POWs

[Uncle Sparky]

Rumsfeld raised an interesting point re: the captured coalition troops. It is technically a violation of the Geneva Convention to "publicly display" POWs. Is this possible, or practical in the current media saturated war?

Will the US ask or even require the American corespondents in the field to stop filming captured Iraqis? ... or was Rumsfeld only concerned about the rights of Coalition troops?

Will both sides in this conflict treat POWs as prisoners or as detainees without rights - like those captured by the US, Canadians and other forces in Afghanistan? Have the Coalition Forces made any statements on this?

What do you think of the Sports Fishermen method (catch & release - unless you get a big one) of dealing with Iraqi combatants? Are there any precidents to this? Isn't it rather dangerous?

[Jon Shafer]

There's a difference between media housed by democratic countries getting a view of us handling surrendered Iraqi POWs, and a Saddam-sanctioned parading of captured US POWs.

[Uncle Sparky]

There's a difference between media housed by democratic countries getting a view of us handling surrendered Iraqi POWs, and a Saddam-sanctioned parading of captured US POWs.

BION I'm not trying to pick a fight in this thread.

I missed the parading footage. Who broadcast it?

But to be honest, I don't see a great deal of difference between the coalition soldiers, who in the footage I saw were seated, looking rather anxious and being interviewed. I compare this to footage I saw of Iraqi soldiers seated on the ground, looking rather anxious and being interviewed.

- I must admit, I did get a kick out of the footage of the Iraqi soldier face down on the ground with an English soldier standing over him, gun pointing at the prisoner's head and speaking loudly & slowly "DO - YOU - SPEAK - ENGLISH ?" Bet he learned that one from the Americans !.

[Peter Triggs]

- I must admit, I did get a kick out of the footage of the Iraqi soldier face down on the ground with an English soldier standing over him, gun pointing at the prisoner's head and speaking loudly & slowly "DO - YOU - SPEAK - ENGLISH ?" Bet he learned that one from the Americans !.

No, no. Thats our reaction to all foreigners.

[alva]

Originally posted by Trip
There's a difference between media housed by democratic countries getting a view of us handling surrendered Iraqi POWs, and a Saddam-sanctioned parading of captured US POWs.

If someone neutral would be a referee in this, my guess is, he would say both sides are in violation.


-
I don't think the footage was shown in the US, I saw it earlier this night, and the soldiers did look scared to say the least.

[Ted Striker]

If the Iraqis mistreat US prisoners, they are shooting themselves in the foot. That's just going to anger US soldiers and make them fight much harder.

[alva]

Like 20000000000 ton bombs arn't enough...
-
They will do so politically IMO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Rumsfeld raised an interesting point re: the captured coalition troops. It is technically a violation of the Geneva Convention to "publicly display" POWs. Is this possible, or practical in the current media saturated war?

Will the US ask or even require the American corespondents in the field to stop filming captured Iraqis? ... or was Rumsfeld only concerned about the rights of Coalition troops?

I can't address Rumsfeld's concern, but the technical difference is whether the POW's are made to address the camera, make propaganda statements (a la USN Lt. Geoff Zahn in GW I). Simply being filmed at some reasonable distance in the process of being captured or handled subsequently isn't enough to be a violation - there has to be some (higher than normal for being a POW) level of coercion, humiliation, or use as a political object.

Will both sides in this conflict treat POWs as prisoners or as detainees without rights - like those captured by the US, Canadians and other forces in Afghanistan? Have the Coalition Forces made any statements on this?

There's a solid basis for treating the al Qaeda and some of the Taleban as unlawful combatants. Most Iraqi POW's will clearly be POW's, but according to early reports out of An Nasiriyah, you had some Iraqis wearing civilian clothing over their uniforms. That can get you summarily tried and shot, if not simply shot in the field. Einheits Stielau in the Ardennes offensive in WW 2 is a good example.

What do you think of the Sports Fishermen method (catch & release - unless you get a big one) of dealing with Iraqi combatants? Are there any precidents to this? Isn't it rather dangerous?

There are precendents, Grant at Vicksburg in 1863 being one. The treatment of these EPW's will depend a lot on the units they come from, and indications of their general state of uniform, supply and equipment. Obviously IRG prisoners won't get treated this way, but a lot of third-grade conscript units that never wanted to fight in the first place will. Their weapons will be taken, they'll be checked medically if wounded, fed, given some food and water, and sent down the road. Better for them, and better for us to not have to deal with them.

