Photo inconsistencies

[Tireur]

The Globe (like all papers) makes mistakes and has retractions? the Herald just makes more of them, and has a distinctive and discernable rightward tilt in its reporting (much like the Washington Times and the New York Post). It has a pretty weak reputation (apparently even weaker than I thought).-m

Yeah, kinda like the SF Chronicle, LA Times and NY Times have a distinctive and discernable leftward tilt.

Unfortunatley the Globe took the Nation of Islam as an unbiased (or did it?) and reliable (in what way?) source and got caught.

Regardless, it was irresponsible. You'd be howling if it was a right wing oriented paper that did it.

[epeemike81]

Unfortunatley the Globe took the Nation of Islam as an unbiased (or did it?) and reliable (in what way?) source and got caught.

no, it didn't. it printed a story titled "2 cite photos purported to show abuse: Councilor and activist say images depict US Troops in Iraq."

the councilor took the word of an activist and the Nation of Islam, but the paper simply REPORTED (which is their job) that he was saying it. it lent no credence to the statement itself.

there's a reason the globe didn't apologize for the article. the apology was because in a photo which was only there to show the two people at their press conference, the graphic images were discernable and should have been blurred.

-m

[Tireur]

From the Globe:

"the purported abuse portrayed had not been authenticated. The Globe apologizes for publishing the photo."

[Louweasel]

To be honest, I don't know that they do it here, either. But it wouldn't surprise me, litigous as we are.





Does this include searches of arriving passengers at air and sea ports as well? Customs drug searches, as opposed to criminal arrests?





According to the Geneva Conventions much less so, in fact. However, there's a sharp debate going on as to whether many or most of the Iraqis who have been mistreated are in fact prisoners of war or covered by the Conventions. If they are not then authorities have a lot more latitude.




On this point we are in full agreement...subject of course to due process and fair court-martial, naturally.

a) I wouldn't be surprised either!
b) Yes it does. This is one point I can answer with absolute certainty.
c) It's all very complicated, isn't it? My head hurts.
d) Quite so. I was using the word "properly" in the sense of "in the proper/correct/appropriate manner", not as in "a lot". I despise tabloid witch hunts.

[Inquartata]

The Geneva Convention (IV) gives protections to them as civilians, even if they have taken up arms.

I find this very unconvincing. So a spy is protected because he's also a civilian...likewise a saboteur or assassin? EVERYONE is "also" a civilian, even soldiers. I find it dubious that the Convention confers this dual status upon a person doing yeoman service against a military power simply because, oh yes, two years ago he wasn't and he isn't wearing a uniform...

The IRC commentaries (which it notes as being generally held to be authoratative) have made the point clear in the past that what are now "illegal combatants" constitute "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention (IV)

Their analyses rely upon the additions and revisions to which the US is not a signatory, though, do they not?

[Inquartata]

Unlike the UK ones the US ones look pretty real [or how you would expect such photo's to look]. The fact that no-one has even tried tried to suggest that they are fake...

I

Wait for it...

[Inquartata]

b) Yes it does. This is one point I can answer with absolute certainty.

I am not even going to ask, Lou...

[Gav]

Wait for it...

??

Sorry Inq' I don't get that one.

[Inquartata]

You said no one had intimated that the American pictures of prisoner abuse might be faked. I'm just saying give it awhile longer, and someone will.

[Gav]

Ahh right - a d'oh moment for me then.

Having said that. Look at Pte Englund. She is even being interviewed and not denying that she was in those photo's.

[Philistine]

I find this very unconvincing. So a spy is protected because he's also a civilian...likewise a saboteur or assassin? EVERYONE is "also" a civilian, even soldiers. I find it dubious that the Convention confers this dual status upon a person doing yeoman service against a military power simply because, oh yes, two years ago he wasn't and he isn't wearing a uniform...

It does seem counterintuitive given the title. Nonetheless, it is true.

As the US Army Field Manual on the Laws of War puts it:

73. Persons Committing Hostile Acts Not Entitled To Be Treated as Prisoners of War
If a person is determined by a competent tribunal, acting in conformity with Article 5, GPW (par. 71), not to fall within any of the categories listed in Article 4, GPW (par. 61), he is not entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war. He is, however, a "protected person" within the meaning of Article 4, GC (par. 247). (See pars. 247 and 248, concerning the status of such "protected persons" who have engaged in conduct hostile to the opposing belligerent.)

* * *

247. Definition of Protected Persons
a. Treaty Provision.

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
{snip}
b. Interpretation. Subject to qualifications set forth in paragraph 248, those protected by GC also include all persons who have engaged in hostile or belligerent conduct but who are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war.

{My emphasis}

FM 27-10 (The Laws of Land Warfare)

As used in 27-10 "GPW" is the Geneva Convetion (III) on Prisoners of War and "GC" is the Geneva Convention (IV) on "Civilians."

Their analyses rely upon the additions and revisions to which the US is not a signatory, though, do they not?

No. They don't. The additional protocals add additional protections to the Geneva Conventions--but everything I've cited has been the actual Conventions themselves--which the US has adopted.

The article you posted had to do primarily with arguments relating to the Guantanemo detainees--and the main issue there is where those of a different nationality are captured in a foreign country--the Geneva Conventions (at least most of the provisions) do not apply to them.

