Someone please explain to me (POWs)

Remove all ads!

Someone please explain to me how comes that Saddam's regime broke international law when showing American POWs on their TV, and the US didn't break those laws as their own TV made a soap opera of subsequent Iraqi troops surrendering - with US army still *****ing about POWS on Iraqi TV, between the showings of Iraqi POWs on American TV.

Please? Anyone.

Which strikes my mind now is that Saddam is also a POW now. He cannot be tried until his status changes and should not be shown on the TV.

Here is what Cardinal Renato Martino, former envoy to the UN, has said. I am quite prone to agree with him - despite the blame that Saddam bears.

This may sound cruel to American posters here, but I'm also prone to think that for Dubya's crew what US is doing is good and what other parties are doing is evil, no matter what it is. Ultimately, even exactly the same show is laudable when performed by the US and abhorrent with the former Iraqi regime in performance.

 

To me there is a difference between arresting a wanted criminal and capturing a soldier.

I think it is also an issue of treatment. If they were showing footage of Saddam hanging from his wrists while being shocked with a car battery and wet sponges that would cause a problem. That is why they do that when the cameras aren't rolling .

 

Under many other circumstances, people would be relieved to have evidence that POW's were receiving gentle medical care. But I have to agree, there does seems to be a double standard at work, here.

Speaking of exams, I heard a description on the radio of an editorial cartoon that appeared in British papers. Seems that Bushie was the one being examined, and when the doc shined the light into his mouth, it also came out hie eyes and ears...

If someone ahs a link to an online version of that, I'd love to see it. It didn't make the weekly Slate round-up.

 

Can anyone explain why POWs are not supposed to be aired on television?

Besides the fact that its part of the Geneva convention, I mean, what's the rationale?

EDIT 2: (first edit deleted) nevermind, I found it: Article 13;

Public curiosity... hey its better than getting a bullet in your gizzard.

[ December 17, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

I think that the rationale would be as follows...
With Bush's declaration of the "end of major conflict", it somewhat changed the status of everyone involved in the occupation.

Insurgents / Terrorists who are currently captured by US forces are not viewed as P.O.W.'s, they are viewed as apprehended criminals, little different than you can see displayed on any newshow in the world. They are not "combatants" as defined by the Geneva Convention, indeed do not identify themselves with any regular military outfit. The Geneva Convention specifically speaks to the rights of captured, uniform, miltary personnel...it does not address, nor ever has, the rights of lawbreakers and criminals in a war zone.

As far as regular Iraqi military who were captured during the early stages of the war, I am unaware of seeing any coverage showing them paraded before the world. The same is true of those P.O.W.'s captured in Afganistan...we have seen very little of the current inhabitants of Gitmo.

Sadam's case is the same, yet more extreme. He could hardly be called a combatant as he cowered in his rat hole, and on top of that, he was a fugitive with a bounty on his head for crimes committed against the Iraqi people. He is no simple P.O.W., and to assume that is a misinterpretation of the purpose of the Geneva Convention.

That aside, I felt that the coverage of his treatment was a bit over the top, but when I consider the teen-age girls "used" by he and his sons in the famous rape-rooms...I just don't care.

 

There were many right from the beginning of the invasion, when Saddam's government was still in power.

So called terrorists - some of them are, some were put in there without much ado. At present, they're in Guantanamo, so that US constitution couldn't apply to them and give them any rights. Like fair trial. Or ANY trial at all. No one cares they're foreign citizens, either. Where's the embassy call?

 

@Hacken Slash

The fact that Bush said that the war is over is irrelavant. The Geneva Conventions state the following about the status of members of the resistance movements:

Although, in an another article of the convention the following is written:

Iraqis can claim that they are members of an organizaed resistance movements and therefore they have combatant status. On the other hand, Americans can claim that they are civilians who perform crimininal acts and therefore they don't have a combatant status. So, I guess that the whole thing is a matter of interpretation of the conventions.

It doesn't matter if he was fighting in the front line or if he was hiding in a rathole. Saddam as the head of the Iraqi state was the head of iraqi army and therefore he has a combatant status.

 

But because Saddam is also the head of the Iraqi state he is MORE than just a simple combantant. For the very reasons BOC mentioned above, the capturing American forces had the choice of whether or not to declare him a POW. They obviously did not. The two things gained by not declaring him a POW:

1. The ability to put him on television. Note, that the rules of the Geneva Convention protect against showing POW's in a humiliating or (for lack of a better word) "dehumanizing" fashion. For example, we couldn't show Saddam shackled in a jail cell. We had to show him to prove he was captured, and this alone was reason enough to not declare him a POW.