[GePap]

Until taken into custody you are not yet a POW. All those individuals we see surrendering on TV have yet ot be taken ito custody and thus techinically it is not a violation of thier dignity, which is what is violate dby taping them (since it is to embarrass them).

Notice that we don't see any images of POW camps for Iraqis being held right now, only imgaes of those people in the act of surrendering.

This is the distinction. It seems cosmetic, but the law is usually based on such thin lines.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Until taken into custody you are not yet a POW. All those individuals we see surrendering on TV have yet ot be taken ito custody and thus techinically it is not a violation of thier dignity, which is what is violate dby taping them (since it is to embarrass them).

Notice that we don't see any images of POW camps for Iraqis being held right now, only imgaes of those people in the act of surrendering.

This is the distinction. It seems cosmetic, but the law is usually based on such thin lines.

Once they surrender and are in control of allied forces, they're presumtive POWs unless it is determined that they're unlawful combatants, or other classes of persons covered in the Geneva Convention or other international law. (Neutral non-combatant observers attached to combatant forces, neutral civilians, dips, etc. etc.)

[GePap]

Well, that is the distinction no? Guys walking up to be taken into custody are not yet technically in custody.

Particulars, technicalities..the wonders of law.

[Drake Tungsten]

Several embedded correspondents from CNN have said that the military will not allow them to film Iraqi POW's. The US is following the Geneva Convention.

[Zero]

What about in Kosovo, where we saw pic of that american POW's beaten face to death?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, that is the distinction no? Guys walking up to be taken into custody are not yet technically in custody.

Particulars, technicalities..the wonders of law.

If they're in a recognized posture of surrender and in control, i.e. clearly in range of ground forces and under your weapons, they're POWs. Otherwise, it would be legal to simply shoot them on the spot, and it isn't.

Now, if there's any question that they're in control - i.e. the area is still contested, they're at range, or able to rapidly get under cover, or anything that makes taking them into custody questionable, i.e. you're not really in control of them, then they're still hostile combatants, and when in doubt, wipe 'em out.

That's why getting to be a POW is a risky business, but the moment they become protected doesn't start with touching them or searching them or confining them - if they don't resist, once you establish control, they're protected.

[Uncle Sparky]

This has been very informative - I sincerely thank you for your responses.

Is there an agreed upon definition for unlawful combatants in international law? Would the same definition apply to both the al Qaeda (a nationless army) and people such as Iraqi citizens defending their own country sans uniform ?

Speculate - G.W. Bush stated today, rather succinctly, that anyone treating POW inappropriately will be tried as war criminals. If he is faced with incontrovertible proof that coalition forces inflicted mistreat upon Iraqi POWs, would he send them to The Hague ?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Speculate - G.W. Bush stated today, rather succinctly, that anyone treating POW inappropriately will be tried as war criminals. If he is faced with incontrovertible proof that coalition forces inflicted mistreat upon Iraqi POWs, would he send them to The Hague ?

Of course not. He's already said that he doesn't recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court for American citizens.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Speculate - G.W. Bush stated today, rather succinctly, that anyone treating POW inappropriately will be tried as war criminals. If he is faced with incontrovertible proof that coalition forces inflicted mistreat upon Iraqi POWs, would he send them to The Hague ?

They would probably be court martialed based on historical precedent.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
This has been very informative - I sincerely thank you for your responses.

Is there an agreed upon definition for unlawful combatants in international law? Would the same definition apply to both the al Qaeda (a nationless army) and people such as Iraqi citizens defending their own country sans uniform ?

There's four criteria in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. Citizens out of uniform are presumed to be non-combatants, and entitled to those protections, so if they arm themselves and fight without wearing some uniform or markings distinguishable at a distance (a beret and armband would work, it just has to be fairly consistent and distinguishable at a distance), then they're unlawful combatants. Members of regular and irregular militia, and partisans wearing something that meets the distinguishable at a distance criteria are lawful combatants.

The four basic criteria are:

They must be members of forces of recognized parties to the conflict. (mercenaries may or may not be, depends on if they're integrated into a recognized parties forces - this is one area where al Qaeda didn't meet the criteria in Afghanistan.

