| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| German Soldiers: Take No Prisoners (For The Wrong Reason) |
| 2004-05-21 |
| From the German news agency DPA, by way of The Wall Street Journal: Germany, which joined France in an unsuccessful effort to keep Saddam Hussein in power, is part of the American-led coalition in Afghanistan. But it?s still hard to tell whose side Berlin is on. Get a load of this report from the German news agency DPA: Military lawyers have advised German elite soldiers in Afghanistan not to take prisoners to avoid having to turn them over to US forces, Der Spiegel magazine reported. In its latest issue, the Hamburg-based weekly cited military lawyers as saying that there were "too many open questions" about the Americans? treatment of prisoners, a view now seen as being confirmed in the wake of the revelations of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Mike |
| Posted by:Mike Kozlowski |
| #61 Looks like the Zenster handed TGA the pork chop. |
| Posted by: Harpi 2004-05-22 6:09:14 AM |
| #60 A German soldier handing over a prisoner knowing or suspecting that this prisoner could be tortured or be denied the rights of the Geneva Conventions commits a crime which can land him before the ICC. One last, final comment on this: Supposedly a German prosecutor would have to prove first that a captive had been abused/tortured, before getting a German soldier in trouble. In light of this, didn't the German military lawyers over react in this article? I think that's what offends our American friends on RB. People, including American soldiers (or the entire army), are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Even Aris can agree on that. We have the accusations, now let's have the investigations and prosecutions, if need be. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 9:24:48 PM |
| #59 Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120528,00.html |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 8:35:20 PM |
| #58 Well in America you can be sued for selling a coffee too hot. Still McDonalds and Starbucks are doing a brisk trade. As for following orders, you might want to read THIS |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 8:34:25 PM |
| #57 Bottom line is that your leadership sold you down the river with the ICC. If I were a soldier in a country belonging to the ICC - I'd get out. There is virtually no way that your soldiers can fight a war without the threat of later being convicted for a war crime regardless of whether or not they believed it to be the best right course of action at that time. Accidently shoot a civilian??? Life in jail for you. You should have KNOWN BETTER! Maybe if France and Germany or other ICC members fight each other they can line up, Napolean style, and be sure that their actions aren't subject to future war crimes trials. But since it is the Islamists and terrorists who you will be fighting in the forseeable future, it looks like your soldiers are subject to future prosecution each and every time the enemy holds up a human shield or runs into a mosque. |
| Posted by: anon4716 2004-05-21 8:25:31 PM |
| #56 A German soldier handing over a prisoner knowing or suspecting that this prisoner could be tortured or be denied the rights of the Geneva Conventions commits a crime which can land him before the ICC. This is absurd. If that is the case, then that pretty much cripples the effectiveness of the modern German soldier on the battlefield. In effect the soldier can't fight at all, in fear he will commit a crime. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 8:20:23 PM |
| #55 Well Jen, since you continue to quote things I didn't say, there really is no point in discussing. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 8:08:51 PM |
| #54 Jen, the ICC is of no concern to you, but it is to a German soldier. That's the difference. A German soldier handing over a prisoner knowing or suspecting that this prisoner could be tortured or be denied the rights of the Geneva Conventions commits a crime which can land him before the ICC. "Illegal combattant" or "Enemy of America" doesn't cut it for a German, sorry. These are not acceptable legal definitions. "Prisoner of WAr" is. "Suspected Criminal" is. Both enjoy rights and legal protection. You might not care and be happy with the exemptions you made up for yourself but the military lawyers say the German soldier should care. You might also note that even your closest ally wants his citizens out of Gitmo. Not because the UK loves its Gitmo inmates so much, I guess. The soldiers of the modern German Bundeswehr have been encouraged to NOT blindly following orders when they think they are against the law. This is exactly what sets them apart from the Wehrmacht. We call our soldiers "citizen in uniform". If any superior gave orders to abuse inmates in Abu Ghraib the soldier in question should and actually is obliged to refuse that order. Read up on your own military code. The Geneva Conventions do apply to the inmates of Abu Ghraib, not even the U.S. government, Justice Department or military say otherwise. Any order that violates these conventions MUST not be obeyed. Abu Ghraib was not the deed of 7 rotten apples. And no, blind trust is no good advice for an ally. It's no good advice for anyone. Lack of control led to the abuses of Abu Ghraib. The only person I blindly trust is my wife (and still