25-03-2003 23:53									#31
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jack_www Yes how is one to prevent the tapping 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?

I'm not usually one that gets all hung up on another's spelling, but if you mean "filming", it's spelled taping.
1 "P".

The reason I bring it up is that on quick glance I thought the Iraqi's were Tapping=Slapping=Something Else our troops.
Which they probably are, but that's not what you're talking about.

	25-03-2003 23:57									#32
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand I'm not usually one that gets all hung up on another's spelling, but if you mean "filming", it's spelled taping. 1 "P". The reason I bring it up is that on quick glance I thought the Iraqi's were Tapping=Slapping=Something Else our troops. Which they probably are, but that's not what you're talking about.

well sometimes I make typos when I type, sorry about that.

	26-03-2003 00:24									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

But again... it's all propaganda.

We are led to believe that Iraquis are evil ruthless captors and will treat US POWS like dirt. On the other hand, the US being a benevolent conqueror will treat its POWS well. I don't want to get into an argument about this, but that's the reason people get so jittery when US soldiers are in enemy hands, yet assume it is "normal" when they surrender to the US.

	26-03-2003 00:32									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Unless there have been more than I have seen and with all respect . . . BULLCRAP All I have ever seen is prisoners being initially detained and perhaps some footage of them being marched away. All of this occurrs in the open air and in areas that are still active war zones. To expect the coalition troops to be trying to prevent this filming . . . . . I have never seen any attempt by the US to use the prisoners as public curiousities . All that has been shown ( again unless there is footage I have yet to see)is precisely what anyone in the area at the time could see. Exactly how are the US supposed to prevent this ???

quote: Originally posted by Jack_www Yes how is one to prevent the tapping 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?

I think the question was already answered in a previous post.

quote: Originally posted by Kirnwaffen 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).

Could you guys not get so defensive/offensive? I was neither advocating nor condoning Iraqi behaviour. Nor would I ever advocate how Iraq is, or will be treating our prisoners.

I was pointing out the fact that both sides have violated the agreement.
Ours could have been avoided.
Theirs is revolting.
So what?

No matter what Rumsfeld says or what the allies do now, it does not change that fact that we have violated the the agreement that explicitly places the burden on the capturing side to prevent what they call public curiosity. The convention does not say "do not participate", it says "prevent". Which I assume means to take reasonable measures including, well... censorship? It has been part of the normal course of media-military relations in the past, and still is.

quote: Originally posted by Ming Let me know when the US starts shooting POW's and broadcasts the film...

Well... as a matter of principle, I haven't even seen the current Iraqi tapes of our prisoners - that would justify them making the tape.
Although I was not aware they had gone so far as to tape the executions of POW's.

	26-03-2003 00:35									#35
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

A spin-off from the BBC:

quote: 1433: General Renuart says "terrorist-like" cells are responsible for the resistance in Basra.

What is this supposed to mean? That the enemies left in Basra is not to be considered to be regular combatants? Or is it just talk to get some support, playing the Terrorist-card so to speak.

	26-03-2003 00:47									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by muppet Although I was not aware they had gone so far as to tape the executions of POW's.

They showed images of soldiers with bullet wounds in the forehead. Although it is somewhat circumstantial, it's seems obvious to me that they were executed.

	26-03-2003 01:41									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by muppet I think the question was already answered in a previous post. I was pointing out the fact that both sides have violated the agreement.

Which post answered the question?

Since nothing has been mentioned other than reporters filming troops in action, including an actual surrender, I see no violation of the Geneva convention by coalition forces here. They cannot be expected to protect the POWs from being seen on their way to surrender. Thats just ludicrous. If reports of fake surrenders are true, this onus would be doubly stupid.

If the Iraqis were put in a truck would you expect the coalition to scour all of Iraq looking for tapes that might have filmed some prisoners peeking out between the flaps??

Merely having a prisoner captured on film could not be intended to be a violation of the convention. I am sure that any number of red Cross visits may be filmed in various wars. The intent is to prevent the display of prisoners for such purposes. I know of no evidence that the coalition did anything to aid in the filming of any prisoners in this conflict.

	26-03-2003 02:00									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Could you guys not get so defensive/offensive? I was neither advocating nor condoning Iraqi behaviour. Nor would I ever advocate how Iraq is, or will be treating our prisoners.

Sorry I came off that way. My intention was only to point out that the incidents in which US media has been allowed access to POWs have been limited and, in some cases, not easily prevented, whereas the Iraqi access has been quite open and deliberate. Both are violations. I should have been more clear.

	26-03-2003 02:54									#39
	Got spare money?

It would be fairer if both parties were restricted from showing ANY images of POWs outright.

Obviously most Americans don't have a problem with exposing Iraq POWS and/or laughing at/insulting them, but the vice versa is also the case.

	26-03-2003 03:09									#40
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I love how some people can't see the difference between showing scenes of them being captured in the normal sequence of the war...

