Who’s violating the Geneva Convention?

[lee635]

“THE GENEVA CONVENTION indicates that it’s not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war,” Rumsfeld said.
Human Rights Watch agreed with Rumsfeld, chiding Iraq for its treatment of the POWs. But in the same press release, HRW criticized the United States for parading Iraqi prisoners around for the benefit of the news cameras, urging it to stop.
Who’s violating the Geneva Conventions? And how culpable are the Iraqi media and the media embedded with the coalition forces?


MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/890153.asp)

[jrjcd]

lee-the difference is that WE don't make the iraqi POWs submit to humiliating interviews on our state run television station and WE don't show the bodies of the enemy lying in the road to show our superiority!!!!

i am trying to abide by the rules of this thread as well as possible, but it does chap my hide when these comparisons are made to try to place us at the same level as those iraqi thugs-the saddam regime is a brutal, vicious, cowardly bunch-american(re:coalition) troops DON'T USE women and children as human shields, go to great lengths to accomadate captured prisoners according to the geneva accords(more so than anyone i'm afraid), and make every effort to fight around innocent civilians in a battle situation-we are not like these animals running iraq-

[lee635]

I stated in another thread that I believe that any public filming or photographing of US POWs is humiliating and inappropriate. And since I can't expect other countries to not air US POWs while the press is allowed to air footage of POWs taken by the US troops, I believe that we should not air footage of Iragi POWs.

I find the airing of slain soldiers to be patently offensive as well. What if you recognized someone?

The most disturbing american news footage I saw appeared to be an Iraqi POW crying or sobbing. If one of my relatives or friends in uniform were captured, I wouldn't want to see an Iraqi video of him or her crying or sobbing, or being made to answer questions or anything.

The only positive thing about a video might be to allow a short clip of a group of POWs, with no long closeups, and only after they have been tended to, to let friends and family know that someone is alive and well. But not individuals crying and not being subjected to questioning and certainly not the dead.

I don't understand your argument; the Geneva Conventions need to followed no matter how despotic the enemy may be. Following the Conventions regarding prisoners of war needs to be done as a humanitarian effort and in the hope that US POWs will be accorded those protections as well. International war crimes courts will prosecute the leadership in Iraq who ordered attacks on civilians and other atrocities.

[bogi]

Let me play the devils advocate here. The USA had never formally declared war on Iraq. The Geneva convention techinally dosent apply.

[James_F]

Don't think that matters does it?

[Danny R]

The USA had never formally declared war on Iraq. The Geneva convention techinally dosent apply.

Sorry, wrong answer. Geneva Conventions, Part I, 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. Iraq and the USA are "High Contracting Parties", having both signed the convention.

The argument might be taken up in Afghanistan however. The administration has argued that al Qaeda is not a signing party, and therefore the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to our conflict in Afghanistan, but the same can definately not apply to Iraq.

In fact, the Conventions define who is a Prisoner of War, and while I'm no lawyer, I think its pretty clear that al Qaeda doesn't qualify. Geneva Conventions, Part I, Article 4: A. Prisoners of war ... are persons belonging to one of the following categories, ... 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.

[jrjcd]

well, obvious;y, my arguement is that WE ARE following the rules and the iraqi regime scum are not and it's assinine for anyone to liken us to them-in fact, patently offensive...