I check the credit card receipts)! Nobody has challenged the integrity of 2 million American soldiers: what is questioned is the legal no man's land concerning those prisoners the Germans hand over. Do you think the German troops are happy about this? Why would they be on America's side in Afghanistan in the first place? Sorry Jen, America can't make up the rules as it goes along and change them at will. America signed and ratified international treaties and conventions: Pacta sunt servanda. Yes it was a strategic war. Most Pentagon experts would agree with that. I haven't said that it was a wrong strategy. Strategic decisions are not always understood by everyone in time. Which was the first country the U.S. invaded in WW2? If we went by threat urgency only, North Korea and Iran would come first, don't you think? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 7:59:05 PM |
| #53 Allow me another prediction... Michael Moore's future film Underground Torture Chambers At Gitmo opens to standing ovations all across Europe. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 7:40:20 PM |
| #52 I think TGA just made the best possible argument for staying away from things like the ICC bullshit. To go out on a limb here, I will predict that the next European excuse for not "helping" the US in the WoT, or any other military conflict, will be based on the abuse at Abu G. This is not going to go away I'm afraid. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 7:35:43 PM |
| #51 TGA, I'm not going to be deflected by your Aris-like move of latching onto trivia to obscure the obvious ....so just forget the lawyers, forget the propaganda. Jen said it best: Why not, when it's this German policy which is calling the integrity of American soldiers--all 2 million of them--into account? Despite what you read in the media, our public understands that the actions of the few at AG are not representative of our countrymen. We know because the majority of our soldiers are our friends and neighbors - we know what they are like. The German's willingness to so eagerly accept the premise that "we don't know what's going on in there" really says more about your country's recent past than it does about the American people. I'm done with this discussion and I remain offended by your comments. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 7:32:20 PM |
#50 Correction: I meant to say, Oh, yeah--when in doubt, make it a matter of "honor" as if those of us who resent this behavior on the part of the Germans and see no reason why the bad behavior of 7 soldiers "nullifies" the whole American war effort..have no honor, which you brought into it in your comments above. The motto of our servicemen and women is DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY. It is our honor, and that of our soldiers, and precisely our honor that is being called into question by this scorn of Allied enemy detainee policies. If Germany were a person, America should challenge them to a duel. Oh, wait! We already did that in WWI and WWII and we won. We kept the Soviet hordes from you for 50 years, had these same "abusive" troops on your soil for that long, too and conducted 2 airlifts to keep Germany free, but our soldiers are "pigs" who should be distrusted... And we just helped you clean up that Kosovo mess in the last decade, too. Guess those troops were "abusive pigs," too? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-21 7:27:08 PM |
| #49 "Do you know where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is right now? Or has been for the last 12 months?" No. Nor do I care. I know he's in U.S. hands hopefully being interrogated and telling us everything he knows about Al Queda and any planned terrorist attacks. 'Why can't we know? What's his legal status? This may not something that has you and me worried." His legal status is Enemy of America. He became such when he joined an organization that declared war on and attacked America. " A military lawyer has to worry about this if his client may end up before the ICC because he didn't ask." We don't have to worry about the ICC because the United States will never be a party to the ICC for reasons explained here many times. There is no such animal (sorry Mucky!) as "international law." We like our system of criminal justice, which KSS isn't privileged to enjoy not being an American citizen. '"Just trust us" isn't good enough." Actually, if you're truly our ally, it should be. 'We also know that quite a few captured presumed terrorists have been sent to Syria, Jordan or Egypt to be "questioned" there. Don't ask, don't tell." No, I don't know this and I don't know where you're getting this information. But if I were a German soldier handing over somebody to U.S. authorities I would want to know. A soldier is supposed to obey orders, not questions why. This goes double for Germans who used to value Orders and military discipline. Does this mean that this German policy of stabbing American authority in the back goes all the way up the chain of command? "Especially because there were times when Germans didn't want to know. Please don't call that anti-Americanism." There's a saying, TGA--"He who has the gold makes the rules. That would be America, who has the gold, the guns and the leadership here. " And please don't question my high respect for the American military." Why not, when it's this German policy which is