Friday, March 28, 2003 :::
A story you might have missed because of the war:
10 year old NJ boy molests a 3 year old boy, then beats him to death with a baseball bat.
With all the news of war going on, this story is expected to slip under the radar. It really shouldn't though- the facts of the case are nothing short of shocking. We may be worried about terrorists, or Saddam's weapons, but the real cause for concern is that a 10 year old boy in this country is capable of murder. Further facts- the 10 year old's father, a blind man, was "likely" abusing his son. Gee, you think? 10 year olds don't naturally do what this kid did. I'm certain he was being abused.
This war with Iraq is costing us billions of dollars ($75 billion, for a start), and I can't help but think that some of that money would be better served going towards social services that do something about our problems in our own backyard. We reap what we sow, I guess.
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:27 PM
Wednesday, March 26, 2003 :::
Albatross Perch fanmail:
Ahhhh.....college students! Museums of mush. Liberals are like children that don't understand the word is dangerous. They don't understand why we hit their hands away right as they are about to touch a hot stove. They dont understand why we (conservatives) get upset when a man (Saddam) in a van drives by and tries to coax them (liberals) inside with candy (negotiations). Nothing good can come from a man trying to get a child into a van. Liberals dont understand that those same dangers lurk on a global scale.
A valid point, but somewhat simplified. I'll agree that we can't back down from military action at this point, which is distressing. I was never fully convinced before we began military action in Iraq that Saddam was a direct threat to the United States. One could argue that our military aggression puts America in more danger.
Thanks for writing, and keep sending me your comments.
::: posted by Andrewski at 11:09 PM
News... On the March!
You've got to be kidding me... 8,000 "captured" Iraqi soldiers aren't so captured after all. Apparently while the newspapers touted these massive surrenders as a hopeful sign that our military action in Iraq was going smoothly, the truth was that the soldiers were allowed to "melt away", go home, rearm, and come back to fight. According to the story, they're now engaging British troops. (Note the "blurred effect" on the faces of captured Iraqis in the picture. We wouldn't want to subject them to public curiosity, would we?)
For a slideshow that will really break your heart, check out this NY Times series of photos of "Children and the War". You'll see Iraqi kids happily getting candy from troops, a little girl bandaged up in an Iraqi hospital ("collateral damage"), and other images that remind us of the human side of our military actions. To view the pictures, go to the NY Times main page, and scroll down to "Slideshows".
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:07 AM
Monday, March 24, 2003 :::
Another Update: The reason for my confusion was that there are actually multiple iterations of the Geneva Convention. This one makes no mention of "public curiosity" in Article 13, because it pertains to Wounded and Sick in the Field (Convention I). This one is about treatments of POWs (Convention III). Convention II is about Wounded and Sick at Sea, Convention IV is about Protecting Civilians during War.
Remember the Al-Qaida detainees at Guantanimo Bay that were being held post-9/11? Rumsfeld cited Article 13 of the Geneva Convention back then, too. Here's a radio transcript from January 2002 discussing Rumsfeld and the Geneva Convention.
The best example of something like what you're referring to that I can think of goes back to those American pilots who were captured by the Iraqis during the Gulf War. They were paraded on Iraqi television and forced to make confessions on Iraqi television. Now that to me would count as a violation of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention.
-Michael Byers, Int'l Law Professor at Duke University
::: posted by Andrewski at 2:08 AM
Correction: Article 13 of the Geneva Convention states:
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
Public curiosity is close enough to "broadcast on TV". Rumsfeld is right, Andrew is wrong. Thanks to Rory (The Angry Clam) for pointing this out to me.
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:57 AM
About those captured POWs:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went on CNN to talk to Wolf Blitzer about the current state of the war. During that interview, he said that the Iraqis are in violation of the Geneva Convention for airing footage of the American POWs on Al-Jazeera television. Here's what Rummy said:
RUMSFELD: What I'm saying is that it's a violation of the Geneva Convention for the Iraqis to be -- if, in fact, that's what's taking place, to be showing prisoners of war in a humiliating manner.
Now, I'm just a college student and Rummy is the Secretary of Defense, but I did a little research and I couldn't find anything in the Geneva convention about "showing prisoners of war in a humiliating manner". According to the document, which can be found here in its entirety, the Geneva Convention only protects POWs from:
"wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
In other words, nothing about "humiliating" POWs by showing their images on TV.
Is this psychological war? Big time. They are showing those five captured POWs with the intent to make America lose faith, grow scared, grow upset. Saddam and his regime weren't too concerned with abstaining from torture during times of peace. I shudder to think of what they're doing to those POWs in times of war. If I were Rumsfeld, I wouldn't be worried that the showing of the captured troops on camera is the violation of the Geneva Convention- I would be far more worried about what is happening to them off camera.
One of the five captured soldiers is a woman. It seems likely that she would be raped and abused by her captors. The men are likely going to be tortured.
Good Lord, what a price we're paying for this war.
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:50 AM
Sunday, March 23, 2003 :::
If Saddam had a blog, it would probably look like this.
::: posted by Andrewski at 8:59 PM
I hope everyone is enjoying their Spring break.
Meanwhile, we're at war. Some items of notable interest:
Time Magazine writes about what "shock and awe" really means in terms of effectiveness, and covers the final hours before Bush gave the command to go ahead with "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
According to the Washington Post, five American soldiers have been taken captive by Iraqis. Al Jazeera television beamed images and interviews with the captive soldiers, as well as footage of dead U.S. soldiers, all over the Arab world. It's terrible stuff, sickening. My greatest fear is that we'll see a lot more of this before all is said and done.
And to lighten the mood just a little, The Onion presents "Gulf War II: The Vengeance"
::: posted by Andrewski at 1:56 PM
