Ok, I'll start the thread....

MrsSkywalker

Newcomer
I figured someone would have started this one up already. Guess I get first say on the issue! The following is an excerpt from an article on MSNBC, but really, you should have all heard the story already.

“TWELVE U.S. service members are reported missing,” said Lt. Gen. John Abizaid at a Sunday press conference at Central Command headquarters in Doha, Qatar. Abizaid characterized the fighting near Nasiriyah, northwest of Basra, as “the sharpest engagement of the war thus far.”
Al-Jazeera said the prisoners were captured around Nasiriyah, a major crossing point over the Euphrates River 233 miles southeast of Baghdad, near the ancient town of Ur, birthplace of the patriarch Abraham. U.S. Marine Corps sources told NBC News that overnight a convoy of Army vehicles with 31 soldiers took a wrong turn and drove through the southern Iraqi city. When they tried to turn back, they were confronted with an Iraqi ambush.
Iraqi television filmed the bodies and prisoners, saying they fell into Iraqi hands during a battle at the town of Souq al-Shuyukh, southeast of Nasiriyah, where U.S. forces have encountered stiff resistance.
The video showed two rooms each containing what appeared to be two separate groups of four bodies in uniforms, Reuters reported.
The bodies, mostly still fully clothed but some with shirts pulled up, were shown on the floor in pools of blood. In the first room, at least two had wounds to the head, and another had a groin wound. In another room, an Iraqi uncovered more bodies, some with blackened faces.
At least five prisoners, speaking American-accented English, were interviewed. Two were bandaged. Those interviewed included one woman. Two of the prisoners identified their unit only as the 507th Maintenance.

:devilish:
The poor treatment of the POWs doesn't surprise me. Hell, he treats his own people worse! What totally angers me is the television stations who are continually airing this, in countries that are supposed to be our allies!! I haven't seen it on any of the news stations I have been watching (FOXNews, CNN, ABC, and NBC) and I hope to God that all of our stations have respect enough not to air it...at least not the parts which show our brave men lying in their own pools of blood.

:devilish: This exploitation really pisses me off!!! :devilish:
 
Hmm, I feel the other way ... cant really be bothered by showing casualties. Sure it was released as propaganda, but the press has never been shy of showing bodies before and it is part of the reality of war. The interviews however are illegitimate, meant to give the impression of the prisoners of war as hostages.
 
Apparently, if you REALLY want to see the video that was broadcast on Al Jazeera its available on kazaa. Not suprising since the Daniel Pearl video showed up there also.

I saw one picture on the Al Jazeera website and that was enough for me.
 
ya, they had that crap on the front page of the drudge report. i would have been more pleased if they would have just presented editorial cometary and gave to option to click links to get to the pictures. :?
 
Major Bancroft found US units had inadvertently supplied inmates with firewood that contained 10-inch nails, and given them petrol to start fires. "Nails were being used to make spears, and petrol was being turned into Molotov cocktails."

Um, what. Were the troops then supposed to allow the prisoners to stab them and set them on fire? I don't get what you are trying to point out with this article.

In one case, he saw a prisoners' representative addressed as "You slant-eyed, yellow bastard."

On one occasion, he saw an American soldier mistreat a wounded North Korean officer. "The US driver removed the prisoner's hat, stripped it of its badge of rank, and literally flung the prisoner into the ambulance ... this was the first of many occasions I witnessed US troops violating the Geneva convention."

Interesting that this article was written to highlight US atrocites towards POWs 50 years ago and the worst thing the guy could come up with is some pushing and name calling. Yes, they are violations of the Geneva convention if the prisoners are behaving...but I am not sure if the convention allows for intervention when the prisoners are stabbing and burning the captors?? Anyone know? If someone's coming after me with a molatov cocktail in one hand and a bayonet in the other, you can bet your sweet bibby that I'd shoot 'em...Geneva Convention be damned!

Also interesting about this article is the next to last paragraph.

As to the North Koreans' behaviour, Major Bancroft was even more shocked. "Their cruelty is beyond belief. Normal torture was to hang offenders to the ridgepole of a tent by their testicles. Water hoses were put in offenders' mouths so they drowned."

:oops: So the guy thought it was worse that the US pushed hostile prisoners than the North Koreans hanging prisoners by their testicles?

Look, the US soldiers shouldn't have acted like that, but this article was clearly written to make the US look like the biggest assholes in the world. The North Koreans were hanging men by their testicles for cryin out loud!! And that only got an "oh by the way".

As to the Vietnam article, even the guy who wrote it has no idea what exactly was in that camp. Although, he himself says that when he radioed HQ he told them that it looked like a major control center. That would be a target in any war. The point is, we don't know. He doesn't know. The government probably doesn't even know. They were sent in to look for a base, they found the base, then the base was bombed. If there were POWs there, then it was a tragedy. But what if there weren't? What if the US decided not to bomb it right then, then later that night they launched a massive offensive at the US camp. The only ones who know what were in that camp were the ones who died in the bombing.