And binding them, and asking them questions directly to the camera... not to mention killing them...

	26-03-2003 03:11									#41
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by JCG It would be fairer if both parties were restricted from showing ANY images of POWs outright.

Actually, recording and broadcasting POWs giving their name, rank and serial number has one beneficial effect.

It provides proof that that person is captured, and a bit more difficult to "disappear" someone.

Alas getting that up and running would probably be difficult.

quote: Obviously most Americans don't have a problem with exposing Iraq POWS and/or laughing at/insulting them, but the vice versa is also the case.

Evidence? All I have seen so far is some brief images of iraqi soldiers being led away from this or that location.

Have any Iraqi POWs had a camera stuck in their face and been asked questions about who they were, why they were there, if they wanted to shoot Americans or Brits, etc? Any wounded POWs for that matter?

Please do provide examples...

	26-03-2003 03:12									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If I were a POW, I wouldn't mind being interviewed

That way all my PBEM opponents would know they need to find a replacement.

	26-03-2003 03:39									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ming I love how some people can't see the difference between showing scenes of them being captured in the normal sequence of the war... And binding them, and asking them questions directly to the camera... not to mention killing them...

I don't love it, I think it abhorrent.

	26-03-2003 03:51									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

When those prisoners get back after the war, and say they suffered no violations of the Geneva Convention, I WILL LAUGH AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE RUCKUS.

If they do...I will quietly fade away...

	26-03-2003 04:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

What I find disgusting is the way they treat their own political prisoners. Those POW's are getting good treatment.

	26-03-2003 04:21									#46
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by problem_child There's still the hornets nest of Guantanamo Bay, if the Iraqis had called their GI POWs illegal combatants (because accoding to the UN, this invasion is legally dodjy) then what could the Americans say...?

The Geneva Convention doesn't get into issues of whether the UN or any other party thinks a war is legally ok, or legally dodgy. The only issue is with recognized parties to a conflict - a perfect example is the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Regardless of legality of the invasion (and the whole notion of "legal" invasions is sort of dodgy in itself), lawful combatants of recognized parties to a conflict are entitled to the protections of the convention.

"Unlawful combatants" has nothing to do with whether some organization sanctions a war, it has only to do with the conduct and nature of the combatants themselves.

	26-03-2003 04:23									#47
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen When those prisoners get back after the war, and say they suffered no violations of the Geneva Convention, I WILL LAUGH AT ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE RUCKUS.

Some of them won't say anything, they will be in bodybags.

	26-03-2003 04:31									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: There's still the hornets nest of Guantanamo Bay

Yes and the US has really painted themselves into a corner on that.

There are US precedents for this kind of legal limbo - the way the leaders of the confederacy were treated I think - but I can't recall the details.

	26-03-2003 04:31									#49
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat The Geneva Convention doesn't get into issues of whether the UN or any other party thinks a war is legally ok, or legally dodgy. The only issue is with recognized parties to a conflict - a perfect example is the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Regardless of legality of the invasion (and the whole notion of "legal" invasions is sort of dodgy in itself), lawful combatants of recognized parties to a conflict are entitled to the protections of the convention. "Unlawful combatants" has nothing to do with whether some organization sanctions a war, it has only to do with the conduct and nature of the combatants themselves.

But the definition of "unlawful combatants" is EVEN MORE dodgy than that of a legal war, In fact, I hadn't even thought that term existed before the Afghan war. To me, the only unlawful combatants are kids and foreigners impressed into service. Everyone else counts, and those people at Guantanamo are legitimate prisoners of war even though the US claims otherwise.

	26-03-2003 04:37									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sinapus Actually, recording and broadcasting POWs giving their name, rank and serial number has one beneficial effect. It provides proof that that person is captured, and a bit more difficult to "disappear" someone. Alas getting that up and running would probably be difficult.

I know...still, it would be better if the visual information was only released to the Red Cross/International Organizations/U.S. government.

Keep exposure to the bare minimum: Just give out the names, ranks and serial numbers on a list, and put that on CNN together with a file photo if you wish.

quote: Evidence? All I have seen so far is some brief images of iraqi soldiers being led away from this or that location. Have any Iraqi POWs had a camera stuck in their face and been asked questions about who they were, why they were there, if they wanted to shoot Americans or Brits, etc? Any wounded POWs for that matter?

I realize I wasn't clear, sorry....such things have yet to be done to the Iraqi POWs, but U.S. public opinion hasn't liked the second POW tape either, even if nothing humiliating has been done to the helicopter POWs. The point is, they fear for their lives and possible off-screen fate.

Thus, we can imagine part of what the Iraqi street will feel when they see those images of their loved ones on screen being arrested, kneeling down or in a lineup, can't we?

Several (the pro-SH types maybe) will suppose that the U.S./CIA will simply make some them "disappear" after a bloody interrogation, and they'll live with that fear for a long while.

