The BBC for instance: US soldier shown in Taliban video
The Geneva conventions says: [POWs] must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. The BBC is a British state media. Is the UK (and any media showing the video of the soldier, rather than merely reporting on the event) in breach of the Geneva Convention by allowing – and even participating in – parading captured soldiers?
Tell that to Rumsfeld.
So, it’s available on the internet, but the BBC are doing a disservice by airing it? How does that work, again?
What has Rumsfeld got to do with the price of beans in China? Are you saying the BBC is no better than Rumsfeld or Rumsfeld no better than the BBC or that the Geneva conventions should now be abolished for good, because it might previously have been breached by Rumsfeld?
What kind of argument is that? A lot of things are available on the Internet, which the BBC shouldn’t help distribute. A lot of things that would be illegal for the BBC to distribute.
Its not okay for the BBC, but okay for you to distribute this video to the SDMB audience ? Worldwide ?
The video was released and brought to public attention by the Taliban. The BBC (and Yahoo via Associated Press, since that’s where I saw it) is therefore reporting news already available to the public. From a legal standpoint, far as I can tell, whether the original public outlet is obscure or difficult to find to some arbitrary degree, doesn’t matter.
It means that for a couple of year the U.S. wont’t be able to complain when this kind of thing happen to it’s soldiers. Tough luck for the poor chap.
Seems pretty obvious the bit of the Geneva conventions is a limitation on the people holding the prisoner. The US soldier isn’t a captive of the BBC or UK gov’t
I haven’t distributed the video, but if I had it would have been ok, because I’m Bin Laden. Now can we please drop all the speculation about weather it’s ok for Rumsfeld, me or FatBoy4 on RottenTorrents and address the question of what makes it of for media institutions like BBC to do it?
There’s the strictly legal perspective, which doesn’t interest me that much. But underneath the legalities there is a more interesting angle to do with morality. The Geneva conventions were written because we think it is wrong to do then things described therein. What purpose does airing the video serve besides for “public curiosity” and which couldn’t just as well have been served by for instance a written report.
Nope. That is not how it works. US soldiers are entitled to the same protection of the Geneva Conventions regardless of what current or previous administrations may or may not have done.
Is the Taliban required to obey the Geneva Conventions? I doubt they signed it.
The Geneva Conventions don’t apply to media outlets. Even if you really twist yourself into a knot and say the BBC is an arm of the government of the UK, THE UNITED KINGDOM ISN’T HOLDING THIS PRISONER. If you actually read that entire section of the Conventions you will find it refers to how combatant powers (of which the Taliban are not a signatory, anyway) are supposed to treat their prisoners of war, not how the media of completely different country (in fact, in this case, the media of an enemy country) behaves with regard to some videotape they got hold of.
Yes, it’s a good thing the taliban haven’t waterboarded the poor chap yet. We’d all have to nudge each other with our elbows and wink at their devilish ‘frat boy hijinx’.
I’m sure you were all up in arms about this when the Evil Western Media was showing Saddam in captivity. Or footage of masses of Iraqi prisoners in this war or in 1991. For that matter I suppose all of those photos and footage in books, film, newspapers, etc of prisoners from WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, you name it are breaching the Geneva Convention. Warning: following this link leads to evidence of complicity to violate the Geneva Convention by showing pictures related to the Bataan Death March rather than merely reporting on it.
I wonder about that.
The Taliban represented/ruled Afghanistan before the US invasion and presently are fighting to oust the invaders and resume control of the country. Afghanistan became a signatory nation in 1956.
Any new party that runs a country is bound by the Conventions, wouldn’t you say ?
I think that’s true in general, though as you say, the Taliban isn’t recognized by any other country as the rulers of Afghanistan, in practical terms don’t control the country, and obviously don’t consider themselves bound by the convention, so I don’t think its really relevant in this case.
If you will go back and read the OP, Rune does not appear to be “up in arms” about anything, so let’s not hijack the thread into personal pissing contests.
Closer to the mark are your observations about previous prisoner photos. I would submit that photos of groups of prisoners are merely news. What is proscribed would be a photo of an individual prisoner, particularly in a situation where he or she was being treated as a criminal instead of a POW, (as Hussein did with several captured pilots in the First Gulf War), or being held up for ridicule in some other fashion.
Saddam Hussein would be a closer call. The argument I would picture being that the photos of his capture were simply news photos and photos of him in prison or at trial were photos of a(n alleged) criminal and not those of a POW. He never engaged in active combat and he was not caught on a battlefield.
I could see some arguments in the other direction, but I suspect that the majority view would be the one I expressed.
But the photos (at least the very first ones) were released by the military. That was the problem. They weren’t just some pics a photo journalist snapped. IIRC, the reasoning for releasing the photos was that many Iraqis would not believe he had been captured, and would remain afraid of cooperating with the US lest they receive retribution if SH came back to power.
Well, you didn’t express that adequately in your OP. I remind you that you posed the question, “Is the UK (and any media showing the video of the soldier, rather than merely reporting on the event) in breach of the Geneva Convention by allowing – and even participating in – parading captured soldiers?”
I don’t see what the meaning of the question is unless it is referring to an issue of legality. I’m of course not a lawyer, but it appears that the UK (or BBC, really) is not in breach of the Geneva Convention.
If this isn’t good enough for you, the US government, who actually employs the captured soldier in question, does not appear to be holding anyone other than the Taliban responsible for releasing the video publicly:
As far as I’m concerned, do I think media outlets should suppress the video? No. I prefer a rather broad freedom of the press. The video exists, people have seen it; it is in the public domain. If you feel it is morally wrong to view it, avoid viewing it and make your preferences known to the media agencies that have shown it.
Because a thread evolves. And because that is how I always think of laws and juridical problems when talking to anybody but lawyers: the underlying meaning or morality, rather than the strict letters of the law. (This is actually generally assumed to be the case when talking to Danes, but I have to remind myself to make it clear when talking to Americans). So I guess what interests me is weather the BBC (and the others) is in violation of the spirit of the conventions. I assume that the conventions were introduced because it was thought it was wrong to do the things described therein. What is it that makes it acceptable for the BBC to publish material of prisoners and not for states?
I dont think the BBC should have showed the video. The right thing to do was to report on it but keep the video in confidence. Nothing newsworthy is gained by showing a captured US soldier, unless he was making secret signs to tell us his location