For a pretty good, non-partisan look at the issue (a little technical, but not too bad, and a good read) see:

Congressional Research Service Report on Battlefiled Detainees in the War on Terrorism

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

I find this very unconvincing. So a spy is protected because he's also a civilian...likewise a saboteur or assassin? EVERYONE is "also" a civilian, even soldiers. I find it dubious that the Convention confers this dual status upon a person doing yeoman service against a military power simply because, oh yes, two years ago he wasn't and he isn't wearing a uniform...

but the point is that EVERYBODY (soldiers included) get the benefits a civilian gets. Those are considered BASIC rights, codes of conduct which nobody should be subjected to violations of. Soldiers are actually given MORE rights than civilians, so it isn't so much the spy being granted civilian rights, as denied military rights.

-m

[Inquartata]

For a pretty good, non-partisan look at the issue (a little technical, but not too bad, and a good read) see:

Thanks very much for the link.

I notice that the analysis is filled with qualifications such as "under this view"...which I take it means that there remains some dispute to the meanings and applicability of some of the provisions of the various conventions, even all these decades later. I see too that it makes intimations in some places that the protections may well be less than absolute, ie that violations of the accords by one sifde may justify limited responses in kind---and certainly the resort to what the conventions call "perfidious" conduct, as well as hostage-taking and other sorts of prohibited activity is not just occasionally but routinely resorted to by those we are fighting. And while it may be that the US has in the past observed the Conventions even towards enemies who have not, I am not sure that it is required by that to do so in the present...

Any idea where a legal dispute regarding the Conventions would end up eventually, BTW? Ie what court's verdict would be sought or considered definitive?

At any rate, I still find it odd that the Conventions essentially seek to classify EVERYONE, no matter how blackhearted, as some manner of "protected" person. Sort of like assuming that there are two sorts of people: good and better, wealthy and wealthier, etc, while expressly denying the existence of categories like "bad" or "poor".

[epeemike81]

At any rate, I still find it odd that the Conventions essentially seek to classify EVERYONE, no matter how blackhearted, as some manner of "protected" person. Sort of like assuming that there are two sorts of people: good and better, wealthy and wealthier, etc, while expressly denying the existence of categories like "bad" or "poor".

No, it's assuming that there are certain rights which EVERYBODY is entitled to. Makes sense to me. No matter how bad somebody is, or what they've done, there is NO justification for certain types of treatment. it's the same type of thinking which goes into our eighth amendment.

-m

[Inquartata]

No, it's assuming that there are certain rights which EVERYBODY is entitled to.

It's affording them rights superior to those of common criminals in some cases. And it puts Heinrich Himmler and Mother Teresa on the same level.

Because there are also rights to which everyone is NOT entitled, by reason of their own conduct. Otherwise no form of punishment is ever legitimate.

No matter how bad somebody is, or what they've done, there is NO justification for certain types of treatment. it's the same type of thinking which goes into our eighth amendment.

-m

Oh, I think it goes a good deal farther than that, if making someone wear a hood or go for a couple of hours without sitting down is considered "torture".

[Philistine]

{snip}
Any idea where a legal dispute regarding the Conventions would end up eventually, BTW? Ie what court's verdict would be sought or considered definitive?

It's something of an open question. IIRC, in the past--specifically with regard to Noroega--courts have suggested (though not held) that the Geneva Conventions would be "self-executing"--that is, an individual could sue under them in a federal court claiming that treatment was in violation. (As a ratified treaty, they are the "supreme law of the land" under Article VI of the Constitution).

However, the recent cases about the Guantanemo detainees have argued that the Geneva Conventions are not self-executing, and therefore an individual cannot sue for treatment which allegedly violates them.

The issue may be decided by the Supreme Court, which has heard argument on the case--but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they sidestepped the issue.

If a detainee doesn't have the right to sue in federal court, his only avenue is a complaint to the detaining power and/or the IRC.

There is no international court to which the dispute can be taken (at least not one which the US will accept jurisdiction).

At any rate, I still find it odd that the Conventions essentially seek to classify EVERYONE, no matter how blackhearted, as some manner of "protected" person. Sort of like assuming that there are two sorts of people: good and better, wealthy and wealthier, etc, while expressly denying the existence of categories like "bad" or "poor".

Being a "protected person" doesn't necessarily mean they must be coddled. "Civilians" can be tried both for crimes they commit against other civilians and the military. Moreover, they can be tried for any acts of agression against the occupying power.

All that extending protection to everyone means is that everyone has a status. There are no people who fall outside the system (theoretically, at least).

The IRC commentaries on this state:

“[E]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war . . . covered bythe Third Conventions, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or . . . a member of the medical personnel . . .covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.”

--Philistine

[Gav]

I see we have wondered into the controversial world of "The Geneva Convention".

To get things back on track. The Editor of the Daily Mirror has been sacked after acknowledging that the photo's are fake. We now have a soldier in court over the hoax photo's. It makes me wonder what will happen to the UK press now? They got into trouble over the Hutton affair. Lost the privacy case brought by Naomi Campbell and now this. I see a future where the press in the UK could be legally muzzled. I feel slightly uneasy about this. Although part of me has wanted the tabloids reined in for a long time another part of me would like to see some assurances that the press will still have the ability to report effectively.

[Inquartata]

The Editor of the Daily Mirror has been sacked after acknowledging that the photo's are fake. We now have a soldier in court over the hoax photo's. It makes me wonder what will happen to the UK press now? They got into trouble over the Hutton affair. Lost the privacy case brought by Naomi Campbell and now this. I see a future where the press in the UK could be legally muzzled. I feel slightly uneasy about this. Although part of me has wanted the tabloids reined in for a long time another part of me would like to see some assurances that the press will still have the ability to report effectively.

Sounds as though it's time for those responsible for the sacking to be sacked...