They must abide by the rules and customs of war. (i.e. genocidal killers in uniform don't count.)

They must be in uniform, or wearing distinguishing markings which can be distinguished at a distance.

They must be part of an organized command structure, subject to orders by higher-ups responsible for their control and conduct. (i.e. no Rambos or indivduals fighting for the hell of it. The purpose of this requirement is to distinguish legal vs. extralegal partisan and militia members, and to facilitate ordered surrenders and cease fires)

Speculate - G.W. Bush stated today, rather succinctly, that anyone treating POW inappropriately will be tried as war criminals. If he is faced with incontrovertible proof that coalition forces inflicted mistreat upon Iraqi POWs, would he send them to The Hague ?

In all cases involving US forces, (on either end), they'll likely be tried by US military tribunals or courts-martial.

[KrazyHorse]

Civilians who arm themselves for defense who do not have time to get together a uniform of some kind are presumed to be POWs if they openly carry arms, MtG.

[KrazyHorse]

Right there in black and white (specifically mentioned as a possibility), IIRC...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
on this?

What do you think of the Sports Fishermen method (catch & release - unless you get a big one)

Sorry that's wrong. I proudly practice catch and release fishing. You release the big ones too

[KrazyHorse]

Clause 6 of article 4

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
Civilians who arm themselves for defense who do not have time to get together a uniform of some kind are presumed to be POWs if they openly carry arms, MtG.

I kind of lump the Kalashnikov and web belt as being "distinguishing markings" which can be seen at a distance.

Seriously, though, you're misconstruing the intent. The idea here (and the GC has a somewhat dated view of combat) is like the minutemen of the American revolution - showing up, in plain sight, with your weapon of choice, because you have no time to do anything else.

In An Nasiriyah, there's no question of time any more - there's no sudden approach, and people concealing weapons, ducking in and out of cover, etc., don't count. That's the practical combat situation on the ground, not something like a disorganized irregular force trying to retake the town from outside, or make a last ditch stand in a fortified position. Open carrying of arms gets around the aversion to guerilla fighting in the laws and customs of land warfare, and also the identification issue.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree with you if what you're saying is that Iraqi soldiers who have access to uniforms and who choose to selectively wear them or not to trick their opponents into thinking they're noncombatants are violating rules of war...

I was taking umbrage with the implication I perceived in your post that the rifle wasn't enough...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
I agree with you if what you're saying is that Iraqi soldiers who have access to uniforms and who choose to selectively wear them or not to trick their opponents into thinking they're noncombatants are violating rules of war...

I was taking umbrage with the implication I perceived in your post that the rifle wasn't enough...

Well, it gets down to that question of what "openly bearing arms" means. Snipers, guerillas, etc. will have a hard time. That's just in the nature of combat - they don't usually end up being POW's unless they're clever about surrendering.

The Iraqi militia units that are being engaged in various places are pretty close to non-uniformed, but they're clearly abiding by the openly bearing arms bit, so they're treated like any other POW.

[Alexander's Horse]

This POW business....Speaking as a former infantry officer I would say forget the law, its pretty meaningless to talk about POW's on the battlefield until they have made it safely into a POW holding camp and been tagged and bagged.

Up until that point they are not POW's but people you are holding and really just people who are lucky to still be alive.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This POW business....Speaking as a former infantry officer I would say forget the law, its pretty meaningless to talk about POW's on the battlefield until they have made it safely into a POW holding camp and been tagged and bagged.

Up until that point they are not POW's but people you are holding but really just people who are lucky to still be alive.

I was talking about the legal distinctions, so you know what to write in your AAR to make sure everything's kosher. I didn't want to scare the impressionable youth with reality in the field.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I'd hope that people in the field would see only three classes:

1) Folks that are trying to kill me
2) Folks that aren't
3) Folks that were, but now aren't

Shoot the first class, ignore the second and round up the third.

[Alexander's Horse]

Sure.

Our SOP is if we assault a position its too late to put your hands up.

[KrazyHorse]

And so far the stuff from the Iraqi side that I've seen so far ("interviews" with POWs etc.) is pretty mild. Nothing like the last time when they were being forced to read accusatory statements...

Prolly a violation nonetheless, but similar in scale to propaganda shots of Iraqi POWs which have been floating around.