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

[Willem]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Check rule number 1.

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

Rule 3 is rather curious. I wonder what the rationale for that one was.

[problem_child]

There's still the hornets nest of Guantanamo Bay, if the Iraqis had called their GI POWs illegal combatants (because accoding to the UN, this invasion is legally dodjy) then what could the Americans say...?

[Dauphin]

I was watching the Beeb and the reporter was displaying strong anti-war anti-US bias. Paraphrased:

"Pictures of US soldiers captured by the Iraqis has brought sharp criticism from the US administration about the breaking of the Geneva Convention. Bush has demanded they be treated humanely.

President Bush appear to have forgotten about the pictures from Guantanamo Bay. It appears the US only cares about the Convention when it suits them."


I don't agree with the conclusion of the BBC reporter, but I do wonder about the US moral position.

[Drake Tungsten]

Have Iraqi POWs, actually in custody, been interviewed?

No. Several correspondents on CNN have said that the US military will not allow them to film or interview Iraqi POWs as it is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by problem_child
There's still the hornets nest of Guantanamo Bay, if the Iraqis had called their GI POWs illegal combatants (because accoding to the UN, this invasion is legally dodjy) then what could the Americans say...?

That the Iraqis are lying as usual.... then continue to treat Iraqi POWs as legal combatants, unless they've done something like disguise themselves as civilians or open fire under a flag of surrender.

But I'm sure all you Useful folk will ignore it.

[problem_child]

What's that supposed to mean, Useful folk? you being funny fella? My question is genuine, I really did want to know what the difference was- as I haven't seen the Iraqi tv interviews I didn't know if there were things they did to the POWs that we weren't shown that clearly contravened the Geneva convention.

My last comments regarding Guantanamo was also genuine, what would they do if their enemy started throwing that 'Illegal combatants' term back at them, espesially in light of the 'legal status' of this war.

[Drake Tungsten]

The legality of a war has nothing to do with whether combatants are eligible for protection under the Geneva Convention.

[Kirnwaffen]

The differences are:

1) We have not used state media to display Iraqi POWs for propaganda purposes.

2) Iraqi prisoners have not been interviewed by our media.

Though the initial films of surrendering Iraqis may be considered a violation (incidental, at worst), steps have been taken to ensure that no further violations occur (when was the last time you saw prisoners in custody being displayed on television).

As for unlawful combatants, that status is only given to those who actively participate in combat in a way that violates the Geneva convention (being out of uniform, not being attached to the regular army, etc.). So, whether the war is legal or not, Saddam would be hard pressed to make a case for our soldiers being unlawful combatants.

[muppet]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
The differences are:

1) We have not used state media to display Iraqi POWs for propaganda purposes.

2) Iraqi prisoners have not been interviewed by our media.

Though the initial films of surrendering Iraqis may be considered a violation (incidental, at worst), steps have been taken to ensure that no further violations occur (when was the last time you saw prisoners in custody being displayed on television).

That was a rather one sided CNN like statement.
The Geneva convention states:

Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

The Geneva convention makes no distinction between state media or private enterprise.
The detaining power has an obligation to prevent "public curiosity" irrespective of origin.

Both the US and Iraq have violated the Geneva Convention.
The only difference is Rumsfeldian: it's OK for us to do it until the enemy ups the ante.

[Jack_www]

I think what many are referring to is not so much the tapping of the American POW, but how they did it and what they did to them. I have not seen the whole video because I dont want to see it, but they do show dead american solders with bullet wounds in their heads, right between the eyes as if they were executed after being captured. It also shows an Iraq playing withe the dead bodies of the Americans, this is just sick and desgusting. You would never see American troops doing something like this to Iraq solders and taping it for all the world to see.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by muppet


That was a rather one sided CNN like statement.
The Geneva convention states:

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.[/i]

The Geneva convention makes no distinction between state media or private enterprise.
The detaining power has an obligation to prevent "public curiosity" irrespective of origin.

Both the US and Iraq have violated the Geneva Convention.
The only difference is Rumsfeldian: it's OK for us to do it until the enemy ups the ante.

Unless there have been more than I have seen and with all respect . . . BULLCRAP


All I have ever seen is prisoners being initially detained and perhaps some footage of them being marched away. All of this occurrs in the open air and in areas that are still active war zones. To expect the coalition troops to be trying to prevent this filming . . . . . I have never seen any attempt by the US to use the prisoners as public curiousities . All that has been shown ( again unless there is footage I have yet to see)is precisely what anyone in the area at the time could see.

Exactly how are the US supposed to prevent this ???

[Jack_www]

Yes how is one to prevent the taping of solders surrending on the battlefield and being taken into prisoner and marched off when the News media from every country is there filming it?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Flubber
Exactly how are the US supposed to prevent this ???

By restricting the media... so people can scream censorship, of course.

[Ming]

Let me know when the US starts shooting POW's and broadcasts the film...

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I was watching the Beeb and the reporter was displaying strong anti-war anti-US bias. Paraphrased:

"Pictures of US soldiers captured by the Iraqis has brought sharp criticism from the US administration about the breaking of the Geneva Convention. Bush has demanded they be treated humanely.

President Bush appear to have forgotten about the pictures from Guantanamo Bay. It appears the US only cares about the Convention when it suits them."

I don't agree with the conclusion of the BBC reporter, but I do wonder about the US moral position.

If I pulled such a stunt while in my professional capacity, I would receive an official reprimand.

Journalists are *not* supposed to insert their privately held opinions into any sort of news; this edict stems from the "yellow journalism" practices of our forebears from the 19th and early 20th centuries (specifically, the actions that may have indirectly caused the Spanish-American War in 1898), when U.S. journalists freely added their opinions to hard news copy, and still had the gonads to call it unfiltered and unbiased news.

Unfortunately, most people equate journalism nowadays with the talking heads and pundits they see on Fox, CNN, BBC, in the newspaper editorial page guest columnists and so on. Well, they're technically not journalists, they're pundits. Opinion-givers, so to speak. Spinmeisters. But not journalists. I wish folks could make the distinction better, because there really are hardworking "behind-the-scenes" *real* journalists who are digging up hard news for the public to become aware of.

Journalism is a way of life, and most people who are in the profession aren't in it for the money, because it's not a six- or seven-figure profession for most of us.

Gatekeeper