Why is it alright for us to film their POWs, but not them to film ours?

[problem_child]

In relation to the captured Americans that have been filmed and shown on tv in Iraq, I haven't seen those reports for myself of ourse, I don't live in Iraq- I don't get Al Jazeera, but from what I saw of them- the only difference between the Iraqi pictures of American troops, and our pics of their troops- is that they asked the Americans their name, rank and number and what state they are from.... so what's the difference? You can't say the pics of Iraqi soldiers lying face-down on the ground etc is not humiliating surely....

[DinoDoc]

I think that you are missing the forest for the trees. The really offensive thing the Iraqis did was to execute some of the soldiers they captured.

[FrustratedPoet]

I saw pics from Al Jazeera where they were displaying the American POW's wallets and credit cards - all spilled out on a table. I don't know if that constitutes humiliation or not, but it just didn't seem like cricket to me.
/edit: Come to think of it, I'm not even sure why the soldiers would even be carrying that stuff - I don't know what the hell that was all about.

Also, at least one of the American POW's was interviewed while he was wounded and lying on a stretcher. He was clearly in some pain, but obviously the Iraqi authorities thought that sticking a camera and microphone in his face was more important than giving him medical attention. I'm no legal expert, and don't know the Geneva Convention off by heart - but that's just not the right way to behave at all IMHO.

[Flubber]

I believe the difference is that independent journalists may sometimes film the event of a capture as they witness it but that once they are in custody, the Iraqi POWs are not filmed any more.

It would be difficult to prevent camerman from filming an actual capture as it occurrs

[SlowwHand]

The basics of it are that the vast majority of Iraqi's aren't true P.O.W.'s, they are more like refugees.

They certainly haven't been beaten and/or killed.

[CerberusIV]

I suppose it is the difference between filming someone doing what they were doing anyway - walking down a road to a prison camp or whatever - and making someone respond for the cameras. Having said that, it is not a clear line between the two looking at some of the footage. It gets even more difficult when some of the pictures are of Iraqis not in uniform and arguably not POW's covered by the Geneva convention.

[TheStinger]

What the coaliton did was a very minor breach if at all of the geneva convention, what the Iraqi's did was a war crime as per usual.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I suppose it is the difference between filming someone doing what they were doing anyway - walking down a road to a prison camp or whatever - and making someone respond for the cameras. Having said that, it is not a clear line between the two looking at some of the footage. It gets even more difficult when some of the pictures are of Iraqis not in uniform and arguably not POW's covered by the Geneva convention.

A number of Iraqi irregulars are not uniformed, or not obviously uniformed, because they don't have the quality or quantity for domestic manufacture, and don't want to waste the imported stuff on irregular militia.

Also, there have been reports of civilians "surrendering" hoping to receive food.

[problem_child]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Also, at least one of the American POW's was interviewed while he was wounded and lying on a stretcher. He was clearly in some pain, but obviously the Iraqi authorities thought that sticking a camera and microphone in his face was more important than giving him medical attention. I'm no legal expert, and don't know the Geneva Convention off by heart - but that's just not the right way to behave at all IMHO.

I saw an American soldier in the same situation being interviewed by CNN or something, so...

DinoDoc:
As far as the GIs being executed- that's clearly a breach of the convention, my question relates only to the apepearance of captured POWs on tv.

Its a good thing America had already signed up to the Geneva convention, if it was today, the current administration would have torpedoed the idea of a Geneva convention like they torpedoed Kyoto, and the non-proliferation treaties, and the international warcrimes thing.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by problem_child
I saw an American soldier in the same situation being interviewed by CNN or something, so...

so .... he wasn't a POW, was he?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by problem_child
Its a good thing America had already signed up to the Geneva convention, if it was today, the current administration would have torpedoed the idea of a Geneva convention like they torpedoed Kyoto, and the non-proliferation treaties, and the international warcrimes thing.

Why would they? The US has had codes of conduct regarding the rules of war as far back as the Civil War. MtG should be able to help me out with the specific name.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, they go back further. Articles of War for the Army, and Rocks and Shoals for the Navy, although I think that's more of an informal name, and the real name was something longer and much more clumsy. They became codified in the UCMJ.

Beyond that, there were recognized standards that weren't treaty obligations, but commonly evolved standards as to acceptable or unacceptable conduct in many countries, and those evolved over time. They are referenced in the Geneva Convention as "the laws and customs" of war.

[SlowwHand]

Check rule number 1.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0769998.html

[problem_child]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


so .... he wasn't a POW, was he?

touche.

[Flubber]

I still see a difference in the filming but maybe I missed something. Have Iraqi POWs, actually in custody, been interviewed? I had not seen that. If that has occurred, then my opinion would change on this issue.

But to date, all I have seen is film of Iraqis in the process of surrendering or marching away. I have not seen anything that would require the permission/cooperation of the captors.