American POWs in Iraq

Mistreatment of POWs by Iraq: They were showed on TV. Thats all. Have you seen any abusing or other mistreatment. You have to stay to the facts of what you see. Not what there maybe occurs behind the camera. That are speculations.

POWs should not be shown on TV. Under what natural law are you living?

I share your opinion. See one of my first postings in this thread. But the US has also used the POW's in their propaganda war. It is kinda hypocrit to accuse the Iraqi en doing it yourself. That is my point. The Geneva convention is not entirely clear on the TV-issue. What do you understand under "public curiosity" Who has made the difference between showing them and interviewing them? That is an interpretation of an agreement

Fact is: The abusing and hurting of POW's are speculations. Nobody knows how they will be treated.

Let us not forget the fact that Iraq is not a signatory to the Geneva convention.

And Bush and co cannot beat their chests abt violation of international treaties and conventions - remember, they started this war by ignoring these very international laws.

Philosophy of Natural Law is sometimes dangerous, which those in the continent are more familiar with.

BBC: Nineteen Afghans held at the United States high security military prison at Guantanamo Bay have been released, Afghan officials say.
US investigators have decided the men are not terrorists, an official working for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said.

The men were among more than 600 detainees being held at Camp Delta, on the coast of Cuba, following the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

Three Afghan detainees were released in October.

"The men have been found not to be terrorists and have been returned to Afghanistan," S Faziakbar, a member of President Karzai's office said on Sunday.

Many Afghan men are wrongly held at Camp Delta, their families say

It is not known if the men have now been freed to return to their homes.

In the US, a Pentagon spokesman said on Sunday that 30 more detainees had been flown to Guantanamo, taking the total number of detainees there to 660.

Last October three Afghans held in Guantanamo Bay were returned home. Two were believed to be in their seventies.

They told the BBC they had been locked in tiny cells in sweltering heat for long periods, but had not been beaten.

The three, released together with a Pakistani man, were the first inmates of Camp Delta to be set free.

The American policy of secretly detaining suspects without charge in Guantanamo Bay has been criticised by human rights groups.

In Afghanistan there are dozens of families who claim their sons have been wrongly arrested.

I hope they get some compensation for their wasted time. Those lost months are never coming back.

Timber -- Don't forget the Red Cross also filed a protest about Guantanamo.

Iraq IS a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

I agree. The use of the terrible footage of captured POWs as propaganda tells us a lot about the Iraqi regime, and maybe also about cultural differences.

I want to point out that the Western media have shown pictures of Iraqi POWs knelling down (humilliated, by Western standards) while being pointed at the head with machineguns. It may be argued that the photos were taken at the moment of aprehension. But also, that they were profusely distributed.

Same thing happens with alleged terrorists in Guantanamo. For Americans it's normal to see prisoners chained, in shackles. It's even done with common prisoners. For many of us outside the US, it's a creepy vision, even if it's the men in chains are despicable Taliban.

As for Rumsfeld calling the Geneva Convention: while legally correct, I also find it as typically double standard. International law is good when it favors us; bad (and we can do without) when it stops us from our goals.

That's exactly why the current US administration is so dangerous. It's basically run by an extreme right-wing, racist and ultra-nationalist bunch of old farts. The planet, you and me are badly served by their insane worldview.

CNN apparantly has double standards on POW's

Minutes ago i saw live images of Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner at gunpoint by American units. Geneva convention only for American forces?

frolic, as has been mentioned before, the news aspect of the act of capture, which is what was depicted, is legitimate. What is illegitimate is well exemplified by the Iraqi TV/Al-Jazeera clip.

exposed to public curiosity! That are the words used in the Geneva convention. U start labelling footage by unclear standards. The convention doesn't say anything about interviewing. It just says it is against the convention to expose POWs to public curiosity. Those three Iraqi POW's were clearly exposed to public curiosity trough LIVE pictures!

I guess we read things differently, frolic. That's why there are lawyers.

I guess the horrifying pictures of Afghani men blindfolded, tied and stripped in planes heading for Guantanamo camps is of no worry. The fantasmagorical excuse that they are really 'illegal combattants' only worsens this crime.

The individuals so depicted are not individually identified and are accorded restraint in keeping with established procedure for the transporting of potentially dangerous prisoners. You're welcvome to your outrage, I, and the bulk of the non-partisan world legal community, dont share that view. Neither does The Red Cross.
There are complaints surrounding the detainment at Guantanamo, yes. That is of itself a prickly issue, and arguments of merit exist on both sides of the question. Detaining them is probably nearly as effective at preventing hostile behavior on the parts of those so inclined as shooting them, and somewhat more humane. Pragmatically, I see it as a "Lesser Evil" sort of thing, a "Least objectionable alternative". I am comforted to know the ones behind razorwire pose no threat.

The prisoners held in Guantanamo are not prisoners of war, and hence do not fall under the Geneva Convention. They, when captured, were not part of any recognized army and were not uniformed. Their membership in an international terrorist organization engaged in irregular warfare poses legal problems in determining what and how to deal with them. They are not soldiers, but rather super-criminals who don't quite fit into any civilized criminal code. They can't easily be repatriated, because their allegiance is to a radical idea, not any particular country. Their numbers are large, and the crimes they participate in are not the sort that can be handled by oridnary systems of justice.

What do we do with them? I think that still has to be resolved, but the priority for working something appropriate out must await the outcome of other, higher, priorities. In the meantime, I am certain that the prisoners are treated humanly, and generally in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Some are valuable sources of intelligence, and they will be briskly interrogated by professionals without the use of torture. Others are so dangerous that they must be confined and watched for a long time.

In any case, those prisoners are treated far better than any that might be taken by our enemies. Al Queda, other terrorist organizations, and brutal dictatorships like Iraq and North Korea have no reluctance to beat, starve, humiliate, and otherwise mistreat any person unfortunate enough to fall into their hands.

They may be not soldiers. They stay human beings and are to be treated with respect! They have rights because they are human beings.

You seem quite comfortable speaking unanimously for all Iraqis. The images I see on TV suggest that some may see it this way. Still others seem to be welcoming our troops as their saviors.

Of course, I'm sure if that latter group knew as much as you do they would see things the way you think they should.

Yes they do, but they do not have rights under the Geneva Convention. The worst claims I have seen regarding their treatment is that they are UNCOMFORTABLE and have been deprived of SLEEP.

When I served in the US Navy on a ship at sea I was both (uncomfortable and sleep-deprived) on a fairly regular basis.