 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
I believe the difference is that independent journalists may sometimes film the event of a capture as they witness it but that once they are in custody, the Iraqi POWs are not filmed any more.
It would be difficult to prevent camerman from filming an actual capture as it occurrs
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I suppose it is the difference between filming someone doing what they were doing anyway - walking down a road to a prison camp or whatever - and making someone respond for the cameras. Having said that, it is not a clear line between the two looking at some of the footage. It gets even more difficult when some of the pictures are of Iraqis not in uniform and arguably not POW's covered by the Geneva convention.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
I still see a difference in the filming but maybe I missed something. Have Iraqi POWs, actually in custody, been interviewed? I had not seen that. If that has occurred, then my opinion would change on this issue.
But to date, all I have seen is film of Iraqis in the process of surrendering or marching away. I have not seen anything that would require the permission/cooperation of the captors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
muppet
|
|
Igloo
Dec 2001
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
The differences are:
1) We have not used state media to display Iraqi POWs for propaganda purposes.
2) Iraqi prisoners have not been interviewed by our media.
Though the initial films of surrendering Iraqis may be considered a violation (incidental, at worst), steps have been taken to ensure that no further violations occur (when was the last time you saw prisoners in custody being displayed on television). |
That was a rather one sided CNN like statement.
The Geneva convention states:
Article 13
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
The Geneva convention makes no distinction between state media or private enterprise.
The detaining power has an obligation to prevent "public curiosity" irrespective of origin.
Both the US and Iraq have violated the Geneva Convention.
The only difference is Rumsfeldian: it's OK for us to do it until the enemy ups the ante.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I think what many are referring to is not so much the tapping of the American POW, but how they did it and what they did to them. I have not seen the whole video because I dont want to see it, but they do show dead american solders with bullet wounds in their heads, right between the eyes as if they were executed after being captured. It also shows an Iraq playing withe the dead bodies of the Americans, this is just sick and desgusting. You would never see American troops doing something like this to Iraq solders and taping it for all the world to see.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Yes how is one to prevent the taping of solders surrending on the battlefield and being taken into prisoner and marched off when the News media from every country is there filming it?
Last edited by Jack_www on 26-03-2003 at 00:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
I was watching the Beeb and the reporter was displaying strong anti-war anti-US bias. Paraphrased:
"Pictures of US soldiers captured by the Iraqis has brought sharp criticism from the US administration about the breaking of the Geneva Convention. Bush has demanded they be treated humanely.
President Bush appear to have forgotten about the pictures from Guantanamo Bay. It appears the US only cares about the Convention when it suits them."
I don't agree with the conclusion of the BBC reporter, but I do wonder about the US moral position. |
If I pulled such a stunt while in my professional capacity, I would receive an official reprimand.
Journalists are *not* supposed to insert their privately held opinions into any sort of news; this edict stems from the "yellow journalism" practices of our forebears from the 19th and early 20th centuries (specifically, the actions that may have indirectly caused the Spanish-American War in 1898), when U.S. journalists freely added their opinions to hard news copy, and still had the gonads to call it unfiltered and unbiased news.
Unfortunately, most people equate journalism nowadays with the talking heads and pundits they see on Fox, CNN, BBC, in the newspaper editorial page guest columnists and so on. Well, they're technically not journalists, they're pundits. Opinion-givers, so to speak. Spinmeisters. But not journalists. I wish folks could make the distinction better, because there really are hardworking "behind-the-scenes" *real* journalists who are digging up hard news for the public to become aware of.
Journalism is a way of life, and most people who are in the profession aren't in it for the money, because it's not a six- or seven-figure profession for most of us.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-03-2003 20:32
|