Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Naw, we just show them hogtied and blinfolded on the floor of a C-17 in their skivvies. Nothing wrong with that!Knife wrote: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.
I'm not saying that it is not ethicly wrong for journalist/military to have those pictures (it probably is), I am saying that I was under the impression that the violation of the GC was the televised interogation/interview. I belive that the pictures you are refering too, should only be released after the event and after the return and/or arrest and trial of said POW's. Although, something could be said about the illegal combatent status of the people you refered too.Stormbringer wrote:Naw, we just show them hogtied and blinfolded on the floor of a C-17 in their skivvies. Nothing wrong with that!Knife wrote: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.
I'm saying the US is walking an awful fine line on this when we do things. Especially since we were the ones that made the determination they were illegal combatants with the world hollering at us.Knife wrote:I'm not saying that it is not ethicly wrong for journalist/military to have those pictures (it probably is), I am saying that I was under the impression that the violation of the GC was the televised interogation/interview. I belive that the pictures you are refering too, should only be released after the event and after the return and/or arrest and trial of said POW's. Although, something could be said about the illegal combatent status of the people you refered too.
Agreed, neither should have happened.That pictures of that nature were released is to my way of think at least as much a violation as what Iraq did in televising the itterogation.
Well, why don't you go down to your local police station and tell them you're Al-Queda and you'll get your wish.kojikun wrote:And how do you know they dont enjoy it? I know I'd love to be bound and gagged and surrounded by tonnes of sexy muscled men..Naw, we just show them hogtied and blinfolded on the floor of a C-17 in their skivvies. Nothing wrong with that!
Certainly true, but that's a far cry from showing people with their brains blown out.Stormbringer wrote:Naw, we just show them hogtied and blinfolded on the floor of a C-17 in their skivvies. Nothing wrong with that!Knife wrote: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.
That kind of shit sure ought to be punished. That's just.... I can't think of any condemnation strong enough!.seanrobertson wrote:They're also dragging the bodies through the streets and the like, a'la Angel in "The Wild Bunch" or U.S. soldiers in Somalia...sick motherfuckers.
I'll tell everyone something else: I don't much give a shit what the Geneva Conventions say. You shoot up my troops then parade them around on TV? Your ass is in for a world of hurt.
Japan signed but didn't ratify. The US didn't even sign till there was a new convetion in 1949 IIRC, and didn't ratify that. But it did follow its rules and those of the Hague conventions during WW1 and WW2.Frank Hipper wrote:Did the Taliban sign?Stormbringer wrote:But the Taliban are.Sea Skimmer wrote:Terrorists are not protected by civilian or military laws
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.
They didn't like taking prisoners in the first war.jegs2 wrote:Those who treated those US soldiers as they did will reap what they have sown. Moreover, Iraqi soldiers who want to do the right thing in respect to EPW's will also suffer the consequences -- there will be many more dead Iraqis than there would have been had that incident not taken place. Once "Joe" knows what happened to his comrades, he'll be far less inclined to take prisoners.
OOTH, not taking prisoners or treating them badly will increase the number of Iraqis that you'll have to fight as the Iraqis who would surrender if they were treated decently will now fight to the death.jegs2 wrote:Moreover, Iraqi soldiers who want to do the right thing in respect to EPW's will also suffer the consequences -- there will be many more dead Iraqis than there would have been had that incident not taken place. Once "Joe" knows what happened to his comrades, he'll be far less inclined to take prisoners.
It was footage that came out a few weeks post-war, that the military wanted to destroy, its one of the reasons for the embedding.Enlightenment wrote:Ted: Post sources or STFU.
This is exactly what Saddam probably wants so that his troops have a greater incentive to fight (as his troops start getting reports that American troops aren't taking surrenders).Enlightenment wrote:OOTH, not taking prisoners or treating them badly will increase the number of Iraqis that you'll have to fight as the Iraqis who would surrender if they were treated decently will now fight to the death.jegs2 wrote:Moreover, Iraqi soldiers who want to do the right thing in respect to EPW's will also suffer the consequences -- there will be many more dead Iraqis than there would have been had that incident not taken place. Once "Joe" knows what happened to his comrades, he'll be far less inclined to take prisoners.
No. The Taliban government was never recognized by the United Nations.Stormbringer wrote:But the Taliban are.Sea Skimmer wrote:Terrorists are not protected by civilian or military laws
But recognized or not they were the government there.Master of Ossus wrote:No. The Taliban government was never recognized by the United Nations.Stormbringer wrote:But the Taliban are.Sea Skimmer wrote:Terrorists are not protected by civilian or military laws
This is probably also why his more rabid troops are engaging in fake surrenders. If the Iraqis do this frequently enough the US will have no alternative but to take no quarter (which is, FWIW, legal in situations where the enemy makes a habit of abusing surrender) for their own safety. Needless to say the Iraqis will largely be forced to fight to the death.phongn wrote:This is exactly what Saddam probably wants so that his troops have a greater incentive to fight (as his troops start getting reports that American troops aren't taking surrenders).
For now we'll probably be greatly increasing precautions when taking surrenders to try and make sure repeat performances don't happen - and when they do they'll be prepared so they don't get ten men killed.Enlightenment wrote:This is probably also why his more rabid troops are engaging in fake surrenders. If the Iraqis do this frequently enough the US will have no alternative but to take no quarter (which is, FWIW, legal in situations where the enemy makes a habit of abusing surrender) for their own safety. Needless to say the Iraqis will largely be forced to fight to the death.phongn wrote:This is exactly what Saddam probably wants so that his troops have a greater incentive to fight (as his troops start getting reports that American troops aren't taking surrenders).
One of the tricks the Iraqis used today was to send a bunch of surrendering troops out then call down artillery on US forces when they went to secure the prisoners. Not easy to defend against--one well-hidden guy with a radio is all it takes to ruin your whole day.phongn wrote:For now we'll probably be greatly increasing precautions when taking surrenders to try and make sure repeat performances don't happen - and when they do they'll be prepared so they don't get ten men killed.
Yes, I'm extremely inclined to believe a far left "newspaper"...Ted wrote:It was footage that came out a few weeks post-war, that the military wanted to destroy, its one of the reasons for the embedding.Enlightenment wrote:Ted: Post sources or STFU.
http://www.themilitant.com/2000/6424/642461.html
Very difficult to defend against, unless they start jamming the Iraqis every time they collect prisoners (which is highly unlikely).Enlightenment wrote:One of the tricks the Iraqis used today was to send a bunch of surrendering troops out then call down artillery on US forces when they went to secure the prisoners. Not easy to defend against--one well-hidden guy with a radio is all it takes to ruin your whole day.phongn wrote:For now we'll probably be greatly increasing precautions when taking surrenders to try and make sure repeat performances don't happen - and when they do they'll be prepared so they don't get ten men killed.