calling the integrity of American soldiers--all 2 million of them--into account? "But I will say that the Abu Ghraib pictures have saddened me." Sorry--"Saddened" doesn't cut it as an excuse to change Allied treatment of War detainees. "Exactly because I do NOT expect such a behaviour from Americans." If you didn't and Germans as a whole don't, then we shouldn't be having this problem in the battlefied. And that's a feeling I share with most honorable Americans." Oh, yeah--when in doubt, make it a matter of "honor" as if those of us who resent this behavior on the part of the Germans and see no reason why the bad behavior of 7 soldiers "nullifies" the whole American war effort, which you brought into it in your comments above ( You said, "After all, it wasn't a war to get rid of an imminent threat, but a 'strategic' war of Bush's.") So basically, is the German position "Bush lied. America and her soldiers suck. Disobey them in the theatre of war at will, to the point where any bad guys caught in combat are really "good guys" who should be let go?" |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-21 7:16:32 PM |
| #48 B Can you tell me why German military lawyers (and they are the only ones in question) should have an interest to disseminate anti American propaganda? As for the thumsbscrews... please, the Soviets already had more advanced techniques in 1946. I KNOW SOME OF THEM |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 7:15:24 PM |
| #47 Do you know where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is right now? Or has been for the last 12 months? Who knows? We may have gone all the way with him. No not kill him, but . . . Remember after 9/11 some folks suggested that when we captured bin-Laden we give him a sex-change and make him wear a burka? {Naw} Just imagining the thought. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-21 7:11:12 PM |
| #46 Exactly because I do NOT expect such a behaviour from Americans. And that's a feeling I share with most honorable Americans. We certainly agree on that. Look, I'm not competent to get into the ICC argument - so if that's true then fine - but that's not how it's being presented by OUR press - nor in yours. It's all propaganda to weaken our will and I'm sorry to see you buying into it. As for them "disappearing for a long time", did it ever occur to you that if we just wanted to tighten the thumbscrews and beat it out of them - maybe we wouldn't need to keep them for such a long time. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 7:01:37 PM |
| #45 B I'm not talking abou Abu Ghraib here. Do you know where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is right now? Or has been for the last 12 months? Why can't we know? What's his legal status? This may not something that has you and me worried. A military lawyer has to worry about this if his client may end up before the ICC because he didn't ask. "Just trust us" isn't good enough. We also know that quite a few captured presumed terrorists have been sent to Syria, Jordan or Egypt to be "questioned" there. Don't ask, don't tell. But if I were a German soldier handing over somebody to U.S. authorities I would want to know. Especially because there were times when Germans didn't want to know. Please don't call that anti-Americanism. And please don't question my high respect for the American military. But I will say that the Abu Ghraib pictures have saddened me. Exactly because I do NOT expect such a behaviour from Americans. And that's a feeling I share with most honorable Americans. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 6:54:41 PM |
| #44 You know TGA...I just reread the post that you wrote while I was posting this and it really pisses me off. So ..I'm going to add to my post above the following thought... Perhaps the reason that Germans are so quick to say "we don't know what's going on in there" may have more to do with your own country's past, than with our own. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 6:45:35 PM |
| #43 TGA - the ICC doesn't apply, but the Geneva accords certainly do, and those fighting without uniform, using human shields and fighting from religious places are not covered - no legal reason not to kill them on the spot. Anything else, like leaving them alive to be humiliated by wearing women's underwear on their head is gravy. I agree with you, let's avoid the possibility that they will be humiliated. Interrogate them and kill them one after another. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-21 6:44:47 PM |
| #42 TGA - I respect you and your opinions. I don't know about your ICC argument - but if you say so. However, I am deeply offended by your comments about the prisoners just disappearing as if our army, as a whole, can be characterized by the very few at AG who were clearly "out of control". Jeesh... If you want to dish out such broad bigotry, fine. But don't be surprised when others fire back the same sort of bigotry in your direction. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 6:41:53 PM |
