Isn't it against the Geneva Convention to show faces of captured enemy?

[grasswire]

Wasn't there a big fuss about the showing of the faces of Americans captured with Jessica Lynch?

Are ANY rules of the Geneva convention being observed?

Or is this an "international law" thingy that Bush can flout?

[loudnclear]

1. Hey, that only applies to our enemies!

Stop raising legitimate questions.

[tritsofme]

2. How else do we prove that we actually got him?

I know I wouldnt believe him if he just said, oh yeah we got the guy. Im sure most Iraqis would have been even more skeptical than they are now.

Also it is questionable as to whether SH is considered a POW.

[Bandit]

4. Is it questionable because we aren't really at war?

In you opinion why is it questionable? The Administration seems to think we are at war, at least they keep repeating that mantra. If we are at war with Iraq then Iraqi leaders and soldiers are POWs if they have been captured by the US.

[mistertrickster]

3. Short answer -- yes

Especially when the intent is to demean and degrade the captured.

But this guy is "Adolf Frickin' Hitler," according to the same people who supported him during the 80's (Rumsfeld, remember the famous photographed handshake?). So he has no rights . . .

[PissedOffPollyana]

5. GW: BWwaaahhhahahhahha!

That would be the sound of the US once again breaking international law...

But I do imagine this scenario:
Q: Do the Geneva Conventions apply here?

GW: Is that for those guys who make clocks? **takes moment to pick nit and eat** See, there's evil and the taxpayers know that and these clock guys have no place in the war on terra... **takes moment to fling poo** Now Saddam is evil and well... **distracted by photographer eating banana and runs off to his keepers**

[apsuman]

6. International Law makes and exception

International Law Makes an exception in the case of prisoners that are of such paramount importance that the "benefit" of seeing the captured is greater than the rights of the individual.

In any case they can not be paraded about, humiliated, trophied, etc.

[blondeatlast]

7. Applicable in this case, IMHO.

[alwynsw]

8. Technically, a head of state or former head of state is not

considered a combatant. Therefore, we can see his mug. He may not be paraded or publicly huniliated for the sake of such humiliation or propaganda purposes.

WTF AM I SAYING??? Yeah, like we could humiliate him more than he already is. What would we do, force him to wear Pigskin?

Glad his butt is in custody...

[TorchTheWitch]

9. yes, what are you saying?

WTF AM I SAYING??? Yeah, like we could humiliate him more than he already is. What would we do, force him to wear Pigskin?

How about a pink tutu and we make him sing the Star-Spangled Banner three times fast?

Stop being silly!

Ok, yes the Saddam regime broke the Geneva Convention by showing the faces of our POW's, but what's so ridiculous about BushCo whining about it is that we were showing scores of the faces of Iraqi POW's 24/7. Funny, the first time I read an article about that whining, I was looking at the faces of Iraqi prisoners on the same page. :eyeroll:

[K-W]

10. In this case yes and no

I think that showing pictures is allowed because of his position, but I think the footage of him being physically examined should be considered unreasonable. His identity could have been proven and footage provided after he was processed.

[Spazito]

11. Here is the applicable article relating to Prisoners of War

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The reason I looked up Prisoner of War is that I believe Bush or someone in his administration said that Saddam would be treated as a prisoner of war.

[arewethereyet]

12. rules for leaders different

n/t