US: 500 youths detained in Iraq; 10 in Afghanistan
By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN, Associated Press Writer Mon May 19, 6:17 AM ET
NEW YORK - The U.S. military is holding about 500 juveniles suspected of being "unlawful enemy combatants" in detention centers in Iraq and has about 10 detained in Afghanistan, the United States has told the United Nations.
A total of 2,500 youths under the age of 18 have been detained, almost all in Iraq, for periods up to a year or more in President Bush's anti-terrorism campaign since 2002, the United States reported last week to the U.N.'s Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Civil liberties groups such as the International Justice Network and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) denounced the detentions as abhorrent, and a violation of U.S. treaty obligations. In the periodic report to the United Nations on U.S. compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United States confirmed that "as of April 2008, the United States held about 500 juveniles in Iraq." "The juveniles that the United States has detained have been captured engaging in anti-coalition activity, such as planting Improvised Explosive Devices, operating as lookouts for insurgents, or actively engaged in fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces," the U.S. report said. The majority are believed to be 16 or 17 years old. In the United States a 17-year-old can enlist in the U.S. army, with parental consent. The report said that of the total of 2,500 juveniles jailed since 2002, all but 100 had been picked up in Iraq. Of the remainder, most were swept up in Afghanistan. A total of eight juveniles have been held at the GuantanamoBay detention facility, but all were released from 2004 to 2006. "It remains uncertain the exact age of these individuals, as most of them did not know their date of birth or even the year they were born," the report says. But U.S. military doctors who evaluated them believed that three were under age 16. In Afghanistan, "as of April 2008, there are approximately 10 juveniles being held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility as unlawful enemy combatants," the report said. In Bagram, a U.S. military spokesman, Marine 1st Lt. Richard K. Ulsh, told the AP on Sunday: "At any time there are up to 625 detainees being held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. There are no detainees being held under the age of 16 and, without getting into specifics due to the frequent fluctuation in the number of detainees being held, we can tell you that there are currently less than 10 detainees being held under the age of 18."
Civil liberties groups were outraged.
"It's shocking to me that the U.S. government has not figured out a way to keep children out of adult prisons. It's outrageous, and it is not making us any safer, I can say that about Afghanistan from personal experience," Tina M. Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, said Sunday.
Her group brought lawsuits on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees in 2006, and has taken on the cases of adult detainees in Bagram. She said the U.S. military does not release the names of juveniles it is holding in Bagram, so her group is trying to learn who they are by finding Afghan relatives.
"It is shocking to know that the U.S. is holding hundreds of juveniles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more disturbing that there is no comprehensive policy in place that will protect their rights as children," Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, said in a statement. "Juveniles and former child soldiers should be treated first and foremost as candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not subjected to further victimization." According to the ACLU, the lack of protections and consideration for the juvenile status of detainees violates the obligations of the U.S. under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that the U.S. ratified in 2002, as well as universally accepted international norms. The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child is scheduled to question the U.S. delegation on its compliance with its obligations on May 22 in Geneva. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly in 1989, with backing at the time from the U.S. government of President Bill Clinton, and with strong lobbying from then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who now is competing for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with Barack Obama. ___ Associated Press writer Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report from Kabul, Afghanistan. ___ On the Web: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child questions and U.S. responses: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/CRC.C.OPAC.USA
How could Iraqis, exercising their right to resist enemy aggression and fight foreign occupation, be "Unlawful combatants" on their own homeland? Did they expect the people of Iraq to lay back, welcome their invasion and not fight back?
This rogue outlaw country poses the greatest danger to all nations and is the biggest threat to peace on Earth!
