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

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Yes how is one to prevent the tapping 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?

I'm not usually one that gets all hung up on another's spelling, but if you mean "filming", it's spelled taping.
1 "P".

The reason I bring it up is that on quick glance I thought the Iraqi's were Tapping=Slapping=Something Else our troops.
Which they probably are, but that's not what you're talking about.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



I'm not usually one that gets all hung up on another's spelling, but if you mean "filming", it's spelled taping.
1 "P".

The reason I bring it up is that on quick glance I thought the Iraqi's were Tapping=Slapping=Something Else our troops.
Which they probably are, but that's not what you're talking about.

well sometimes I make typos when I type, sorry about that.

[Master Zen]

But again... it's all propaganda.

We are led to believe that Iraquis are evil ruthless captors and will treat US POWS like dirt. On the other hand, the US being a benevolent conqueror will treat its POWS well. I don't want to get into an argument about this, but that's the reason people get so jittery when US soldiers are in enemy hands, yet assume it is "normal" when they surrender to the US.

[muppet]

Originally posted by Flubber
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 ???

Originally posted by Jack_www
Yes how is one to prevent the tapping 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?

I think the question was already answered in a previous post.

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
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).

Could you guys not get so defensive/offensive? I was neither advocating nor condoning Iraqi behaviour. Nor would I ever advocate how Iraq is, or will be treating our prisoners.

I was pointing out the fact that both sides have violated the agreement.
Ours could have been avoided.
Theirs is revolting.
So what?

No matter what Rumsfeld says or what the allies do now, it does not change that fact that we have violated the the agreement that explicitly places the burden on the capturing side to prevent what they call public curiosity. The convention does not say "do not participate", it says "prevent". Which I assume means to take reasonable measures including, well... censorship? It has been part of the normal course of media-military relations in the past, and still is.

Originally posted by Ming
Let me know when the US starts shooting POW's and broadcasts the film...

Well... as a matter of principle, I haven't even seen the current Iraqi tapes of our prisoners - that would justify them making the tape.
Although I was not aware they had gone so far as to tape the executions of POW's.

[Kropotkin]

A spin-off from the BBC:

1433: General Renuart says "terrorist-like" cells are responsible for the resistance in Basra.

What is this supposed to mean? That the enemies left in Basra is not to be considered to be regular combatants? Or is it just talk to get some support, playing the Terrorist-card so to speak.

[Willem]

Originally posted by muppet

Although I was not aware they had gone so far as to tape the executions of POW's.

They showed images of soldiers with bullet wounds in the forehead. Although it is somewhat circumstantial, it's seems obvious to me that they were executed.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by muppet




I think the question was already answered in a previous post.


I was pointing out the fact that both sides have violated the agreement.

Which post answered the question?

Since nothing has been mentioned other than reporters filming troops in action, including an actual surrender, I see no violation of the Geneva convention by coalition forces here. They cannot be expected to protect the POWs from being seen on their way to surrender. Thats just ludicrous. If reports of fake surrenders are true, this onus would be doubly stupid.

If the Iraqis were put in a truck would you expect the coalition to scour all of Iraq looking for tapes that might have filmed some prisoners peeking out between the flaps??

Merely having a prisoner captured on film could not be intended to be a violation of the convention. I am sure that any number of red Cross visits may be filmed in various wars. The intent is to prevent the display of prisoners for such purposes. I know of no evidence that the coalition did anything to aid in the filming of any prisoners in this conflict.

[Kirnwaffen]

Could you guys not get so defensive/offensive? I was neither advocating nor condoning Iraqi behaviour. Nor would I ever advocate how Iraq is, or will be treating our prisoners.

Sorry I came off that way. My intention was only to point out that the incidents in which US media has been allowed access to POWs have been limited and, in some cases, not easily prevented, whereas the Iraqi access has been quite open and deliberate. Both are violations. I should have been more clear.

[JCG]

It would be fairer if both parties were restricted from showing ANY images of POWs outright.

Obviously most Americans don't have a problem with exposing Iraq POWS and/or laughing at/insulting them, but the vice versa is also the case.

[Ming]

I love how some people can't see the difference between showing scenes of them being captured in the normal sequence of the war...

And binding them, and asking them questions directly to the camera... not to mention killing them...

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by JCG
It would be fairer if both parties were restricted from showing ANY images of POWs outright.

Actually, recording and broadcasting POWs giving their name, rank and serial number has one beneficial effect.

It provides proof that that person is captured, and a bit more difficult to "disappear" someone.

Alas getting that up and running would probably be difficult.

Obviously most Americans don't have a problem with exposing Iraq POWS and/or laughing at/insulting them, but the vice versa is also the case.

Evidence? All I have seen so far is some brief images of iraqi soldiers being led away from this or that location.

Have any Iraqi POWs had a camera stuck in their face and been asked questions about who they were, why they were there, if they wanted to shoot Americans or Brits, etc? Any wounded POWs for that matter?

Please do provide examples...

[Master Zen]

If I were a POW, I wouldn't mind being interviewed

That way all my PBEM opponents would know they need to find a replacement.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming
I love how some people can't see the difference between showing scenes of them being captured in the normal sequence of the war...

And binding them, and asking them questions directly to the camera... not to mention killing them...

I don't love it, I think it abhorrent.

[Master Zen]

When those prisoners get back after the war, and say they suffered no violations of the Geneva Convention, I WILL LAUGH AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE RUCKUS.

If they do...I will quietly fade away...

[Alexander's Horse]

What I find disgusting is the way they treat their own political prisoners. Those POW's are getting good treatment.