Monbiot beats me to it (as usual)
I've been doing a little research and brewing up a long post about the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld’s outrage over the TV footage of U.S. PoWs.
Quick aside: the coverage of the captured and killed American soldiers has been shocking, disgusting and disturbing, to say the least. The latest news, that several of the PoWs may have been executed, is even more distressing. And yet...
What’s flipped my bit is the jaw-dropping duplicity of the Bush administration citing the Geneva Conventions here.
I wanted to have the time to scroll through the Convention and catalogue the many, many ways in which Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest have openly flouted this, and so many other international laws. But I'm glad to note that the brilliant George Monbiot, writing in Tuesday’s Guardian, beat me to it.
Pulling together the research and presenting an absolutely compelling argument that nails many of the points I’ve been thinking through in the last few days, Monbiot’s piece is essential reading, IMHO.
Under the heading “One rule for them”, he asks:
"Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay?"
A choice excerpt:
"...Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life. His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention."
Stirring stuff.
In particular, Monbiot comments as others have on some of the obvious legal flaws in the Bush Administration's position.
To start with there is the mendacious little sidestep taken by the U.S. in choosing to hold PoWs at Guantanamo Bay - a location outside of U.S. sovereign territory and, therefore, beyond the reach of the constitution.
Add to this the fact that the 641 men held at Guantanamo are classified as "unlawful combatants" not PoWs - keeping them, according to Rumsfeld's argument, neatly outside the boundaries of the Geneva Conventions.
As Monbiot points out: this curious description could just as easily be applied by the Iraqis to the captured illegal invaders of their country.
And while you’re over at the Guardian site, you should also take the time to check out this piece by Burhan al-Chalabi, chairman of the British Iraqi Foundation.
“You should have known we'd fight"
“It is now five days since the British and US governments launched an unprecedented military invasion of my country of birth, its people, land, towns and cities…Commentators and politicians in Britain and America seem taken aback: how come the Iraqis are putting up such a fight? Why do they so passionately resist this attempt to liberate them from the brutal dictator, Saddam? But Iraqis aren't surprised at all.”
I have no way of knowing whether what most of Dr al-Chalabi says is true, but if nothing else, this article could be taken as further evidence that Iraq may be winning the propaganda war.