| #41 It's very hard to discuss with someone who deliberately misreads my posts. I have not "endorsed" anything, I said the lawyers are doing their job. And I don't know what goes on in Gitmo and you don't know. The point is, the German soldiers don't know either, yet the captives they hand over might end up there. And the uncertainity about their legal status under U.S. captivity has German military lawyers worried. When those released British inmates gave their story we thought that they were talking nonsense. Given the fact that quite "outlandish" things happened in Abu Ghraib it should at least be allowed to wonder. Would we have believed the tales of any Abu Ghraib inmate without those photos? About Eichmann, yes I'm quite sure. He received a fair trial. The Israelis had every reason not to torture him. And come on now, your remark about me using the word "Jew" instead of Israelis is ridiculous. The Simon Wiesenthal Institute is located in Vienna and not run by Israeli nationals only. I have had quite a few conversations with Simon Wiesenthal and despite all setbacks his "legalistic approach" suffered he still believes in it. Rightfully so. Crimes have to be punished, whether they are "hate crimes" or not: If you create incertainties about proper legal procedures when it comes to terrorists, you open a door. Where do you stop? Insurgents? Presumed insurgents? People rounded up in a razzia? And why stop here? Isn't a child rapist as despicable as a hate crime killer? How about a drug dealer caught in the "War against Drugs"? It's interesting that you put "abuses" in Abu Ghraib in scare quotes btw. "So-called abuses?" Really? What would YOU call them? Fraternity pranks? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 6:38:42 PM |
| #40 "In 1946 the Allies were able to try the German Nazis without resorting to Gitmo or Bagram measures."-- There are no proven "measures" to which you allude that I can discuss with you IRT this thread. The Nazis convicted at Nuremberg were hung, which would be as opposed today by suddenly squeamish Germans as any other U.S. "measures." And it's funny how many Germans "lost" their Nazi uniforms and party membership cards once the Allied soldiers got there. There weren't that many Nazis left to try when we got around to trials. "The Jews did not torture Eichmann when they tried him." Whoa! Quick switch there! Are you sure? Again, Israel was resented for going to South America to hunt Eichmann down and also for putting him on trial and executing him, too for those same ICC-like reasons. "And those Nazis had killed a thousand times more people than the 9/11 terrorists."-- Moral equivalence proving what? That both Nazism and IslamoFascism are evil and wrong? I'll go with that. Whether it's one murder like Nick Berg's or 6 million, it's still a "hate crime" against humanity and should be punished as such. The so-called "abuses" at Abu Ghraib are under investigation and are subject to military discipline, whereas Nazi soldiers never had to answer personally, each and every one of them (not just the Nazi officers and High Command) for the torture and murder of POWs ever. To this day they haven't had to answer. Given your name of True German Ally, the question has to come: If you're truly our ally, then why would you endorse the obstruction of American soldiers handling enemy detainees? The countries of "Old Europe" need to decide if the USA is indeed an ally or an enemy. (And I don't care for the Israelis being called 'the Jews," thank you.) |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-21 6:09:09 PM |
| #39 TGA is right about the jeopardy created by Tranzi institutions. Also bear in mind that it was American strategy to demilitarize both the German and Japanese cultures after WW2. A strategy supported by France, Russia and China, but opposed by the British. To a significant degree the USA is reaping what it has sown with Germany and Japan. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-21 6:05:44 PM |
| #38 Given the fact the British lefties already dream about hauling Blair before the ICC does not exactly lift morale. Yeah. We'll give him exile here if the far left in the UK trys anything. We owe him. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-21 5:58:09 PM |
| #37 BigEd, restraint yes, sympathies not, and you know that. In 1946 the Allies were able to try the German Nazis without resorting to Gitmo or Bagram measures. The Jews did not torture Eichmann when they tried him. And those Nazis had killed a thousand times more people than the 9/11 terrorists. And yes, BigEd, I have looked my torturers in the eyes, too. And still, I always wanted them to be tried according to the law and nothing but the law. "Extralegal" solutions will hurt ourselves in the end. Once you open the floodgates, there is no stopping. That's something Simon Wiesenthal was always aware of. And I admire him for his restraint. It must have been painful for him, too. And still is. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 5:55:31 PM |
| #36 You're right--TGA. I probably don't understand the difference between Nazis and Germans today. Is there a difference? To change from the biggest warmongers, killers and Jew haters that the world has ever seen to the most "pacifist," craven and whiny welfare junkies (although Hitler did nationalize everything) is quite a trick. But the fact still remains that there is deep hatred for America--because of our support of Israel and for beating them in WWII--which surfaces, as here, as contempt, arrogance and moral superiority. No matter how much "change" has occurred in the Weasel Powers' psyche, they have no cause to take the "moral high ground" and certainly not in the present case. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-21 5:54:48 PM |
