Quote:

---

Fallujah's main hospital and train station have been captured by American and Iraqi forces. Two main bridges have also been secured. A senior interim government official says capturing the hospital was considered important, in an effort to control what he called, "wild estimates" of civilian casualties.

---

Quote:

---

Convention (I)
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

---

Quote:

---

Until a new Iraqi government is established, the US is considered an occupying force - and is prohibited from significantly altering the occupied territory by such actions as setting up a new government or changing preexisting laws. (Bremer could be tried for war crimes. Rue)
In the context of an international conflict, the US is present in Iraqi territory and can impose control, while the former Iraqi government is no longer able to exercise authority. This, by definition, makes the US an occupying force.
Occupation comes with a long list of rules and regulations, as set out by the Geneva Conventions, to which the US and Iraq are signatories. The US must, for example, maintain law and order and ensure sufficient supplies of food, water, and medical care for the civilian population.
But according to some experts, they are prohibited from certain activities, such as reconfiguring the police force.
Occupation formally ends with the reestablishment of a legitimate government, or other form of administration, such as by the UN.

---

Quote:

---

Convention (I)
Art. 2. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

---

Quote:

---

Convention (I)
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.

---

Quote:

---

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh, but I'm not done yet.

There are many, many news reports that US troops took control of the two main hospitals first, before any other military action. However, I find this one from the Voice of America (surely a source you won't fault) to be most instructive. So I will let this stand on it's own for a bit:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-11-09-voa8.cfm

Quote:

---

Fallujah's main hospital and train station have been captured by American and Iraqi forces. Two main bridges have also been secured. A senior interim government official says capturing the hospital was considered important, in an effort to control what he called, "wild estimates" of civilian casualties.

---

---

Quote:

---

The same official says there is a deep concern that insurgents might turn their weapons on civilians, in an effort to increase the number of civilian casualties, in hopes of igniting public anger against the American presence in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
This is a short diversion from the topic to clear up some fictitious claims...
..The hospitals were occupied BEFORE the attack, not as a result of fire coming from them. They were civilian hospitals. But even IF the hospitals were military hospitals treating insurgents, they could not be targeted by US troops. Military hospitals are protected under the Conventions, and may not lose their protections for reasons including:

Quote:

---

Convention (I)
Art. 22. The following conditions shall not be considered as depriving a medical unit or establishment of the protection guaranteed by Article 19:
(1) That the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed, and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in their charge.

---

The Geneva Conventions cover Civilians as well as military prisoners.

---

Quote:

---

Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

---

Quote:

---

Art. 21. The protection to which fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

---

Quote:

---

18 Iraqis Found Dead in Field Near Mosul
Updated: Thursday, Jan. 6, 2005 - 8:25 AM

By BASSEM MROUE
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The bodies of 18 young Iraqi Shiites taken off a bus and executed last month while seeking work at a U.S. base have been found in a field near the volatile city of Mosul, police said Thursday.

Police said the insurgents shot the men, who ranged in age from 14 to 20, on Dec. 8 after stopping their two mini-buses about 30 miles west of Mosul.

Their hands were tied behind their back and each was shot in the head, police said. All of the men were Shiite Muslims from Baghdad's northern neighborhood of Kadhimiya who had been hired by an Iraqi contractor to work at a U.S. base in Mosul.

The bodies were discovered Wednesday, the same day a suicide attacker blew up an explosives-laden car outside a police academy south of Baghdad in Hillah during a graduation ceremony, killing 20 people.

A second car bomber killed five Iraqi policemen in Baqouba _ bringing the death toll to at least 90 so far this week in surging violence aimed at derailing this month's elections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- the difference between our ethnic cleansing and theirs is that we use bombs, tanks, and artillery while they use IEDs, RPGs and small arms.

---

Quote:

---

We target whole cities while they target key roads or neighborhoods.

---

Quote:

---

We target hospitals and clinics and all males between the ages of 15-55 while they target security forces and contractors...

---

Quote:

---

If you didn't get the point, I'll make it more explicit: You can hardly excuse every single American atrocity that was every comitted with the blanket phrase "good tactics". I COULD say the same thing about the insurgents... after all, are they not following good tactics? But seeing as I don't intend to excuse our actions, I won't excuse theirs either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, our "hands" are clean, which gives us moral superiority.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that you consider everything the Americans do an "atrocity" pretty much lets me know that your mind won't change. But let's consider what happens in actual atrocity situations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: Even your favorite site, the IBC, says that the USA is responsible for far more civilian deaths than the insurgents and even more than Saddam in the last three years of his tyranny. So despite all our hand-wringing and hand-washing, as far as I can tell we're still the number one killer in Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

No more aid to anyone

---

Quote:

---

Americans are evil. Our government is evil, our military is evil...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

And as far as the "good tactics" is concerned, let me ask you: Are the insurgents then following "bad tactics"? If so, how? In other words, how do we differentitate what "we" do from what "they" do on that basis?

