He did say so blowero, not a particularly bright man your Rumsfeld.
I really don’t think that the video is wrong. In a way, it is more humane, after all the families now know their guys are alive. So, showing POW’s is fine. “Humiliating them” is a fine line, which I don’t think we crossed- not quite, but it seems like the Iraqi’s did cross- but barely. So, this is somewhat a matter of subjectivity.
What I have a problem with is torture & beatings, which Iraq administered routinely to our guys during the last conflict. Nearly every one of our boys was mistreated to some extent, and often way over the line, including burning by cigs, and organized beatings.
Why would supplying a link to a public news source be something wrong? I don’t understand.
Just for clarity, MSNBC is not a party to the Geneva Convention. That treaty establishes how the contracting governments are supposed to treat prisoners of war. Thus, the only thing to be looked at, at least regarding the television coverage, is whether the governments are failing to “protect” the prisoners against “public curiosity.”
Iraqi television is an arm of the Iraqi state, so their broadcast is clearly in violation of the Convention, as the Red Cross has now confirmed. To the extent that CNN is just filming stuff as it happens, there’s no government action involved. When the Marines are escorting journalists to film Iraqi prisoners, there’s inappropriate govenment action all over the place. There appear to have been multiple examples of that on the American side. If the people running this operation have any clue at all, that practice should now come to a halt, and soldiers should be ordered not to permit such filming.
—Just for clarity, MSNBC is not a party to the Geneva Convention. That treaty establishes how the contracting governments are supposed to treat prisoners of war. Thus, the only thing to be looked at, at least regarding the television coverage, is whether the governments are failing to “protect” the prisoners against “public curiosity.” —
This is dead-on. As was noted before (and as I said before), the point is we recognize that individual soldiers in the heat of battle and civilians (perhaps like news crews) are often inclined to mob captured enemy soldiers, ridicule them, hurt them, lynch them.
The convention sets out rules for what governments must do to prevent these actions from happening: it basically says that “once captured, POWs are YOUR responsibility: you must sheild them from harm and abuse, and treat them properly.”
This makes the issue much potentially stickier. For instance, if Iraq argued that the interviews were ad hoc events it did not order, and that after it found out, it intervened to help the soldiers, then it could argue that it was blamless under the convention.
Even the choice to release the tape would then not necessarily be a violation of the Geneva convention, because simply releasing the tape after it already exists is not technically the crime itself: making the tape was.
However, Iraqi ministers have said, outright, that they will be playing more tapes of captured soldiers. This almost certianly means that they are NOT putting a stop to the making of these tapes, and indeed seem to be tolerating or even participating in making them (and maybe even ordering them).
That changes the whole game yet again.
—Iraqi television is an arm of the Iraqi state, so their broadcast is clearly in violation of the Convention, as the Red Cross has now confirmed.—
Again, under my understanding, I think what the Red Cross is saying is that the Iraqi government is almost certainly complicit in the making of such tapes, not just complicit in releasing them to the media.
And what I was wondering about (but not writing), is the responsibility of a government when a soldier guarding the POWs watches as a reporter turns a POW into a curiosity - whether the soldier has some duty to intervene.
Thanks for adding that minty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2881187.stm
More on the Red Cross
I disagree. Releasing/broadcasting the tape itself subjects the soldiers to public curiosity, just as surely as if I would do so to you by sneaking a camera into your kitchen and broadcasting the footage to the rest of the world via the Internet.
Yes, just as the American soldiers I’ve seen escorting news crews around areas where Iraqi prisoners are kept are complicit in the making of that footage, i.e., the government is illegally complicit in subjecting the Iraqi prisoners to public curiosity.
—Releasing/broadcasting the tape itself subjects the soldiers to public curiosity, just as surely as if I would do so to you by sneaking a camera into your kitchen and broadcasting the footage to the rest of the world via the Internet.—
The problem is, when the convention was written, no one was thinking about media pool video, because it didn’t exist the way it does today. They were thinking about captured soldiers being dragged around in public as a focus for ridicule, putting them in great danger from mobs and such. This used to happen a lot, and led directly to this standard.
The effect of handheld video is something that needs re-interpretation in order to fit the standard. It could well qualify, or subjecting them public curiosity could mean what it says (and what the spirit of the law was) that the soldiers, not just images of the soldiers, are subjected to it.
The Red Cross says that the Iraqis violated the convention, and that we have also. It also says that we violated it again with our arbitrary denial of POW rights to Taliban/AlQueda people (let alone our illegal requirement that the prisoners shave off their beards) by inventing the “enemy combatant” designation.
That last is a particularly horrible breach given that it is not the case that a country can arbitrarily decide status of captured people (i.e. as criminals or POWs): an official tribunal, operating under particular principles, has to do it.
Not to be inflammatory tagos, but no Effing Way.
I am currently residing in a non-CNN dominated, non-US censored location and the videos mentioned have been shown repeatedly alongside balanced commentry, and much alternative footage of Iraqi POWs.
We also see dead and injured US troops, Iraqi troops, homes and bunkers.
Presented in a manner I would call even-handed - here is an Iraqi tank being blown up, here is an Iraqi shopkeeper pulling back bits of his wall. Both things happen.