How could Iraqis be "unlawful enemy conbatants?" Perhaps because they aren't representing Iraq at all. That is what an unlawful enemy combatant is. Would you prefer them to be shot outright and dumped in the desert to escape the label of unlawful enemy combatant? They do not represent Iraq because the nation of Iraq has its own elected government with its own military and law enforcement ranks.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
How could Iraqis be "unlawful enemy conbatants?" Perhaps because they aren't representing Iraq at all. That is what an unlawful enemy combatant is. Would you prefer them to be shot outright and dumped in the desert to escape the label of unlawful enemy combatant? They do not represent Iraq because the nation of Iraq has its own elected government with its own military and law enforcement ranks.
What a bunch of ********! A speedy "democratic" election, while the country was in turmoil and the Sunnis were boycotting, hardly qualifies as an elected government, not to mention the fact that it was a "walk-over" for the Shia. But, apart from the propaganda and all the western media hype, Iraq is still run by the religious scholars and the news doesn't look very pretty for U.S. troops. America's concept of law and government went right out the window... to Iran's benefit.
What a bunch of ********! A speedy "democratic" election, while the country was in turmoil and the Sunnis were boycotting, hardly qualifies as an elected government, not to mention the fact that it was a "walk-over" for the Shia. But, apart from the propaganda and all the western media hype, Iraq is still run by the religious scholars and the news doesn't look very pretty for U.S. troops. America's concept of law and government went right out the window... to Iran's benefit.
Did you expect an American style election in Iraq, which hadn't had one in recent memory? Of course it wasn't perfect. Neither was our first election. The point was to get an Iraqi government entity in operation so the Coalition and the Iraqi people would have a goal in mind. Of course that government was going to reflect the Shia majority, and of course religious types have alot of power. Not sure what your point actually is...unless you are pointing to imperfections in the Iraqi political process. Which isn't exactly an epiphany.
The point is why the label "unlawful enemy combatant" is used, and it is because these people do not represent a government entity.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The point is why the label "unlawful enemy combatant" is used, and it is because these people do not represent a government entity.
My point is, there are a lot of those "people" and I also find it extremely insulting to Iraqis in general to have the United States (of all countries) be the ones to determine who is and isn't recognised. It's not that we don't have our own problems. I'm quoting here from the news report I posted... over seventy percent of Americans don't want the war in Iraq - but Bush's policy doesn't recognise them either. If that's the best government we can build in Iraq, a reflection of what we have here - we're not doing the Iraqi people any favors and it's pretty humiliating to think that an Iranian Shiite scholar, not an American president, would be the one who recognises BOTH.
The Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 05-29-2008 at 03:48 PM.
How could Iraqis be "unlawful enemy conbatants?" Perhaps because they aren't representing Iraq at all. That is what an unlawful enemy combatant is. Would you prefer them to be shot outright and dumped in the desert to escape the label of unlawful enemy combatant? They do not represent Iraq because the nation of Iraq has its own elected government with its own military and law enforcement ranks.
Any iraqi fighting an occupied force is a legitimate resistance fighter and NOT a terrorist by UN definition regardless of how much US calls them terrorists or "unlawful combatants". Any government formed UNDER occupation of another nation is ILLEGITIMATE and NOT recognized under UN international law. So the fake puppet gov't you talking about means sh*t to the iraqis. All they see is barbarians oppressing and occupying them and their dogs as the elected crap of iraqi land.
Any iraqi fighting an occupied force is a legitimate resistance fighter and NOT a terrorist by UN definition regardless of how much US calls them terrorists or "unlawful combatants". Any government formed UNDER occupation of another nation is ILLEGITIMATE and NOT recognized under UN international law. So the fake puppet gov't you talking about means sh*t to the iraqis. All they see is barbarians oppressing and occupying them and their dogs as the elected crap of iraqi land.
I would let the Iraqis speak for themselves. No government is universally loved by the populace, but the new Iraqi government is beginning to make real political concessions and the infrastructure is beginning to make a comeback. Its a long hard road.