---

Quote:

---

But let's consider what happens in actual atrocity situations. American soldiers are charged by their own service with the crimes, and some go to jail when convicted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Weasy:
Connorflynn

Quote:

---

No more aid to anyone

---

I can't believe you even wrote that.
America is and will probably always remain the richest country in the world - to deny aid is murder by neglect.

So far as terrorism goes have one of you people asked *why* there is terrorism? Why there is war? Why people rebel? It's because they're poor or starving and they go through all the right channels - they plead to charities and the US and everbody ignores them until they blow up some people or take some hostages - and even then governments won't 'negotiate' with terrorists, so nobody ever bother finds out why they fuckin' did it in the first place.

Do you really think it's about Jihad? It's not. It's because we have so much more than them, and we promised them, promised them schools and hospitals and aid and we never gave it to them. No wonder they're pissed off.

I don't condone what terrorists do - it's wrong, there can't be any doubt about that - but barging in and demanding they change their ways without finding out what the problem was isn't *ever* going to work.

That's why we've fought this Iraq war four times already and we'll do it again.

Quote:

---

Americans are evil. Our government is evil, our military is evil...

---

Oh, we know you're not evil - you're just the most ill-informed nation anywhere. You don't have one single 'straight' news network. I know this for a fact, over here in the UK when I was waiting to find out who won the US election I looked at all the American news network sites and then I looked at the BBC's. The BBC was the only site that waited until officials had called the result for each state before they called it on their site. Not one of the American ones waited for the actual result.

Don't you see? The governments tells your reporters what to say and they say it and you *believe it* not one country I have ever been to or lived in does that - and screw that, what about actual truth and honesty?

What about Bush saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and had links to Al'Qaida - a blatant lie - Saddam and Osama are different types of extremist Muslim - they would never ever have anything to do with each other - but he said it and 60% of the population got over their half-hearted doubts baout the war and said oh okay, we'll get rid of him then, not because he was an evil dictator that killed anyone who disagreed with him (well that argument wouldn't make sense - that's we went in to do last time and we just put him back in power after a wrist slap!)

An interesting point - donations from US and UK public (not governments) towards Tsunami relief are equal. The US has a population six times the size as the UK... your donation should logically speaking be six times as high. Shame your so eager to spend money on defense and not on dying civilians.

America could be great, it is now the World's only superstate and it should be amazing. But it's not. You can make it better or you can curl up at home and pretend the real world isn't out there. The rest of us don't have that luxury - we live too close.

But then maybe what y'all lack is a conscience - not brains.

I apologise for my harshness, but I am so utterly offended by your arrogant ignorance on this matter that I have no qualms about posting this. If you want to have an opinion maybe you should know something about what you're talking about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I don't believe I've "gone on about" the rules of war. I think you've conflated us.

From what I see of the insurgents, they generally target foreign troops, Iraqi security, US contractors, and Iraqi employees and appointees of the US occupation. Yes, there are exceptions. Some of them may be due to the relatively small number of foreign elements w/in the insurgency, some of them may be due to lack of training or emotions running away, just as happens with US troops. But, I don't see them en masse targeting women or children or in general being responsible for an inordinate number of civilian deaths. What is it that "they" do that you find so much worse than what WE do?

---

Quote:

---

And then you have to ask- why are we in Iraq? I mean, I know why the INSURGENTS are in Iraq- they live there, for chrissake- but why are WE there?

---

Quote:

---

But let's consider what happens in actual atrocity situations. American soldiers are charged by their own service with the crimes, and some go to jail when convicted.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yeah, let's consider what happens to people who narrowly define torture as organ failure or death. THEY get nominated as Attorney General!

Damn, we're good!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh yeah, Geezer- you point to some specific cases, you've totalled up- what- 250 dead in your citations?

---

Quote:

---

BTW- show citations for those "hundreds of Iraqis taken prisoner and executed en masse". I have been away on vaction, perhaps you have news I don't.

---

Quote:

---

But you haven't been able to counter the fact that we pile 'em higher and deeper: 15,000+ and counting.

---

Quote:

---

BTW- "MY HEROES"? Geezer, you're seriously putting words in my mouth again. Just because I'm unhappy with our performance doesn't mean I'm "for" the other guy.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, there are exceptions (to the insurgents not killing civilians). Some of them may be due to the relatively small number of foreign elements w/in the insurgency, some of them may be due to lack of training or emotions running away, just as happens with US troops. But, I don't see them en masse targeting women or children or in general being responsible for an inordinate number of civilian deaths.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Shooting a wounded man point-blank is "good tactics"

---

Quote:

---

Coralling all men between the ages of 15-55 in a city about to be attacked is "good tactics".

---

Quote:

---

Invading a country and killing 15,000+ civilians is an honest mistake.

---

Quote:

---

Setting up a detention system that encourages torture deserves promotion.

---

Quote:

---

Turning over Iraqi national assets (water, power, etc.) to outside bidders and fucking up the Iraq income and asset accounting will make Iraq economically more sound.