| #35 Rafael, this is something I don't know. We haven't had photos out of Bagram, Gitmo, Diego Garcia yet. I certainly hope that abuse is not widespread. But the German reluctance isn't so much explained with possible abuse but the doubtful legal status those captives enjoy. The U.S. has said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to those captured in Afghanistan. This is a much easier position to defend if you are immune to ICC prosecutions. The German soldiers are not. You might want to read the sentence in question again: "Military lawyers have advised German elite soldiers in Afghanistan not to take prisoners to avoid having to turn them over to US forces." Nowhere is it said that this is an order of the German government. It's a lawyers duty to advise his client of any posible legal problem that may arise. You can hardly qualify the Bundeswehr as "anti-American". Well Jen, I did not say that. Blair conceded that people arguing against the war had valid points (not that he shared them). The Bush administration has never even entertained the idea that people arguing against the war could have valid points. Jen if you don't understand the difference between Nazis and Germany of 2004, there is little to argue. And Rafael, I'm not entertaining any idea about abuse. I just say that I don't know. The German troops who hand over suspects to the Americans do not know what happens to them after that. And this has the military lawyers worried. Those lawyers are just doing their job. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 5:47:06 PM |
| #34 And people turned over to Americans have a tendency to disappear for a long time without anyone knowing what happens to them. Yeah - TGA Think about this - Try having restraint when one has images of fully fueled jets flying into tall building killing 3000 people. Try to have sympathy for the "disappeard" who may have had something to do with that albeit proiferally or other ambushes of soldiers. Try to have sympathy for some yokels in a Baghdad prison who were involved in the insurgency, then abuse gets proven only due to some radish-brained MP who has a digital camera. A plague on everyone there. Look - Whatever Germans past - And they must not forget the evil of 1933-1945 - But they must not dwell on it. This is the 21st century. My Grandfather immigrated from Germany. His cousins did not. After his death, letters were discovered with photos of his cousin in a Luftwaffe uniform in 1937. The contortions of my Father and aunt trying to expalain the photo to me and their embarassment I never forgotten. Germany made a shattering choice for evil in 1933, but the growth they had achieved since 1945 took gigantic backsteps with the intrangisence on Iraq last year. Roadblocks put up especially by France and Germany delayed our effort in Iraq making things more complicated. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-21 5:32:53 PM |
| #33 And people turned over to Americans have a tendency to disappear for a long time without anyone knowing what happens to them. So you're seriously entertaining the idea that abuse is widespread in American prisons? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 5:28:34 PM |
| #32 Addendum: Hasn't the Left used that "Bush said 'imminent threat' lie just about enough?!? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-21 5:21:36 PM |
| #31 OIF was undertaken, for one reason, because Iraq was a growing threat and needed to be taken care of, with its WMDs and Islamist dictator, BEFORE it became an imminent threat. Check President Bush's SOTU for the wording. Blair had no problem with invading Iraq either. Check his speeches--I have NEVER heard him "concede" that Iraq wasn't a growing threat that had to be taken care of. And the Nazis didn't treat their POWs too well either. I imagine our soldiers had a motto: "Don't get taken prisoner." What is offensive here is that Germans are presupposing that we mistreat prisoners, branding us as Guilty before anything's been proven. I'll bet Germany's not too happy with the US refusal to join the ICC, either. Too bad--Schade. This is just another excuse for the Weasel Powers--who were happily and enrichingly in bed with Saddam--to drive in the international knife again and make America look like the "bad guys." Pure and simple. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-21 5:17:55 PM |
| #30 And yes, anon, you are another candidate who needs to think twice before posting. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 5:07:54 PM |
| #29 B where have I said that I am ok with the German government? I guess most Rantburgers know that I'm not. But when it comes to war Germans are burnt. That explains the caution that may in this case be exaggerated. Yet German soldiers are subject to the ICC, so maybe don't be too fast to blame them. Given the fact the British lefties already dream about hauling Blair before the ICC does not exactly lift morale. And people turned over to Americans have a tendency to disappear for a long time without anyone knowing what happens to them. "We didn't know" was not an excuse for the ovens, if memory serves me right. Assuming that America is ALWAYS right, no questions asked, isn't either. "Trust, but verify", who said that again? Rafael, I was just refuting your logic, not defending Schroeder. At least the urgency of invasion can be a matter of debate. Even Tony Blair conceded that. Saddam may have become a danger in a few years, in 2003 the danger he posed was very limited. The war was a strategic decision, not one taken to avert an imminent threat to the U.S. And strategies are ALWAYS a matter of debate. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 5:05:28 PM |