The description kingpengvin gave was 100% accurate, although it may be that there was more (that we’ve been shown) that he didn’t get.
Before I get into my interpretation, here’s a well-written cite from the Guardian on the ‘legality’ asked about in the OP.
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=569
But do not read if you don’t want to know stuff like:
RE the 'humiliation’
It seems that a few too many of the posts here have been making judgement sight-unseen, and that’s not exactly your fault.
IMO, The prisoners all appeared nervous, but not threatened.
At least three of them were from a non-combat division/unit which I won’t name. Hence surprised to find themselves in action (?)
They were indeed young and wide-eyed.
The questions were straightforward, simple, but in truly bad English.
My impression was of how incredibly un-stage-managed the whole thing was. The interviewer (who was certainly not military) and the other people he was translating to hadn’t even thought of what questions to ask.
I don’t believe that it was intended as propoganda and probably not even been sanctioned by the commanders, as anyone intending to do so could have done it much more effectively.
I may of course be proven wrong, but see the video for yourself before you challenge this impression
I just think any spin doctor could have done much better if they intended to put any message across. Don’t underestimate the enemy, or the media.
There was no message other than that ‘these folk exist’
They were being treated MUCH more politely that the average celebrity at a press conference or accused leaving a courtroom that you’d see on TV daily. It was a simple interview, asking three or so questions, sometimes repeatedly, and leaving it at that. No crowding or shouting.
They were not restrained or visibly injured (the camera panned to their feet and back) beyond some minor skin abrasions.
In short, nothing that was ‘degrading’ or ‘humiliating’ beyond the simple fact that they had been captured.
OTOH, I have seen broadcasts of Iraqi people being restrained, searched, walking in lines hands on head and sitting in groups on the dust surrounded by barbed wire.
Still, overall less ‘humiliating’ than a ‘COPS’ bust.
However, most of these Iraqis in detention or surrendering were not in uniform, so maybe Geneva dosn’t apply to civilians?
Yes, many people will now attack me and say I was duped or am lying, but hey. This was just my impression, no more, no less. And I’ve seen the footage dozens of times now, cynically looking for cracks, expecting something more underhanded than what we got.
…And I still haven’t described the farmers walking around the downed Apache with their hunting rifles… Whilst the (Rumsfield?) voiceover declared all aircraft ‘accounted for’.
Trust no-one, It’ll all come out in the history books.
.dan.
PS. I was left wondering whever happened to the old ‘name rank & serial number’ routine, as only one of the interviewees seemed to have heard of it, and even he was caught off-guard and softened when they asked what town he was from.
What a good article the above links to. Let me put a lengthier quote from the article that should be read:
" [The] prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).
"They were not “released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities” (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No “coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever”. In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as “torture lite”: sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.
“The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not “prisoners of war”, but “unlawful combatants”. The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.”
Is Mr. Rumsfeld calling the kettle black?
Not based on Guantanamo Bay, he’s not. The US is on solid, indisputable legal ground in denying POW status to captured members of al Qaeda. There is a good, though not unassailable, legal argument that members of the Taliban are not POWs as defined by the Geneva Convention either. More details, including the actual GC definition of who is a “Prisoner of War,” may be found in my posts in this recent GQ thread.
Nothing whatsoever in the Geneva Convention requires a conflict to be “legal” before the . The legality or illegality of the war on Iraq is wholly irrelevant to the status of prisoners taken by both sides. The Guardian’s assertions to the contrary are idiotic.
BTW, nick danger, while brief excerpts from copyrighted material are permissible around here, the rules frown on cutting and pasting large portions of such text. You might want to keep that in mind next time, particularly since we can all read the linked article as easily as you can.
It’s legal to unload a machine gun on someone, but it’s illegal to point a camera at them.
What a world.
– where’s the “crying” smiley icon? —
apos has it right here. We can’t say that the POWs themselves were being subjected to public anything at the time the tape was recorded. There were no jeering crowds etc, which is, as above, what the spirit of the law is about.
They were questioned. The questioning was taped. This would be expected in most circumstances, and the treatment the prisoners received was legal.
Re-publishing the images, whoever made the decision, is a seperate matter, and distinct from what actually happened to the prisoners themselves.
Publishing a list of names of the captured,
publishing mugshots,
publishing video taped faces,
publishing clips of them being told to lie down on the ground,
publishing those faces being asked questions,
publishing those faces answering standard questions…
Don’t try to draw a line between these variations.
Publishing a live execution or beating however, you can shout about.
Having them make political statements (which didn’t happen BTW) would be doubtful if you could prove coercian. But hey ‘terrorists’ use that tactic all the time, and we already have declared it a ‘terrorist state’ so why even dream of expecting otherwise?
Unless they’re not?
I will agree with minty (yes really) that there is an element of filming-me-and-publishing-it-without-my-consent, but that is at best a civil privacy issue, and that only according to your State bylaws. Can’t see that applying half a world away.
