Source: http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/06/08/human_rights_group_slams_terror_atrocities/7005/
| | ||
Published: June 8, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Human Rights Watch said it was responding to a claim by the Islamic State of Iraq insurgent group, which claims ties to al-Qaida, that it killed two captive American soldiers.
"If confirmed, this act would constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law and those responsible would be guilty of war crimes," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.
"Those claiming to hold the U.S. soldiers captive must treat the men humanely," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "If they have done otherwise , they have committed war crimes."
The two soldiers -- Spec. Alex Jimenez, 25, and Pvt. Byron Fouty, 19 -- went missing on May 12 when insurgents attacked their patrol near Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad. U.S. troops later discovered the body of Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr., who had disappeared at the same time.
"Customary international law requires that all captured belligerents be treated humanely and provides that the murder or willful killing of a captured belligerent is a war crime," HRW said.
"No matter what the cause, killing captives violates international humanitarian law," said Whitson. "Every party to a conflict is subject to the laws of war, and the requirement to treat captive soldiers humanely is one of the most basic provisions."
The human rights group noted that killing a captive soldier "also violates basic precepts of Islamic law governing the conduct of war, according to most scholars of Islamic law."
9 comments:
I think it was Morgaan who said that the NGOs failed because of fear, its being easier to criticize America because America doesn't behead for dissent or criticism and doesn't kidnap your kids and kill your family.
It's very late for this, but it is welcome. I hope Human Rights Watch will start defending the more than half billion Muslim women who have little, if any, choice about anything.
I think there's been a palpable dishonestly, frankly, among the NGOs. I personally believe them to be hitched at the hip to far-left politics. I believe this to be a conscious choice, as they take as their principle enemy conservatism in Western society. So, this is not merely a case of their being daft as a brush. They court this crocodile in the belief, not only that they might be eaten last, but that they shan't be eaten at all. When someone finally slaps a burqa on every woman in London, perhaps they'll awaken from this deadly sleep. But on balance, I believe they won't awaken before something of such level occurs.
I'll need to see much more of such warnings as HRW issues here -- and in appropriate mathematical balance -- before I believe they have any use whatsoever against radical Islamism. I hold out little hope, actually.
For those who haven't read it, Londonistan is an excellent look at the situation in the UK. More recent movements by the government are encouraging, but we are shockingly (and terrifyingly) behind the curve. There is an interesting notion being floated to reclassify Islamic groups as political organizations rather than religious ones. At least at first blush I think I would support this.
Alastair, the "palpable dishonesty" is incredible noticeable all over the world — until journalists start talking about the deaths of journalists, whose lives have been taken in overwhelming percentages by terrorists, not Western governments. Then they wax eloquent. But there's no question that on a daily basis they confine their criticisms of human rights violations to those they do not physically fear. While this is understandable on some level, the rank anti-Americanism in the press is also an element here, and a very regrettable one.
They are, in fact, attacking the world's best protector of freedom. Indeed those of us on this side of The Pond owe our freedom to the United States. And I think that awareness is beginning to dawn anew in the normally thick-as-a-post Germans and French, who have thrown out their anti-American administrations on the growing realisation that they are about to be completely overwhelmed by radicals in their midst, both on over and covert levels.
Blake ... Yes, Londonistan is excellent. I am also awaiting the final edits on "The Ninth Madabh" which I think is coming up soon. LightFellows is working on it now.
Just a note to all: Amnesty International just changed its position on abortion as a "right for all" from neutral to pro. The Vatican website has a scathing commentary about this.
Jenna. Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately, I think the pro-CEDAW forcse are really blowing this. CEDAW absolutely MUST pass. Oddly, I think that if the Vatican were to support it, it could likely get a few concessions about state support of abortion, effectively ruling it out. Then NGOs would be tasked with coming up for the money to provide abortions on a social, not governmental, basis.
However, the Vatican's concerns notwithstanding, its approach to CEDAW is unacceptable and unexonerable. It has sided with the radical Islamist countries and the United States (which won't sign for purely economic reasons and to mollify the far Christian right).
In doing so, the Vatican has become a supporter of the radical Islamists, the chief human rights abusers on the planet. In doing so, the Vatican has also chosen to remain one of the chief abusers and suppressors of women in the history of the world.
Hullo, Robert ...
Aiden sends his best. I often wonder if the Vatican realises what it is doing, but I suppose it does. Its stranglehold on women's rights is legendary, and the effects of it are everywhere. The overpopulation in Catholic-majority countries and an utter denial of birth control measures to prevent it leads only to extraordinary poverty.
You would think that if Heavenly Father managed a virgin birth for Jesus' initial appearnce He'd be able to effect another for the second. Yet Catholic women everywhere are saddled with having as many children as humanly possibly — and now there is a demographic war with the Muslims going on. It's incredibly frightening, really. With looming population likely to subject billions to poor food and water supplies, and a growing disparity in wealth between developed and nondeveloped countries, entrenched policies of mass birthings to the limit of female endurance are a further threat to world stability in the future.
Greetings, Eleanor ...
The great danger here, as you say, is that the interests of the world's two most populous religions — Islam and Christianity — will push the entire world over the edge. With Islam, the rush to overpeople the world with young Muslims is almost entirely political, as African Muslims do not seem that eager to bring more AIDS- and tuberculosis-plagued children into the world, with now nearly half of the middle generation dead from AIDS. However, political Islam in the Arab countries is hell-bent on wearing out every available woman in the jihad-production machine.
Meanwhile, the shocking attitude of the Vatican towards women as possession of demographic warring and womb-control as a function of religious ideology shows no signs of abating.
Its refusal to back CEDAW as a political principle is, in fact, an attack on freedom per se. Catholics are quite capable of making the choice of following the Holy Father's precepts on matters of reproduction. But that's not enough to satisfy the Vatican on this. Clearly, the Vatican wishes to impose its will on the governments of Catholic-majority countries, effecting abrogating the civil rights of women under the constitutions of same.
The removal of the influence of the Vatican on the passage of CEDAW would accomplish two things — and I will be talking about this in detail in a forthcoming article. The first is that would allow the overwhelmingly NON-reproductive issues of CEDAW to benefit the women of the world immediately. And the second is that it would force a shift of pressure from Catholicism to Islam, which is where the most serious problems really are occurring. I do not say that because I am a Catholic myself, and as Ainen and I have seven children, I think our own views on abortion and birth control are quite clearly demonstrated in real life! But that is a free choice, not a coerced one.
I take the position of criticising the Holy See on this issue because it's continued collusion with Islamic states on the matter of the shocking suppression of women cannot pass any moral or ethical muster on any level.
Post a Comment