2. By not declaring him a POW we can keep him at an undisclosed location for an indefinite period of time. In this case, that means until his trial. This helps to avoid the possibility of Saddam sympathizers attempting to get him released, or attacking the location where he was held.

So to summarize, the main reason we can show Saddam on TV, is because he isn't a POW.

 

Saddam wasn't arrested because he was a mamber of iraqi resistance, he was arrested because he was the president of Iraq and this makes him a POW. He isn't a civilian and therefore, the article 64 of the conventions cannot be applied to him.

 

I guess the general idea is that it's demoralizing to a democratic nation. So, take your pick at who's most vulnerable to that stuff. Any Civilization player can tell you that a despotic government is immune to all the negative publicity that a war generates.

Also, it's one thing if you're showing him alive and receiving medical attention.

It's another thing when the kid comes up to the window to show off his bloody palms...

 

Well, I saw some footage of POW's before Bush declared the war over (how magnamious of him), not much as I tried to avoid watching that sort of thing, but enough to make me think that the Iraqis were being treated worse than the Americans, and in a far more degrading manner, and this is based on the media being shown to us to say that the Americans were being treated badly.

Also, if the war was truly over it would have to have stopped, it didn't. Bush can't just say whatever he likes and keep fighting, I think that if the Iraqis consider themselves as a resistence then they should be treated as such. Also, all of the POW's captured by America should have been released when they decleared the end of combat- but this didn't happen, so I can't really see that America is following the rules here.

Edit: I just remembered that there are a lot of still-imprisoned POW's from other countries as well, who were citizens of Western countries but fighting for the others. Now this doesn't seem right at all. Those citizens should have been released back to their home-countries for the option of trial if that country so wishes. They weren't found on American soil so their laws do not apply, and if they are traitors then they are traitors to their own country, not America. If they are treated as POW's (which they are since they were captured in a war) then they should be released, if they are not POW's then they have done nothing wrong that can be tried by America itself. Wonderful way to treat the sovereign rights of your allies

[ December 18, 2003, 02:26: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

@BOC

Surely you are not insinuating that this caveat describes the Iraqi insurgents? Yeah, that's right, those donkeys who carried the explosives into Bagdhad were clearly uniformed, had an obvious chain of command, and gave "name, rank and serial number" when captured. Yeah, I saw "Shrek" too. I think you have proven my point.

@Manus
I saw the same footage too (I think). It showed rows of Iraqi prisoners of war, from a distance, usually seated with their hands bound behind them with a zip-tie. There is no harm in this...the intent of Art 13 of the Conventions is to avoid the parading of P.O.W.'s before the camera, just as Sadam did during GWI. I don't think that the US ever showed the interview or statement of any P.O.W.

No one ever claimed that Sadam was arrested because he was a member of the resistance. Sadam was a criminal fugitive, and is probably currently enjoying better accomdations than he has experienced for the last several months. I already said that I felt the delousing was a bit over the top, but it is a deluded liberal who will dwell at a time such as this on the violation of the civil rights of a deposed tyrant. Perhaps if you "feel" so much for him, we can arrange for him to serve as the next Head of State for your nation.

 

@Hacken Slash

You obviously prefered to ignore the definition of the combatant given in the protocols of 1977. As I have already said the whole thing is open to interpretation.

See the last Aldeth's post. He obviously based his opinion on the article 64 of the conventions and Saddam could only be included in this specific article only if he was civilian or a member of the resistance.

I don't have any feelings about Saddam, I don't care about his fate. Although, I can't stand the "everybody is bound to international laws except us" attidute of your government. Also, I don't doubt that your goverment could arrange for Saddam to serve as the head of state of my nation. Afterall it has done it in the past. Have you ever heard about the greek colonels (1967-1974)?

@Manus

This issue is open to interpretation as well. According to Geneva Conventions, while volunteers have the compatant status, merceneries are not considered to be combatants. The U.S. government can claim that they are merceneries and therefore they cannot have the protection,which the conventions provide to the combatants.

 

(@Hacken Slash) I'm not sure, that could have been the same footage. The one I saw had the troops parrading over the prisoners with guns inches from their heads saying some vulgar abuse like"You F-ing something, you F-ing think about F-ing something and I'll F-ing kill you..." you get the picture, (I know it sounds like they were recently captured but the prisoners had all been brought out for quesioning or something of the sort). I don't know if any US troops were actually tortured, I hope not, and I know that would be far worse than this sort of thing.