Still bothering me is that in this day and age, the US Government can call for a factual, journalistic report to be banned from the public arena because of issues of public morale
Much more bothering to me is that they succeeded! :eek:
Try a Kazaa search folks, the coverage must be up there already. It may demonstrate the true power of the Echelon system if the CIA has managed to shut down Kazaa distribution of un-american content. :eek:
And keep a look-out for ‘interviews’ of captured Iraqis being asked to give political views, describe their hardships and disavow Saddam.
‘Captured’ here can be applied to any resident of an occupied country surrounded by thousands of foreign guns
—Not based on Guantanamo Bay, he’s not. The US is on solid, indisputable legal ground in denying POW status to captured members of al Qaeda.—
I don’t agree: first of all, what’s being missed is the U.S. did not follow the proper proceedures in making this determination. This argument is like saying “there is solid, indisputable ground for finding people guilty of murder, therefore there’s nothing wrong with my arrest and and sentancing you to death without trial or legal counsel.” The required process is tribunals that have particular degree of transparency and particular proceedures. What happened was simply a blanket declaration by Rumsfeld after the fact with no attempt to support any of the governments assertions.
If there’s no way to examine or appeal a designation, then there’s no value to the designation. The U.S. could throw any random person in the world in jail, call him an enemy combatant, and that would be that. They could capture any soldier in a conflict and simply claim they were someone else.
Indeed - right now the US govt could pick up Joe Blow citizen(of the US) say he was an “enemy combatant” and put that person away for ever (duration of the war on terror - ie forever) and that person would have no legal recourse. No judge is required to check on the charges or the designation, no formal charges or evidence have to be made, no message to the press has to be made (they can give some false info to the press ie “joe blow went to Pakistan last year and met with Al Queda operatives” - but they don’t have to do anything more than say"enemy combatant" and bye bye Joe Blow.)
We now live in a police state - with only the restraint of the administration to check their own power.
That is exactly what the constitution was designed to prevent.
God help us all.
There are no procedures for making that determination. The Convention says NOTHING about who decides what’s what, and it sure as heck says nothing about the World Court and whatnot. If you continue to insist otherwise, I challenge you to produce legally binding authority to prove it–i.e., a treaty to which the U.S. is a party that supports your claim.
Yes. Such is life. But I think you would be on much more solid ground if you could provide facts that would put al Qaeda within the terms of the Geneva Convention, rather than just wailing and bemoaning the lack of an appellate procedure, when none is required by the Convention.
Clearly, you have not been keeping up with the latest judicial developments. A federal court has now ordered that Jose Padilla be granted access to his attorneys. Further judicial scrutiny of his imprisonment is very likely to follow. It takes time, and I certainly concur in your concern for America’s traditional civil liberties, but this “police state” rhetoric is nothing but dramatic license.
Except, of course, the press and media would be all over it like nobody’s business, interviewing friends and family of the person, filling the air time with their crying faces, saying how much they missd their loved one, and how they had no legal recourse to getting them free, and on and on. Followed by lots of Congressional action on the matter, since it’ll give everybody in Congress a chance to look good on TV. GATT and NAFTA were supposed to have ended America economically some time ago, didn’t happen. This whole “enemy combatants” will be forgotten before the end of Bush’s term and replaced by something else.
Another conclussion can be that in the absence of a procecdure to make a distinction between pows and “unlawfull combatants” then no one can make such distinction. Considering the issue and the possible ramifications a restrictive interpretation would be the better thing to do, don’t you think so?
Because if a democracy can violate the spirit if not the letter of a convention (for the sake of the argument I will concede that your interpretation is right) surely we will grant the same right to Saddam.
Therefore ha can claim that this war is an illegal invasion in order to capture the oil for the benefit of the american goverment. American soldiers are paid but that goverment, therefore they are mercenaries and they are not protected by the convention.
The most important thing they taught me at law school is that a good lawyer can make a law say whatever he wants.
Regarding the legal status of the X-ray detainees (which appear to have disappeared into a legal black hole), there are surely only two possibilities:
-
The were captured as members of a voluntary armed force during combat and are therefore Prisoners of War.
-
They are civilian foreign nationals sought as criminals by a nation state.
If 1) is not the case, legal procedure for 2) requires extradition proceedings to take place between the two national governments. If the national government of the state in which the criminals reside is in no fit condition to do so, then surely a unilateral decree by the other state equates to simple imperial hegemony, especially if the reason the government is not functioning is because they have been labelled the “criminals”?
IANA international lawyer, but I cannot see how this situation is different to thousands like it in the history of international law.
Certainly this is happening to an extent (as someone mentioned above) but it should never have gone this far, and it never has (at least back to the civil war and the lengths Lincoln went in ignoring certian legalities).
What if the government has a nice pre-prepared slander story that paints the victim as a terrorist - what if also they have little family and friends as in recent immigrants.
I do still have confidence in the USA and its people (especially its people) but the government is getting too powerful just as was originally feared by the founders (and planned for in the bill or rights).
Look at what has come to light recently with the “forced confessions” and wrongfully sentenced (and sometimes executed) innocents at the state level.
That took some time to correct too (and exactly how do you make up several years on death row to an innocent man?)
To hear this administration going on about “international courts” and “geneva convention” when they have shown their contempt for those things in the past is somewhat galling to me.