---

Quote:

---

You know, you're absolutely right Geezer! How could I have thought otherwise???

---

Quote:

---

In a combat environment where similar "wounded" men have turned out to be wired with explosives? Yes. Somewhat different from shooting bound prisoners in the back of the head.

---

Quote:

---

Tell me again how many prisoners we've beheaded? Haven't seen the tapes yet.

---

Quote:

---

Give me a cite of this actually happening, not just wild-ass interpretations of CPA rules.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, if the US stopped ALL of its aid, the only countries that would realy hurt would be Israel and Egypt. Most US governmental "aid" is either military or a roundabout way of funneling money into corporations that have bent Congressional ears. More than likely the net effect of stopping all US governmental aid would be beneficial to the average world citizen. Of course, US citizens could continue to donate to the various NGOs of their choice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If I can turn my sarcasm off for a minute... it's hard, but I'll try...

When I read that some units train to "dead check" with a bullet, I worry more for our troops than for Iraqis. War is difficult enough without the added trauma of being a barbarian. It does incredible damage to the morals and psyche of our enlisted, who live with... and come home with... all bad that they feel they have done, as well as the good.

Which is why I'm livid about this war. We're shredding our ideals and our young for either (a) a lie or (b) a f*ckup that stretches the imagination, depending on how you look at it. And NOBODY has taken responsibility for it. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Libby, Abrams, Bolton, Gonzales... they're still in place, still collecting the old government paycheck, still f*cking up or committing treason depending on how you see it. Still sending in troops without enough armor or support, still charging the wounded for long-distance phone calls, still reducing pay.... Oh yeah, we want the leaders of the insurgency to pay for their crimes. HANG 'EM HIGH I SAY! But what about our fearless leaders? Don't they deserve at least a pink slip? Our enlisted deserve a LOT better than being sent into a shredder for no good reason, and then being hung out to dry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I had an AHA moment. I think I realized why you and I will prolly never agree, and I'll use "dead checking" as an example of how we differ.

I find it an abhorrent practice. To pump a couple of rounds into a helpless person, shrug and walk on is a stunning example of callousness I'm not sure I want to see in our returning soldiers. A ethically strong soldier would be damaged, a morally flimsy one could be a danger in civilian life. But sometimes factors accumulate - the soldier hasn't slept for 24 hours, the situation is dangerous, the practice is accepted in his unit- warranted or not I can sympathize with the soldier. I can even understand that in grave circumstances of national self defense, when troops may be temporarily undermanned and don't have the luxury of attending to "details", it can be necessary.

---

Quote:

---

But that's not enough for you, I think. It's not enough to understand, sympathize, sometimes even accept. You want me to BE THAT WAY. You want me to metaphorically pump a couple of rounds into Iraqi victims, shrug, and walk away. That way, we don't have to feel responsibility. Our image of ourselves as "good people" stays bright and shiny, untarnished by guilt and regret.

---

Quote:

---

On balance and not being able to forget that Iraqis are human beings too, I find our purpose in Iraq simply doesnt' justify the moral cannibalism that our soldiers endure. If we had good motives for invading Iraq, those motives didn't even survive pre-war planning. EVERYTHING was up for contracts, so while our unarmored soldiers were rationing water, down to one MRE a day and getting blown apart, Kellog, Brown & Root was making a fortune. It was more important to the CPA to buy whole generating turbines from GE, necessitating a complete plant rebuild (unfinished) than repairing the French and Russian-built power plants in Baghdad. The oil revenues and nationalized industries that should have been handled in a transparent fashion until the day they could be handed over to the Iraqi government were looted. Meanwhile, our enlisted were supposed to patch over these crimes by handing out candy and painting schools.

In short, I can't find a shred of evidence supporting the notion that the Administration goal was ever to make Iraq an independent, functioning democracy because they have done just about everything possible to torpedo that reality. I don't know what YOU call it when people place American soldiers in harm's way for something other than the defense of the United States, but I know what I call it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I look at it this way... We're taught by our mainstream religions that life is sacred. Our Constitution, based on the Enlightenment, holds the right to life as the most important. Murder, in civilian life, is the ultimate crime.

When you send young people into war and you expect them to violate everything you have taught them is right and decent, you need at least give them a bullet-proof reason. Not a grab-bag of rationalizations, but an honest reason to kill. Otherwise, you risk creating hollow-eyed vets who can't even answer the question "why". Or you risk creating vets for whom killing is no big deal.

So, I keep asking "why" and I can't come up with a good reason, either by examing what our Fl;s say or what they do. Which means to me that they are willing to damage thousands of young people for no reason whatsover.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Just because an incident (say, shooting a wounded Iraqi) is understandable, perhaps even necessary, does not make it any less of an atrocity. Preventing some deaths does not make the remainder less consequential, both for the Iraqis and for us. I hold the administration entirely responsible. I think that is as close to a common understanding that we are likely to get.

---