Against the Geneva Convention?
Okay, I'm certainly no international law expert, but I'm a bit confused by Donald Rumsfeld's allegation that Iraq is in violation of the Geneva Convention for showing video of American soldiers captured as prisoners of war. Unless I'm missing something, Rumsfeld's argument stems from Article 13 of Convention III, which states:
"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.
"Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
Now, I get how showing them on video might possibly be construed as failing to protect POWs from public curiosity. But that seems pretty flimsy to me. It occurs to me that they're doing more of a service than a disservice by enabling US media and the military to identify who the Iraqis have in custody and who they've killed or who's gone MIA.
So, can someone with a better grip on this stuff explain it to me? Use small words. Otherwise I might startled and frightened.
Comments
"public curiosity."
Iraqi state-owned TV parading the prisoners is, essentially, the Iraq government holding the prisoners up for public curiosity...
More amusing was the press conference today when they asked how it was any different than the US violating the Geneva Convention on Guantanamo Bay. But that was a cheap shot, since the administration has already said that as far as they're concerned, the Geneva Convention only appplies to enemy combatants -- i.e., members of enemy armies -- and that terrorists are not covered.
Posted by: jsnell | March 24, 2003 07:40 PM
Right. Taliban and Al-Qaeda aren't part of a recognizable military hierarchy, supposedly.
Posted by: Peter cohen | March 24, 2003 08:54 PM
Ok, a friend released the state-owned network coverage of the Apache attack helicopter that had been shot down by a farmer with a bazooka.
Can somebody please tell me as to why a farmer owns a bazooka?
Chris
Posted by: Chris Barylick | March 25, 2003 12:42 PM
Easy. To shoot the crops when they're ripe.
Posted by: jsnell | March 26, 2003 05:40 PM
If anything, having the videos of captured US troops is a GOOD thing, because we are able to see what condition they are in, and (upon their release) we'll be able to compare them to those images to determine whether or not they have been subjected to torture, victims of malnutrition, recieved necessary medical treatment, etc. during their detainment, (which hopefully, will be brief and not-too-traumatic).
Video evidence, which is exactly what that is, is often the most compelling, and if people can see beyond the weak tripe that Rumsfeld has cooked up, they might be convinced that we're probably better off for having the videos than not.
A silver lining in the dark fog of war, maybe?
Posted by: Bardiel | March 29, 2003 06:57 PM