|Just had a thought...
||[Jul. 2nd, 2005|05:40 pm]
The military has control of this building, right? Not Abu Ghraib, or anything, just *a building*. Any old building, in any part of the world. But it could be in Iraq... it just doesn't have to be.
They have not, repeat, *HAVE NOT* been given orders to ignore activities of people who are not in the military chain of command. I mean, just anyone not in the chain of command. I don't mean, oh, the CIA, for example. I just mean a bunch of civilians.
These other poeple, who aren't the CIA necessarily, commit acts that are violations of the Geneva Conventions. I don't necessarily mean capturing people, and holding them without word, and maybe torturing them, maybe even to death in some circumstances.
I just mean, the military knows that some definite Geneva Convention no-nos are being performed in *A BUILDING* that is officially under military control. Being performed by non-military personnel. Not the CIA, but, hey, it *could* be. This is, after all, just an example, a f'r instance. But these people *are* Americans.
They know about this. Aren't they supposed to stop these Geneva Convention no-nos?
I mean, if they didn't, would that be rock solid proof that they've been given orders from high up *not* to?
I mean, if they said in official, non-secret military reports that they knew about these things? (Because, see, that means these things are so well known, and so not-a-secret, that they couldn't plead lack of knowledge.)
Because, you see, I've been thinking hard about this. The CIA is not a DOD agency. They're not in the military chain of command. They *can't* order the military around. Not without a higher authority. At least, not as I understand it.
And while the military can't order the CIA around (similar reasons: no chain of command), I thought the military was under an obligation to stop violations of the Geneva Conventions. I mean, sure, if they had something else they *had* to do, they'd have to do that, first. But they had plenty of time for, shall we say, "photo ops", so I think they had time and resources. So, am I right or wrong? They would be under an obligation to stop these violations...
Unless they'd been given orders not to do so.
Does anyone know (I mean *KNOW* - you can point to regs that say so) if I'm right or wrong? Or know if talking to a JAG could set me straight?
Because suddenly, I'm awfully curious.