Rumsfeld said this during a TV interview when confronted with those Al Jazeera pictures of captured US soldiers. I was pretty much surprised to hear that since I had always thought it was pretty much common to photograph prisoners of war (especially after seeing the pictures of Iraqi POWs a few days ago). I googled up the text of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and the closest thing I could find regarding a photograph ban was a provision of article 13: “Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”
Is it a general view among international law experts to intepret this as a total prohibition of photographing prisoners?
[sup]And please keep in mind this is not about the war in general. It’s a pretty clear-cut question.[/sup]
The point of the rule is to protect the POWs from being harassed by onlookers if “paraded” through the streets or from being singled out for humiliation.
Thus, photos of guys walking across a field with their arms raised or being marched down a raod in a group are simply photographs of an event. Individual photographs of a POW, where he can be recognized (and, therefore, identified for later abuse), or photographs of a POW whle he is being humiliated (already forbidden) are prohibited.
According to this article, the International Committee of the Red Cross considers the TV footage of the captured Americans to be a violation of the Geneva Convention.
So, if this is a violation of the Geneva Convention, who are the war criminals here? Saddam- Who may or may not have ordered the taping? The Iraqi State Broadcasting agency? Al Jazeera?
How would you prosecute such an infringement?
Yes, yes, and probably no. Prosecution shall be delivered courtesy of Uncle Sam Brand High Explosives.