| #28 So unless you believe that we can't find 8 or so individuals in your country cough *Aushwitz* Gezundheit! |
| Posted by: anon 2004-05-21 4:48:39 PM |
| #27 TGA, it is easy to understand that you outraged by the "oven" slur and you've made your point about loving Sadaam v/s fighting to rid him. Soo...you are outraged by one individual's slur on a blog re: the ovens, but you are ok with a Government santioned slur of our entire army, based on the actions of a few who were already under investigation for misdeeds when the story broke. So unless you believe that we can't find 8 or so individuals in your country that would beat up some prisoners in a war zone, maybe you should get a mirror and think twice about who should really be most offended. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 4:42:18 PM |
| #26 concerned that its friend, the United States, was committing a grave mistake Call me a cynic, but it would be easier to digest if you simply relied on the argument of self-interest: "Germany didn't support the war for fear of terrorist attacks on its home territory (the EU)", or the more probable, "our economy might hit the proverbial fan". It's well and good to disagree about measures and risks, but first you must have some alternative measures to speak of. Status quo was not acceptable in the wake of 9-11. Surely Europe must've realized that? If not, then they missed the ball. Instead they decided to stick their foot out while the US was doing the 100m dash. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 4:41:30 PM |
| #25 Carl, I think your example fits France closer than Germany. The major reason for Schroeder was popularism: War was impopular, opposing it helped him win the election, and since he had destroyed most bridges behind him he didn't have much leverage when France started its anti-American game. But Schroeder didn't make an effort to keep Saddam in power (He had little interest in that, the German stakes in Iraq were low.) And unlike France Germany never had any reason for wanting the United States to fail. Even Schroeder understood that a US failure in Iraq would have catastrophic consequences for Europe. The French government found the American black eye more interesting. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 4:39:44 PM |
| #24 TGA, I disagree with you. Would you accept a compromise of "Opposed the effort by the US to oust Saddam Hussein from power by military means, in order to give the US a black eye ?" It might reflect the situation a bit more, but I certainly reject any assertion Germany had honorable motives. (such as is implied with the drunk friends and car keys analogy) |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2004-05-21 4:26:32 PM |
| #23 No I think your argument is still flawed. If Japan decided to forcibly remove Kimmie (and risking a nuclear conflict by that) and the U.S. tried to stop Japan, that wouldn't imply that the U.S. want Kimmie to remain in power. It's just a disagreement about the measures and risks involved. How about the U.S. backing the "One China Policy"? Does that mean that the U.S. betray the only Chinese democracy that exists up to now? No, it's just realpolitik at work. You know I have not defended the position of the German government. But let's assume the German government was concerned that its friend, the United States, was committing a grave mistake, it seems ok to me to do more than just say "I don't agree". If you have a friend who is about to get into a car drunk, you don't say, "hey you shouldn't drive". You snatch his keys and call a taxi. The motives of Schroeder were probably less honorable. But I will not accept the notion that Germany made an "effort to keep Saddam in power". Looking at the latest Bush ratings you could say that "Germany made an effort to keep Bush in power". Ok, you got the joke, I guess. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 4:03:01 PM |
| #22 Do you see this as an "effort to keep them in power"? If Americans actively opposed Japan's efforts to forcibly remove Kimmie, as an example, then yes, I would say Americans are exerting effort to keep him in power. Unless you are denying that Germany played an active role in trying to stop the war. In which case we have no argument. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 3:47:00 PM |
| #21 Sorry Rafael, that's a flawed argument. And there are at least ten dictators the U.S. do not intend to oust just yet by waging war. Do you see this as an "effort to keep them in power"? What about Kimmie? I bet you don't see an "eefort to keep him in power" because U.S. troops from South Korea are transferred to Iraq, right? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 3:36:18 PM |
| #20 all the focus on Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with actually caring about abuses. The Washington Post, the offical organ of, "Kerry for President" |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-21 3:24:39 PM |
| #19 Germany would have done nothing to remove Saddam from power, so in effect their statement is correct. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 3:14:46 PM |
