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

[muppet]

Originally posted by Felch X
I never thought that filming POWs was much of an issue. It seems that interviewing them on camera is a bigger deal. If the Iraqis had simply shown footage of American POWs, and those POWs were being treated humanely, there wouldn't be any problem.

I don't think anyone could deny that there is an appreciable difference in how the POW's from the two sides are dealt with, treated, or portrayed. At what point does it become offensive is a matter of personal preference, morality, tolerance, and value.

My personal preference is for ZERO public exposure.

[muppet]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Al Qaeda and Taleban fighters in Afghanistan:

Most Taleban: Lawful combatants as a general rule - openly armed, uniformed, members of regular forces of recognized party.

al Qaeda: Most are not lawful combatants - not integrated with forces of any recognized party, not uniformed, often not bearing arms openly, and not part of an organized force subject to orders of a definite command structure. (This is important in two respects - the ability of the command structure to discipline it's forces and compel obedience can prevent violations of the laws of war, and the commanders can order the surrender or cessation of hostilities of the entire force, so each individual doesn't have to be hunted down.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Does not the GC make allowance under article 4.6 for unorganized, non-integrated, non-uniformed, civilians to become POW's provided they carry arms openly? It would appear that article 4.6 specifically addresses the issue of combatants as POW's despite the lack of a command structure, formal organization, discipline, obedience, or the ability to surrender or cease hostilities is mass.

I can't imagine that al Qaeda fighters in the Afghan desert could have hidden their rifles in their clothing. OTOH, I'm not exactly certain as to what the laws and customs of war are suppose to be.

My humble interpretation of article 4:
1. Prisoners captured in Afghanistan are POW's.
2. al Queda engaged in non-war operations (terrorists) are not be POW's.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
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.

Those aren't PoW's, those are *cough* unlawful combatants *cough*, a delightful term that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft made up to wiggle around the GC.

[DinoDoc]

Does not the GC make allowance under article 4.6 for unorganized, non-integrated, non-uniformed, civilians to become POW's provided they carry arms openly?

I don't see how 4.6 applies given that it was hardly a spontaneous event. I also highly doubt that al-qaeda operatives respected the laws of war as required by that clause.