POW on TV hypocrisy

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 05:36pm

Now don't get me wrong I don't approve of any else in the treatment of POWs by the Iraqis but isn't the Bush administration being awfully hypcritical about the POWs being shown on tv? I mean we showed plenty of pictures of the detainess in Camp X-ray and elsewhere. Why exactly is showing the POWs on TV such a horrible thing to do. And if it's so horrible why did we do it?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-23 05:41pm

Good question. In any case it was not a good idea on the part of the Iraqi gov't, the image of captured POWs is likely just going to motivate our soldiers even more.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-23 05:54pm

Not to mention remembering the Genebra Convention now, when half the world shouts that the U.S was and is violating that exact same convention in Camp X-ray. In spirit, if not legally. That episode in particular always disturbs me.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-23 06:00pm

The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to al-Qaeda, does it?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-23 06:00pm

hey now, the US isnt responsible for CNN embedded news crews :p

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 06:02pm

Durran Korr wrote:The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to al-Qaeda, does it?

No. But there is a question as to whether or not it applies to the Taliban and how.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-23 06:03pm

Durran Korr wrote:The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to al-Qaeda, does it?

No, but it applies to taliban fighters (at least, in spirit) and the line separating the two is very thin. Unless I'm mistaken, not all camp prisioners are proven al-Qaeda.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-23 06:08pm

Stormbringer wrote:Now don't get me wrong I don't approve of any else in the treatment of POWs by the Iraqis but isn't the Bush administration being awfully hypcritical about the POWs being shown on tv? I mean we showed plenty of pictures of the detainess in Camp X-ray and elsewhere. Why exactly is showing the POWs on TV such a horrible thing to do. And if it's so horrible why did we do it?

Terrorists are not protected by civilian or military laws

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 06:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Terrorists are not protected by civilian or military laws

But the Taliban are.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-23 06:14pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Terrorists are not protected by civilian or military laws
But the Taliban are.

Did the Taliban sign?
I was under the impression that the Geneva Convention only applies to signatories, the Japanese hadn't signed by WWII, and the allies were not under any compunction to follow it's rules as regards Japanese POWs as a result. Or so I thought.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 06:17pm

Frank Hipper wrote:Did the Taliban sign?
I was under the impression that the Geneva Convention only applies to signatories, the Japanese hadn't signed by WWII, and the allies were not under any compunction to follow it's rules as regards Japanese POWs as a result. Or so I thought.

You know what, I don't know.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-23 06:27pm

kojikun wrote:hey now, the US isnt responsible for CNN embedded news crews :p

Yes, they are.

POWs should not be shown to the public and the armed forces have a responsibility (which they've failed to honor) to keep embedded news crews from filming POW captures or surrendered POWs.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-03-23 06:28pm

The Taliban was never the officially recognized government of Afghanistan. Even in the UN, they still recognized the representatives from the old government in Afghanistan before they gave the time of day to the Taliban. So no, the Geneva Convention would NOT apply to the Taliban.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-23 06:31pm

Frank Hipper wrote:I was under the impression that the Geneva Convention only applies to signatories, the Japanese hadn't signed by WWII, and the allies were not under any compunction to follow it's rules as regards Japanese POWs as a result.

1950 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war:

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-03-23 06:32pm

CNN did show a still picture of several dead americans, presented in an unidentifiable manner. The bodies were not in the best of shape. I couldn't tell if they had been brutalized or not, but the Iraqi's certainly didn't show the dead any respect. If the condition of the prisoners was anything close to the condition of the dead GI's, it would be entirely reasonable for CNN to deem the footage of the prisoners to be too graphic.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-23 06:34pm

irishmick79 wrote:The Taliban was never the officially recognized government of Afghanistan. Even in the UN, they still recognized the representatives from the old government in Afghanistan before they gave the time of day to the Taliban. So no, the Geneva Convention would NOT apply to the Taliban.

So I understand. However, they were the factual regime of Afeghanistan. The troops had no "fault" that it wasn't recognized by most countries, and the recruited men had little choice but to fight for their leadership.

By the spirit of the convention, they should be treated as POW.

Regarding Japan's example, the U.S army would be hardly justified to begin shooting japanese POW on surrender, because Japan did the same or worse.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-23 06:35pm

Yes, they are.

