Iraq Shows Dead and Captured U.S. Soldiers

[DonnaS]

I think it is a very thin line, Alex. I definitely see your point, but I have heard the same explanation as Dan reported. I don't remember which authority gave the legal justification, but I do recall thinking that they could be considered biased.

As to treating our POW's humanely. I definitely think they should be. Two wrongs do not make a right and treating them inhumanely would not help encourage surrender.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Well apperantly the US government sees it the same way...

The authorities at Guantanamo Bay have prohibited journalists from filming the arrival of the detainees on the basis that the convention stipulates PoWs "must at all times be protected against insults and public curiosity

So in Guantanamo we believe it and now we don't?

 

[jamsmom]

CNN interviewed a POW from Desert Storm and he basically stated that he did not think Iraq would follow the Geneva Convention as they did not when he was POW.

 

[DonnaS]

The justification I heard, Alex, was that since the journalists are embedded and just happening to film the POWs it is okay. The difference with Guantanamo Bay is that the media would have to purposely go there to film.

I'm not saying that the justification is valid... I just understand it.

I think something can also be said for that our POWs are being shown treated well while theirs are being shown with gunshot wounds to the head. I can see that both can be considered propaganda, but one does show alive POWs while the other shows dead POWs.

 

[dandave]

WMAlex, I see your point. I do feel that showing them on camera teeters on a very fine line.

I think it may boil down to when the POWs actually become POWs. They are still "the enemy" until they are handed over by the troops who captured them.

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Who decided that is ok? The International bodies that govern this? Or the US?

 

[DonnaS]

Originally posted by WebmasterAlex
Who decided that is ok? The International bodies that govern this? Or the US?

Like I said, I don't remember who (one of the problems with watching the news while on pain meds), but I do recall thinking that it might not have been an unbiased opinion.

I would like the hear the UN's opinion on it.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

Ok ..... obviously I threw a grenade in here but I was trying to make a point. If we are going to complain about the treatment of our prisoners our hands need to be squeaky clean. If we were to go to the International court and complain about our prisoner's being mistreated by being on TV then the Iraq government is going to come back with "they showed our POW's being marched down the road at gunpoint with their hands behind their heads. They did it first".
That argument would wash in a lot of the world. We can't just choose to obey these rules when they are convenient like at Guantanamo.

 

[Mom2Em]

I must be watching the wrong news stations... I don't remember seeing any of their soldiers being marched down roads... I have seen clips of civilians being led down the road... Fox News stated quite clearly that they were civilians who were surrendering...

 

[Penny12]

Actually, Alex's point has already been well made on UK television. There have been many pictures showing Iraqi's waving white flags and being taken into custody, plus showing them sitting in the backs of trucks to be taken away, given water and medical treatment - all good PR stuff.

However, with the new situation of the US POW's now existing, I noticed that army personnel were actively stopping camera's from filming Iraqi's, or atleast showing their faces. It seems that now they are crying foul (very loudly) of the Geneva Convention, they've decided (for some strange reason) to pull their own socks up.

This war is unlike no other because with the media involvment as it is - propaganda takes on a whole new level...on <i>both</i> sides.

 

[Dan Murphy]

The spokesperson at Centcom said a few minutes ago that it is in violation of the Convention for a state run news body (Al Jazeera) to show live prisoners being interrogated and dead ones lying dead. I agree. If a public news body (CNN/MSNBC/etc) show prisoners being marched along the road, not being subject to 'insults and public curiosity', to me, that is okay. JMO

 

[Penny12]

Showing Iraqi prisoners being marched along the road may not be insulting to you/us, but as militia who surrendered, (and doing us a favor in the process remember) I would imagine it to be somewhat humiliating and the Geneva Convention is there for the prisoners benefit afterall, not ours.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

It's a great argument Dan but all those countries HAVE is state run media! Either way that is far too fine of a line. Face it if we don't want it done to our prisoner's we just shouldn't do it to theirs.

 

[DonnaS]

It will be interesting to see if the media continues to show film of Iraqi POWs...

 

[TinkHappy]

Maybe, some of the problem is too much media. We really shouldn't be able to turn our TV sets on and see a "war plan", call me old-fashioned, but should the media really be in a bunker? I like to be informed also, but when is too much information not good?

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I'm curious about that too Donna....
I am kind of curious.. do our tax dollars go for the care and feeding of all these "embedded" journalists or do the networks have to pay.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I knew I read this somewhere.. this is from Editor and Publisher...
These are the ground rules for "embedded media" that were developed BEFORE this whole thing started.

Among the 19 "not releasable" categories of information (besides those already mentioned) is any mention of a specific number of troops, aircraft, or ships below very large levels.

Also forbidden:
* Photography showing level of security.
* Rules of engagement.
* "Information on effectiveness of enemy camouflage, cover, deception, targeting ,direct and indirect fire, intelligence collection, or security measures."
* Information on effectiveness of enemy electronic warfare.
* "Information on missing or downed aircraft or missing vessels while search and rescue and recovery operations are being planned or underway."
* Photographs or broadcast showing an enemy prisoner of war or detainee's "face, nametag, or other identifying feature."

Now all of a sudden it's ok because they are not "state run"?
They are provided food, housing, transportation and security by the U.S Armed forces and operate under the ground rules given to them by the U.S Armed Forces. Try convincing the rest of the world they are not "state run". They are also violating the rules. The same way Iraq did.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

While there is debate about whether a war correspondent showing a POW surrendering, I think we can all agree that it pales to what was shown.


There is a screen cap of what was shown on Al-Jazeera on Drudge Report. It's extremely disturbing, so only click on the link if you care to see the difference.
http://drudgereport.com/

 

[Mackey Mouse]

I agree Jeff... I had already seen the Drudge Report picture.............I am horrified.....I know it is a fine line but to me seeing someone walking down the road and then comparing it to a dead mutilated body and injured prisoners being interrogated with dead bodies around them.. I think it is crossing the line but it is no secret that I am not always Liberal in my thinking..

 

[WebmasterAlex]

I agree with that Jeff and Marsha.. my point is if we want to complain about the rules being broken we should follow them TO THE LETTER. We don't need to see their POW's.. the journalists have agreed not to show them so let's just not do it! Then when they do we have some ground to stand on.