, but
2) it was perfectly legal, and remember
3) we're at war with terrorists but
4) terrorists like al qaeda aren't part of a state, so the Geneva
Convention doesn't apply to them
6) even though these particular prisoners have nothing to do with al qaeda
7) and besides, even though the GC doesn't apply, we didn't ignore it either, but
8) the abuse was still wrong...
Yep, that about sums it up.
|
SF chronicle:
"Rumsfeld again condemned the abuse of Iraqis at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison but said that such Pentagon-approved practices were legal...
'The Geneva conventions apply to conflicts between states, parties to the conventions. In the case of Afghanistan, it is a state, and therefore the Geneva Convention applied to Afghanistan as a state. It did not apply to the al Qaeda that was using that state,'' Rumsfeld said."
so let me see if I get this straight:
1) the abuse was wrong, but
2) it was perfectly legal, and remember
3) we're at war with terrorists but
4) terrorists like al qaeda aren't part of a state, so the Geneva
Convention doesn't apply to them
6) even though these particular prisoners have nothing to do with al qaeda
7) and besides, even though the GC doesn't apply, we didn't ignore it either, but
8) the abuse was still wrong...
Yep, that about sums it up.
Comments:
Post a Comment