I was being sarcastic because obviously the US is permitting this violation.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-23 06:37pm

irishmick79 wrote:CNN did show a still picture of several dead americans, presented in an unidentifiable manner. The bodies were not in the best of shape. I couldn't tell if they had been brutalized or not, but the Iraqi's certainly didn't show the dead any respect. If the condition of the prisoners was anything close to the condition of the dead GI's, it would be entirely reasonable for CNN to deem the footage of the prisoners to be too graphic.

I've seen the whole movies in the Portuguese news. Some of them were almost certainly brutalized (the living ones) and the questioning they were suffering was a bad omen for worse things to come to them.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-03-23 06:42pm

So, in the Spirit of the geneva convention, would you recognize members of the Irish Republican Army as POW's? How about the Ethnic Kosavars in Serbia? Or the Chechens in southern Russia? Or the FARC rebels in Columbia?

The Geneva Convention doesn't allow for that kind of leeway in judgement because it was designed to apply only to worldwide recognized government soldiers, and NOT those of any other group. If you didn't do it that way, the UN would be forced to pick and choose which groups of combatants it would choose to recognize as POW's, and that debate would be incredibly devisive, and would not lend itself well to unity within the UN. That's why they usually try to avoid that kind of debate, unless they can pass votes unanimously. Less room for controversy that way.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-23 06:43pm

Stormbringer wrote:Now don't get me wrong I don't approve of any else in the treatment of POWs by the Iraqis but isn't the Bush administration being awfully hypcritical about the POWs being shown on tv? I mean we showed plenty of pictures of the detainess in Camp X-ray and elsewhere. Why exactly is showing the POWs on TV such a horrible thing to do. And if it's so horrible why did we do it?

The issue is with interrogation of soldiers being shown on national TV for propoganda purposes. Interrogation is expected, and it is certainly practiced by all sides in a conflict. However, what is wrong is to ask leading questions of soldiers in a public forum IOT score propaganda reports (i.e. -- "Why did you come to our country to kill Iraqis?"). Tell me when you've seen US soldiers do that.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-23 06:47pm

irishmick79 wrote: So, in the Spirit of the geneva convention, would you recognize members of the Irish Republican Army as POW's? How about the Ethnic Kosavars in Serbia? Or the Chechens in southern Russia? Or the FARC rebels in Columbia?.

Not one of those movements are in possession of their respective countries. They are rebel groups fighting their recognized government. The geneva convention has no saying about the internal politics of a country. On the other hand, if my military invaded Irland or another country, I would expect them to treat the prisioners fairly.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-23 06:48pm

jegs2 wrote:The issue is with interrogation of soldiers being shown on national TV for propoganda purposes. Interrogation is expected, and it is certainly practiced by all sides in a conflict. However, what is wrong is to ask leading questions of soldiers in a public forum IOT score propaganda reports (i.e. -- "Why did you come to our country to kill Iraqis?"). Tell me when you've seen US soldiers do that.

Not that. But we certainly have splashed propaganda shots of the Taliban prisoners (who are argueably covered by the Geneva Conventions) all through out the news media.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-23 06:50pm

All of the legalistic wrangling over the Geneva Convention is a violation of its basic spirit, which is that prisoners of war must be well-treated. Saying that you don't have to observe it for a certain prisoner because of section 3, subsection B, paragraph whatever is asking for trouble, because it shows other nations that you regard the Geneva Convention as a legal problem to circumvent, not a guiding principle of conduct.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-23 06:57pm

theres also a question of proper treatment. if a POW is being tortured, is wrong to humiliate him on national TV? and if a POW is being treated very well, being fed better then his own army had, etc, is it wrong to show him happy on national TV?

I'd say the former is wrong but the latter isnt, and is good PR.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-03-23 07:17pm

kojikun wrote:theres also a question of proper treatment. if a POW is being tortured, is wrong to humiliate him on national TV? and if a POW is being treated very well, being fed better then his own army had, etc, is it wrong to show him happy on national TV?

I'd say the former is wrong but the latter isnt, and is good PR.

I think that pretty much says it. It was my impression, that the violation was the interview/interogation on TV and not the actual shots of POW's on TV. I have yet to see an Iraqi POW on CNN or FOX, being questioned.

You can also go the spirit of the law v letter of the law, in which case the Iraqi's are probably still getting better treatment than US POW's. And on a side note, if current treaties are not working (not saying that the GC is not working) and/or it is binding only to us and not to the people/nations we are fighting, then it would seem that we need to (internationaly) revise or replace the treaty to reflect the new reality of the situation (see the ABM treaty).

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

POW on TV hypocrisy

POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy

Re: POW on TV hypocrisy