Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Enemy Combatants?

Comment posted on my Blog Page on the TPM Cafe on Wed. Sep 21 at 09:35 CET

What is the definition of "Enemy Combatants"? Does it apply in this case?


According to UK authorities, coalition forces detained by Iraqi authorities must be handed over to the US-led multinational force. The Defence Minister John Reid insisted that Iraq's interior minister had ordered the release of the two British soldiers - Baghdad authorities have not confirmed this - and that failure to comply with that order had prompted the military action."

Remember that earlier in this piece it said:

Alan Simpson, of the left-wing Campaign Group of Labour MPs, said: "The message is this: it is the time to go. It is a horrible mess, worse than Northern Ireland because no one pretends that this is our country. When you get army personnel dressed as Arabs armed with automatic weapons, everyone will see this as the role of agent provocateurs. It has just ripped our credibility into tatters. Tony Blair should bring an end to this chaos."

And this:

"The questions raised in Basra


Two British SAS soldiers, apparently in Arab clothing and wearing wigs, were arrested while allegedly conducting a surveillance operation on Iraqi police.When challenged, the soldiers are believed to have fired on a police patrol, killing one officer. A British delegation was dispatched to the police station where they were being held to negotiate their release. Tensions rose after no progress was made, and British Army officials claim they had reason to believe the soldiers had been handed over to a local Islamic militia."

Under the Bush-Blair war of terrorism doctrine these are "Enemy Combatants". They were not in British Army uniform and they were found on the battle arena with guns, weapons, etc.

The Iraqis had the right to hold them incommunicado, put them in Guantanamo type holdings, torture them to their heart's content, treat them degradingly, and ship them to places where they could be further tortured!

Could they not?

Or do double standards apply here also?



Post a Comment

<< Home