I am not saying that the US has clean hands. We have our share of rogue soldiers who take it upon themselves to make the enemy pay. Every government has such soldiers...right or wrong, it's the nature of the beast. When you have hundreds of thousands of troops, you're going to have a couple of bad apples. What I was saying is that I am disgusted with the countries airing the footage of our deceased military personel...footage that demoralizes those who gave their lives for others. The torture was disgusting, but exploiting it is just as bad.
 
Not to sday we shouldnt hold even backward countries like Iraq to our own standards but is anyone surprised by this? Iraq wont misstreat them too much as they want as many of them captured alive for their own propaganda purposes. So I for one am not too worried about this aspect5 of the war. We should really keep our attention on the war for baghad as this is what itll sum up to in a few days. How this will be handled may mean few new casualties or a massacre...
 
One thing that was mentioned in the earlier versions of the article that has since been removed:

Iraq is not the only country parading POWs around on TV.

Its amazing that NOW Rumsfield cares so much about the statements of the Geneva convention, because before today's statement one would have been hard-pressed to believe he had ever read them, based on his past actions
 
That's a bunch of crap. We don't have anything like "state run TV" like they do in Iraq, which is nothing but progaganda.

I've been consumed with watching TV 24/7, and one of the networks had an Arab American dude watch all of the Arabic networks today, to get a sense as to what they were reporting. I know this is going to come as a major shock, but to say that Al Jazeera is biased is an understatement.

I realize you're probably referring to the enemy combatants that were detained in Cuba. There are 2 major distinctions. For one, the networks that did show footage were NOT US government TV networks. For two, those people are NOT POW's. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are not considered military/uniformed soldiers, and as such, are not bound by the same regulations. That's besides the point...
 
Clashman said:
Its amazing that NOW Rumsfield cares so much about the statements of the Geneva convention, because before today's statement one would have been hard-pressed to believe he had ever read them, based on his past actions
Well said.

This Iraq TV broadcast probably are against articles 13 and 14 of Geneva Convention.
 
(I should know better than to join a discussion like this.....)

If the leaders of the US were so concerned about the Geneva convention they should have classified all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as POWs so they get to see the same "benefits" as the US expects it's own troops to receive. Doesn't anyone think that it is a bit strange that some/many prisoners the US took in Afghanistan were denied POW status so that they can be interned and questioned at will?

I'm not saying that the Iraqis can treat their prisoners any way they want (or use that as a justification is any way, shape or form), but seeing the leaders responsible for similar things being "upset" and "enraged" by this is just too much. This is a pretty blatant case of double standards on the part of the US leadership IMO.

Edit: Doh.... Typedef already "addressed" this point. Not that I agree, but I don't think he'll agree with me either. :)

That said, very little will help the poor souls on the ground now except either a prisoner exchange or a rescue team. I hope they get out of this with no more than a couple of bruises and a bad memory, although it seems already too late for some of them. :(
 
I was referring both to what has happened in Afghanistan as well as the parading of soldiers newly captured in this Gulf War.

And the fact that it is Iraqi TV versus ABC News or Fox News or CNN doesn't matter, (above and beyond the fact that 90% of the war coverage in this country comes as direct quotes from U.S. Military officials), as it was stated that:

International Committee of the Red Cross spokeswoman Nada Doumani said the showing of the prisoners on television violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity. She added that the current priority is to gain access to them.

It is the creating a public spectacle out of their defeat by parading them on TV that is against the Geneva conventions, and we have done that just as much as Iraq has.
 
If the leaders of the US were so concerned about the Geneva convention they should have classified all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as POWs so they get to see the same "benefits" as the US expects it's own troops to receive. Doesn't anyone think that it is a bit strange that some/many prisoners the US took in Afghanistan were denied POW status so that they can be interned and questioned at will?

A few points that will enrage the majority of the board members, I'm sure.
1. The terrorist group Al-Qeada has never been recognized as an official governing body, or formally associated with any recognized governing body, therefore...
2. We cannot declare war on it. The "War on Terrorists" was media propeganda, just like the "War on Drugs". It's just a term to get the country riled up for a cause.
3. The detainees are not prisoners of war because the combatants acted against their country of origin's rules, regulations and laws, therefore are a militia group associated with no country. The Geneva convention does not protect terrorists, it protects military personel.
4. If you think that living in Guantanimo Bay receiving free meals, free medical treatment and free housing is worse than living in a cave in the desert mountains of Afghanistan, then you're just plain old nuts. They made a stink as a last ditch attempt to rally support for them...I guess it worked. My heart is NOT going to bleed for a group of terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 citizens from all over the world. And you actually want to come on the board and cry for injustices committed against THEM?? They are murders. They have no military aspirations...they only want to kill. They aren't prisoners of war, they are merely prisoners.