Some people are so invested in Iraqi chaos...some of them terrorists, some militias...that it wouldn't matter what government was in power. The same goes for people on this forum. Many become invested mentally in Iraqi chaos, where nothing good can or will ever occur in their minds. I hope in 5-10 years, when Iraq is hopefully a fully functioning sovereign state, that all their hard work will finally be recognized.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Not true, and the militias are the voice of the people, in Iraq and in America:
All this government is doing is telling it's people: My way or the highway. That's not how a government works - here or there.
The Ninth Scribe
That is exactly what a strong federal government does. That is what led to the American Civil War however. In any event, militias are not necessarily the voice of the "people". They represent a certain segment of the people. For a government trying to instill some semblance of trust with the Iraqi people, an inability to control civilian militias isn't going to work. Al-Sadr needs to decide whether he wishes to participate in the government politically or try to sieze power through military means. If he chooses the latter the Iraqi government has no choice but to confront him and his militia.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I would let the Iraqis speak for themselves. No government is universally loved by the populace, but the new Iraqi government is beginning to make real political concessions and the infrastructure is beginning to make a comeback. Its a long hard road.
Some people are so invested in Iraqi chaos...some of them terrorists, some militias...that it wouldn't matter what government was in power. The same goes for people on this forum. Many become invested mentally in Iraqi chaos, where nothing good can or will ever occur in their minds. I hope in 5-10 years, when Iraq is hopefully a fully functioning sovereign state, that all their hard work will finally be recognized.
Read the facts buddy, Iraq does NOT have a legtimate government. Under UN international law a nation can NOT form a new government while its UNDER occupation by another nation. All iraq has is a puppet government like many other in the Muslim worlds. Remember iran? The US put Shah in power over there and look what the people did to shah. They are much better off now. Same goes for iraq, they don't want puppets who will let their masters rob iraqis of their oil and other resources. Do you even know that Oil giants have signed 100yr contracts with BIG percentage in their share?
Read the facts buddy, Iraq does NOT have a legtimate government. Under UN international law a nation can NOT form a new government while its UNDER occupation by another nation. All iraq has is a puppet government like many other in the Muslim worlds. Remember iran? The US put Shah in power over there and look what the people did to shah. They are much better off now. Same goes for iraq, they don't want puppets who will let their masters rob iraqis of their oil and other resources. Do you even know that Oil giants have signed 100yr contracts with BIG percentage in their share?
What oil giants would those be?
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I wasn't asking for a wiki article on a neoconservative think tank. What oil giants are actually taking oil out of the ground in Iraq and selling it in the American market? The answer is none. There are several reasons for that, but the most important factor is that it isn't economically viable to do so. Most Iraqi oil finds its way into non-American markets.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I wasn't asking for a wiki article on a neoconservative think tank. What oil giants are actually taking oil out of the ground in Iraq and selling it in the American market? The answer is none. There are several reasons for that, but the most important factor is that it isn't economically viable to do so. Most Iraqi oil finds its way into non-American markets.
Well, there are a thousand formal organizations who contradict your claims and I had to give you the wiki article because the official site was pulled from the net, hardly a surprize considering the heat. However, there is enough critisism of the policies the official site outlined, and naming of the companies who participated on other websites, like this one:
The Iraqi Parliament has before it today, in fact, a bill called the Hydrocarbon Law
If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5's of the petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing "benchmark" Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.
And, of course, the Basra Oil Union's petition from May 1st, 2008:
4) We demand that the US government and others immediately cease lobbying for the oil law, which would fracture the country and hand control of our oil over to multinational companies like Exxon, BP and Shell. We demand that all oil companies be prevented from
entering into any long-term agreement concerning oil while Iraq remains occupied. We demand that the Iraqi government tear up the current draft of the oil law, and begin to develop a legitimate oil policy based on full and genuine consultation with the Iraqi people. Only after all occupation forces are gone should a long term plan for the development of our oil resources be adopted.
I have a very long list of resources, including Mobil Corporation's research of Afghanistan's oil fields (yes, they have them), but what this has to do with Iraqi fighters is anyone's guess.
The Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 05-31-2008 at 04:06 PM.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks