POWs - Page 2

Alexander's Horse · March 24, 2003, 03:04

What most of you don't understand is dealing with a guy trying to surrender is one of the most dangerous and tense situations on the battlefield. You never know if they are for real and to deal with them you have let them get up very close to you or your troops, for searches and so forth.

KrazyHorse · March 24, 2003, 03:07

What's your point, AH?

I never claimed that soldiers should be omniscient. If they need to make every prisoner strip naked and handcuff themselves before they are allowed to approach, then so be it. And if somebody's approaching you in an Iraqi uniform carrying a rifle then I doubt anybody could say that it's your responsibility to stand up and give him the opportunity to shoot you in order to determine if he's brave or just stupid.

Dis · March 24, 2003, 03:13

why won't the U.S. media show the video?

I want to see it. I think it is important for the U.S. to see it. Perhaps the ugly reality of war would sway more americans to be anti-war. Not that I'm anti-war. I just like to be fair to their cause.

Kramerman · March 24, 2003, 03:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
why won't the U.S. media show the video?

I want to see it. I think it is important for the U.S. to see it. Perhaps the ugly reality of war would sway more americans to be anti-war. Not that I'm anti-war. I just like to be fair to their cause.

it could also sway some to be more for the war, in anger.

Dis · March 24, 2003, 03:33

hmm that could happen too

Fox News did show the picture of the dead soldiers. I was shocked they did that. But that's fox news for ya.

does anyone know where I can find that video? I would like to see it.

alva · March 24, 2003, 09:42

They didn't show it, because the relatives were not informed yet.

Gangerolf · March 24, 2003, 10:03

cnn showed the pows yesterday

Gangerolf · March 24, 2003, 10:56

harsh language in the new york post...

Lefty Scaevola · March 24, 2003, 10:56

Quote:

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 ?

The vast majotiy of warcrimes are tried before military tribunnals either of their own nationality or that of an enemy affected by the crime. International tribunnal are usually used for crimes against humanity, or where there is no effective prosecutorial and courts system, or no willingness to use them, among the parties.

St Leo · March 24, 2003, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Triggs

No, no. Thats our reaction to all foreigners.

Bush: Howdy, Mbassada.
Ambassador: Do... you... speak... English?
Bush: Ha ha. G'joke. Fanee.
Ambassador: Do... you... understand... what... I... am... saying?
Bush: Ack to biznez.
Ambassador: Someone get me a translator.

Dis · March 24, 2003, 18:10

I'll ask this here.

Why is a single mother in a combat zone? WTF!

Dis · March 24, 2003, 20:10

ahh here is a POW thread.

CNN just showed interviews with the family. Pure exploitation of the family. Yet I'm watching it for some reason.

And I didn't realize that in Gulf War I there was a female POW. She was sexually assaulted- not too big a suprise.

VetLegion · March 24, 2003, 21:04

Quote:

But now they are actually attacking the BBC as well, well known for not having bias. I wonder what is next

US/UK media is openly cheering. What about that guy that said 'we' are attacking Iraq. Or, upon finding a few gas-masks in an abandoned Iraqi trench, the BBC reporter said that 'it indicates that even Sadams soldiers were expecting him to use Chemical weapons'

And the POW thing. USA prisoners were the big news of the day. They deserved at least as much time on air as that same footage of Iraquis we saw a million times.

CNN is so pro-war and pro-american and in service of propaganda that I wish I knew more languages and wasnt condemned to that.

Willem · March 24, 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion

CNN is so pro-war and pro-american and in service of propaganda that I wish I knew more languages and wasnt condemned to that.

For a web site, try Reuters. I've seen a few articles there that weren't always flattering to the coalition cause.

MichaeltheGreat · March 25, 2003, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I'll ask this here.

Why is a single mother in a combat zone? WTF!

She's a CSS soldier.

Dis · March 25, 2003, 01:56

CSS?

MichaeltheGreat · March 25, 2003, 02:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
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.

The first class is more like:
Folks that may have the potential to bother attempting to kill me at some point. In other words, I don't care if he's a cook 30 meters away from his rifle and he's the only guy around, he's an enemy soldier, and his fate is really iffy at the moment.

The second class is:
Well, they appear to be civilians, but either keep them out of our security zone, or check them out carefully as possible hostiles. And if they're armed and in civilian clothes, concealing their weapons, waste 'em.

The third class is:
Well, unless all resistance in the area has ceased and there is clearly an ordered surrender of all enemy forces in the area, it's too little, too late for you, *******, I don't have time to waste ascertaining your intentions and capabilities while your buddies are still trying to kill me and mine.

MichaeltheGreat · March 25, 2003, 02:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
CSS?

Combat Support Services, i.e. she's a REMF, not a line animal, and she and her unit unfortunately got out in the wrong place at the wrong time, without escort by a combat force.

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 02:10

More surrender ambushes means less prisoners.

I think civvies tend to have very unrealistic ideas about POW's. They think if you put your hands up the fighting should immediately stop and you should be made safe, politely escorted to the rear and given a hot meal, a blanket and a nice shelter. It doesn't work like that.

If I was on the losing side of a battle, somehow managed to survive and was made a POW I would consider myself exceedingly lucky just to be alive.

Dis · March 25, 2003, 02:11

yeah I knew she was a support unit. But they are still operating in enemy held territory.

Normally she would not be doing a hazardous job in enemy held territory I guess. There was no way to predict where the pockets of resistance would come up.

But it still seems strange. In the navy women would intentionally get pregnant to avoid going on deployments. Many would get pregnant while out at sea. I'm not certain of the rules about single mothers though.

Kramerman · March 25, 2003, 02:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
yeah I knew she was a support unit. But they are still operating in enemy held territory.

Normally she would not be doing a hazardous job in enemy held territory I guess. There was no way to predict where the pockets of resistance would come up.

But it still seems strange. In the navy women would intentionally get pregnant to avoid going on deployments. Many would get pregnant while out at sea. I'm not certain of the rules about single mothers though.

isnt it against the rules for a woman to get pregnant out at sea?

Quote:

I think civvies tend to have very unrealistic ideas about POW's. They think if you put your hands up the fighting should immediately stop and you should be made safe, politely escorted to the rear and given a hot meal, a blanket and a nice shelter. It doesn't work like that.

how exactly does it work, out of curiosity? how are Iraqi POWs being treated? my sources are probably quite biased...

MichaeltheGreat · March 25, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
More surrender ambushes means less prisoners.

That's part of the Iraqi intention, no doubt, which indicates to me that thinks aren't all kosher with the Saddamites - they wouldn't bother (it's a poor way to trigger an ambush to give people some idea in advance you're there) unless the goal was to make it harder for their conscripts to surrender, and to make us a lot more suspicious and prone to shoot on sight.

Quote:

I think civvies tend to have very unrealistic ideas about POW's. They think if you put your hands up the fighting should immediately stop and you should be made safe, politely escorted to the rear and given a hot meal, a blanket and a nice shelter. It doesn't work like that.

If I was on the losing side of a battle, somehow managed to survive and was made a POW I would consider myself exceedingly lucky just to be alive.

Spot on.

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 02:32

It could be some soldiers were genuinely trying to surrender and others still fighting on saw an opportunity in the situation.

Dis · March 25, 2003, 02:34

you can't force a woman not to get pregnant.

The feminists would cry a storm!!

But there are rules against fraternizing (depends on rank and superiors) and against having sex on the ship. But you can't control what they do in port. And navy ships have many fan rooms

Even gay guys have been caught in fan rooms.

Alexander's Horse · March 25, 2003, 02:35

too much information.

Tolls · March 25, 2003, 06:17

"It could be some soldiers were genuinely trying to surrender and others still fighting on saw an opportunity in the situation."

Something that is quite common...there were lots of incidents of this on the western front in '45, as well as in Russia in '41/'42. The nutcases (fanatics, whatever) will take advantage of any situation...it's a bit of a pisser for the poor sods trying to surrender, but then they are on the side of the loons and consequently will get crapped on.

Harovan · March 25, 2003, 06:33

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Article 13

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.

I fail to see the difference. The Geneva convention doesn't grant democratic countries an exception from Article 13.

Uncle Sparky · March 25, 2003, 20:57

You also must remember that the Geneva Covention was written prior to global mediaization ( I just invented a word! Lets all use it! )

I don't think the drafters envisioned a world where battles, and the aftermath, could be broadcast live into peoples homes around the world.

Do the rules need to be updated ? If so, what would be reasonable to balance global mediaization?

Dis · March 25, 2003, 22:02

yes there have already been talks about rewriting the rules esp. with regards to public humiliation. Their original intent was probably to keep prisoners from being put in cages on public display.

I'm still concerned about these people. I don't think they are going to survive. They will either be killed by allied bombs or killed by the Iraqis. I just hope they aren't tortured in the meantime.

Tolls · March 26, 2003, 05:11

They weren't killed last time, so I'm not too sure why they would be killed by Iraqis now. Except possibly by Uday...if he's still around.