As far as the war goes, the Iraqi POWs are getting food, water, shelter, medical treatment...things that have been denied to them by their own government. And the TV coverage of them is from the embedded press when they happen to be there for a surrender. In all the footage, and you cannot dispute this, the POWs are being treated with the utmost respect. The detainment camps are not being shown, no interrogations have been aired and I have yet to see an American soldier hold up an Iraqi corpse, flop it around a bit, then throw it to the floor! We are not in violation of the Geneva convention in any way.
 
And the fact that it is Iraqi TV versus ABC News or Fox News or CNN doesn't matter

It most certainly DOES matter. The Geneva convention applies to military personel, not civilians. The embedded media representatives are civillians, not affiliated with the military. A civillian CANNOT violate the Geneva convention, and the US press showing the footage doesn't violate it either.
 
If the government allows it, when they could prevent it however...

Freedom of the press though, it's never a simple solution.

PS: Pretty sure the Geneva concention covers civvies in some respect though but generally protecting them as non-combatants.
 
MrsSkywalker said:
A few points that will enrage the majority of the board members, I'm sure.
1. The terrorist group Al-Qeada has never been recognized as an official governing body, or formally associated with any recognized governing body, therefore...
2. We cannot declare war on it. The "War on Terrorists" was media propeganda, just like the "War on Drugs". It's just a term to get the country riled up for a cause.
3. The detainees are not prisoners of war because the combatants acted against their country of origin's rules, regulations and laws, therefore are a militia group associated with no country. The Geneva convention does not protect terrorists, it protects military personel.

Actually, the Geneva convention protects civilians and non-combatant military personell. Military personell engaged in military actions are not covered.

So, if they were not military personell they are/were Afghani citizens (the Genevan convention does not recognise the term "terrorist"). Was the US engaged in a police action against civilians in another country? If so shouldn't the persons apprehended be turned over to their own government in question for trial? Or an international tribunal?


At the risk of being an armchair lawyer specializing in international law:

Article 3 states:
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: [lots of stuff that is prohibited]"


In other words, as soon as they are captured (read: not taking part in the hostilities) they fall under the Geneva convention. I can't read any "unless they're terrorists" clause in there....

I'm a bit uncertain as to what the "armed conflict not of an international character" means though.


I find Article 4 & 5 interesting:
"Article 4:
[lots of stuff defining a prisoner of war]

Article 5:
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."


As I understand it, if there is any uncertainty if a person is, under article 4, a POW or not, they are still protected by the Geneva convention until their status has been determined by a "competent tribunal". I can't remember having seen anything like that in the media. Anyone have a link?

Also, I don't know if "terrorist" falls in under anything in article 4, but unless there has been a presedence in such a matter it's fairly useless to automatically lump everyone in the "terrorist" box. Anyone have a link to such an amendment? Would be very handy.
 
If so shouldn't the persons apprehended be turned over to their own government in question for trial?

They attacked us. It happened on our soil, so I believe that, even in international law, the US has the right to prosecute. Not sure on that, but it wouldn't make sense that their country of origin would be the ones allowed to reprimand them.

Or an international tribunal?

Perhaps, but no one has done it. It's been quite some time now and I haven't heard of anyone else wanting that burden. Sure, there's been an outcry for how they've been treated, but has anyone offered to get this tribunal rolling? No, they are leaving it to us. You don't want to get involved, then you can't complain about how it's being done.

And I believe that there may be some sort of precedence (sp?). I found a link to issues conserning the PLO and the Geneva Convention. However, it says I am not authorized to view the document! Not sure who IS authorized, but if anyone can get in and read it, let me know what it says!

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http:/...ts&u=http://www.omdurman.org/mideast.html&s=a

Also, I found this tidbit in the Geneva Convention interesting:

Prisoners of war, with the exception of officers, must salute and show to all officers of the Detaining Power the external marks of respect provided for by the regulations applying in their own forces.

How many soldiers do you think have violated this? I don't agree with this clause, but if you're gonna get nit picky with the Geneva Convention, you have to look at the laws set forth with equal value. But the fact is, not even those who wrote the Geneva Convention took some offenses seriously, as evidenced in this passage:

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect

What does that mean? "In any important respect?" Who draws that line? If this is supposed to be the definitive laws set for handling POWs, you would think that they would have specified which laws were "important" and which ones didn't have to be followed so carefully!

Look, I understand that there is a great difference between calling a POW a bad name, and smacking him around. But the Convention is pretty vague at times. The world has changed so much since this was written. It's time we get together and write a new one, or ammend the old, to include the new horrors that face us today. Did the term "terrorist" even exist back then? And what about the video crews? How much is too much in the filming of POWs? What about the embedded media? The Convention talks about their protection, but doesn't list them as military, so is what they do breaking it? How about the internet? Should POWs be allowed internet access? It would make it way cheaper and easier for them to be in contact with adequate representation if they were...it would also be a way of ensuring that the POWs are being treated humanely. These are things that must be addressed, and as of yet, have not. My point is that we are all adhering to an outdated document that must be reassessed. I don't see anyone hopping in line to do it, though.
 
Back
Top