| #18 "joined France in an unsuccessful effort to keep Saddam Hussein in power" This btw is not a sentence I would expect from the WSJ. I have yet to meet a German who wanted to "keep Saddam in power". That includes Schroeder. Germany was against a war to achieve that. They could as well argue that Germany wants to keep Bush in power because the Bundeswehr doesn't invade Washington to oust him. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 2:55:03 PM |
| #17 One solution is to hand over jurisdiction over what prisons exist in Afghanistan to Germany. Uh-huh. Anyone ready to hold up Germany as the model of modern day jurisprudence? Before you answer--what sentence did the murderer/cannibal from Germany get? 8 1/2 years. There is no such thing as guilt in Germany. It's Stuart Smalley land. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-05-21 2:20:26 PM |
| #16 Aris: No one cares about abuses of power in the German army or any army other than the US army, because the purpose of all the focus on Abu Ghraib has nothing to do with actually caring about abuses. |
| Posted by: virginian 2004-05-21 2:16:46 PM |
| #15 As much as I like RB, I wish some posters thought twice before publishing a comment. Preview is your friend, not just for correcting typos. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-05-21 1:51:57 PM |
| #14 Well viewers, this is a catch and release battlefield. This helps ensure that future generations of soldiers have jihadis to catch. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-05-21 1:42:20 PM |
| #13 Enough for what? It's enough for me to trust that *if* it happens agains, and *if* it is known and (even more so) photographed, then the people involved will be again prosecuted. But enough for me to trust it won't happen again by other people? Enough for the German army to trust that? Enough for me to trust it may not still be happening by prison officers that are a bit more careful not to take photographs of their crimes? No, it's not enough. I, ofcourse, don't know what kind of system the German army has to check and stop such abuses of power. Perhaps it's even more ineffective than the American army's system -- but so far it has atleast not been proven so. All the more reason to allow Red Cross surprise inspections and stuff like that in every detention facility. So, when you ask "Is that not enough for you?" you'll also have to specify enough for what. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-21 12:47:48 PM |
| #12 Fuck you Aris. Let me point something out to you: the people who did the abusing are being prosecuted. Is that not enough for you? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 12:37:45 PM |
| #11 It does seem a problem when one power can't trust its allies to treat prisoners humanely. One solution is to hand over jurisdiction over what prisons exist in Afghanistan to Germany. And have no prisoner transferred to Gitmo instead ofcourse. "Just shooting them so the poor Jihadi murderers don't have to endure being humiliated with sanitary napkins on their heads?" So they won't have to be raped or sodomized with phosphoric lights either. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43783-2004May20?language=printer |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-05-21 12:31:09 PM |
| #10 So what do they advise? -Letting them go so they can continue to kill others? -Giving them to the Afghans, who will no doubt treat them soooo much better? -Just shooting them so the poor Jihadi murderers don't have to endure being humiliated with sanitary napkins on their heads? Stooopid. |
| Posted by: B 2004-05-21 9:41:57 AM |
| #9 That would be Lidice if I'm not mistaken Jarhead. Nasty business that. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-05-21 8:07:58 AM |
| #8 And here I've always heard "take no prisoners" as a textbook example of an illegal order. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-21 6:47:55 AM |
| #7 A beautiful thought for a Friday morning. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-05-21 6:13:25 AM |
| #6 Howard, SS would treat Fallujah as they did that town that no longer exists in Czech - down to the last cobblestone. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-05-21 6:05:28 AM |
| #5 I never thought I'd say this in a million years but bring back The Wehrmacht a la 39-45 - any help appreciated and all that. I'd like to have seen what the SS would have done with Fallujah. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-05-21 4:42:51 AM |
| #4 So if I was in the German Army, I would just capture they jihadis shooting at me, count four Mississippi's and let them go? Just issue them paint ball guns and get it over with. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-05-21 4:31:09 AM |
| #3 No, this is the new and improved German army. They try not to kill anyone. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 2:43:08 AM |
| #2 does this "take no prisoners" edict mean the german soldiers will capture the jihadis and place them in ovens on the spot in keeping with their historical traditions |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-05-21 2:33:56 AM |
| #1 joined France in an unsuccessful effort to keep Saddam Hussein in power LOL. Hilarious. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-05-21 2:24:49 AM |