That's why I think these tapes aren't helping the civilans on either side.

	26-03-2003 04:40									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat "Unlawful combatants" has nothing to do with whether some organization sanctions a war, it has only to do with the conduct and nature of the combatants themselves.

Do combatants have to represent a sovereign nation to be considered lawful?

	26-03-2003 04:46									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Jack_www You would never see American troops doing something like this to Iraq solders and taping it for all the world to see.

I'm sorry... but is the shooting of prisoners the outrageous part of all this, or is it the taping? Your post makes it seem that the shooting of POWs is OK provided that it's done discreetly

Normally I wouldn't ask this, but I've seen more than one post that reads the same way.

	26-03-2003 04:48									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I take these posts to mean that they denounce both actions.

	26-03-2003 04:54									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kirnwaffen I take these posts to mean that they denounce both actions.

Filming is pretty harmless... I'd be worried about the shooting.

Iraq doesn't have CNN to pump out glossy propaganda 24/7. I imagine a bunch of scared-looking POWs is their version of propaganda ("Look at what we're fighting - they ain't so bad!" - or Iraqi words to that effect).

	26-03-2003 05:22									#55
	Support Apolyton

Just like filming a city being blown to bits is no less humiliating... would you all like to see that happen to your home towns on world-wide TV? There are many forms of humilliation, filming POWS is but one of them.

	26-03-2003 05:36									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin A spin-off from the BBC: What is this supposed to mean? That the enemies left in Basra is not to be considered to be regular combatants? Or is it just talk to get some support, playing the Terrorist-card so to speak.

There is a small cadre of non-uniformed, armed Saddamite loyalists who are both intimidating the local population, firing at our British allies while using civilian shields, and apparently "motivating" the uniformed Iraqi regulars to fight. Members of that group are clearly unlawful combatants, but the uniformed Iraqi regulars and militia are lawful combatants, thus entitled to GC protection if and when captured.

quote: Originally posted by Big Crunch Do combatants have to represent a sovereign nation to be considered lawful?

No. Nationality per se is not an issue - for example, stateless persons can be lawful combatants under the GC.

Mercenaries may or may not be lawful combatants, but regular uniformed combatants of third nations generally are lawful combatants.

Examples from recent history: Congo, 1965, "Mad Mike" Hoare and his English, Aussie, Rhodesian, and South African mercenaries: Unlawful combatants, even though openly armed and more or less uniformed, they were not nationals of recognized parties, not integrated with the regular or irregular armed forces of a recognized party. Individually, they also didn't adhere to the laws and customs of war.

Grenada, 1983, Cuban Army combat engineer battalion: Lawful combatants. Uniformed, openly armed, and regular forces of a third party nation allied with (and under technical control of) recognized party.

The US military has numerous non-US citizens in uniform, and their nationality isn't relevant, as they are regular, uniformed members of the US military.

Al Qaeda and Taleban fighters in Afghanistan:

Most Taleban: Lawful combatants as a general rule - openly armed, uniformed, members of regular forces of recognized party.

al Qaeda: Most are not lawful combatants - not integrated with forces of any recognized party, not uniformed, often not bearing arms openly, and not part of an organized force subject to orders of a definite command structure. (This is important in two respects - the ability of the command structure to discipline it's forces and compel obedience can prevent violations of the laws of war, and the commanders can order the surrender or cessation of hostilities of the entire force, so each individual doesn't have to be hunted down.

	26-03-2003 05:38									#57
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Just like filming a city being blown to bits is no less humiliating... would you all like to see that happen to your home towns on world-wide TV? There are many forms of humilliation, filming POWS is but one of them.

And the only forms of humiliation relevant to this thread are those that happen to POW's by their captors.

	26-03-2003 09:45									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man I'm sorry... but is the shooting of prisoners the outrageous part of all this, or is it the taping? Your post makes it seem that the shooting of POWs is OK provided that it's done discreetly Normally I wouldn't ask this, but I've seen more than one post that reads the same way.

No i dont mean that executing POWs is alright if done in secret. That is not what I was trying to say.

	26-03-2003 09:48									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If I had to chose who I would want to take me prisoner during this war I would have to say US hands down. Only God knows what Saddam's troops are doing to those POWs.

	26-03-2003 11:04									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I never thought that filming POWs was much of an issue. It seems that interviewing them on camera is a bigger deal. If the Iraqis had simply shown footage of American POWs, and those POWs were being treated humanely, there wouldn't be any problem.

Kurt Vonnegut I think wrote about being filmed by a German camera crew after he was captured. It became a little scene in Slaughterhouse Five. But it wasn't considered a criminal act by him. And I'm pretty sure I've seen footage of other POWs in various historical documentaries. The important thing is usually that they aren't being forced to answer questions and they are being treated reasonably well.