To me the issue of Saddam's treatment takes the back seat to the fact that America is doing the same thing it critisized others for, and the other breaches of the convention and other treaties which took place. He was a real bad guy, I know, but I don't see the point of all the tv coverage (even if he was only a criminal prisoner, I would disagree with what's going on)

It's the hypocritical attitude that disturbs me, I'm sure that everyone holds a deep resentment for the other side in war, but once he's a prisoner I think that the bad treatment has got to stop, it just seems unessecary. You know how the saying goes, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. If they want to delouse him and all that that's fine, but to make a mockery of anyone is un-called for -it's not going to make the other side surrender- especially just after the government finished complaining when someone else did the same.

I think the reason this bothers people is not because they like Saddam Hussein, but because they do not like the manner in which the media and polticians have been conducting themselves. The lesser of two evils I know, but Saddam has allready been dealt with, to some these two issues still pose a threat. I wouldn't like it any more if my own government or media was doing the same. I was even more unsettled by a series of events which transpired parralell to the way in which this has only a month ago or less, I mean of course the execution of a man in Bali who belonged to an underground extremist group, and the way in which a large group of the people in some other countries, who do not even have the death-penalty themselves, were all demanding he be killed, and news updates were recieved many times a day on the trial. It was disgraceful to say the least.

 

I don't remember any writ against Saddamm Husein. Are you aware of any?
And furthermore Hussein was the President of Iraq, the country which USA invaded, and if that does not provide enough evidence that he is to be considered POW then i guess there is not such term.
Not to mention that allthough Bush at first stated end of combat, which afterwards was changed to end of major conflict (meaning that the US administration acknowledged the fact that there was an organized resistance) means that every person arrested so far, and until the US administration declares end of conflict, are POWs and not terrorists/insurgents.

BOC answered the way i would so i will just add something more. Because US has a history of planting Heads of State this comment is low to put it mildly, and of bad taste, please don't do it again.

 

Gentlemen,
When I said

I never imagined that it would hit upon painful or sensitive nerves. I never meant to insinuate that it would be proper or appropriate for such an action to be taken against you, or to trigger any personal feelings of resentment, anger or fear.

I often say things that are very much over the top to me , and fail to realize how it could bear personal hurt to another.

Please accept my apologies.

I still don't agree with your take, however, on the captured criminals and insurgents in Iraq...including Sadam himself.

 

As BOC said, where's the writ. It's not important why he was arrested, but what his status is. Saddam was the President of Iraq, head of the armed force and also acting in chief officer capacity, himself having a military rank (field marshal ).

Doesn't matter who he is. Who is the US administration to decide to whom human rights should apply and to whom not? Note: Saddam can't have civil laws in any other country than Iraq since he's not their citizen, ergo: "civil" doesn't apply. What's more, rights are meant to be any sort of reward for good conduct. They're meant to be so egalitarian and basic as to be in a way impersonal.

That Saddam was a bad boy doesn't mean anyone is entitled to treat him badly. Justified - if acting on momentary emotions - perhaps, but not in the right.

What, however, pisses off to the max isn't even the treatment of Saddam itself. It's hypocrisy. All laws applicable apply to all, except the US to whom US-approved laws apply to a US-approved extent. In short: international law consists of obligations and rights. Obligations and rights apply to all, but to the US only rights apply and obligations don't.

...Which is not yet the worst thing, actually. The worst is complaining about Iraqis doing what the US do, and speaking of fair treatment, fair trial where it's hardly trial, let alone fair. Claiming WMD evidence when there's none. Heh, they didn't even have the balls to say "yes, we lied".

And now Saddam is interrogated by CIA. They actually boast using all the best ways to get what he knows from him. Sleep deprivation seems their pet one, how convenient.

CG Art. 32:

No comment needed.

CG Art. 31

Speaks for itself.

BTW, wonder what the US would say if the opposing side made something like this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031216/ts_alt_afp/iraq_saddam_us_toy

 

@ chev (re your link)
Well, this just takes the cake. What's next, an artificially muscled Dubya? - Oh wait, they have that too.

Actually, all this is being blown out of proportion. The footage of Saddam being examined was just intended to show how thorough the U.S. is in its search for WMD's.