Maybe they just want to see with their own eyes the evil of Saddam and his men. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, unless you are getting some kind of enjoyment out of seeing the pictures.
Unfortunately, all's fair in war regardless of a Geneva Convention. People continue to look at this from Goliath's perspective. If you were David you would pull out all the stops and try every trick in the book to win also. Of course Goliath wants to play by well defined rules. The English wanted that too but us pesky Americans, while extremly undermanned, did what it took to win. Question: How many of you would kick someone in the b@lls if being beaten by three opponents? Thought so.
I think both the left and the right need to blast this (uncivilized) view to pieces. Where to begin, even......
It's amazing that you mentioned the British vs, the Americans in that respect, because I was just thinking about this earlier today, specifically how our portrayal of the Revolution has changed since VietNam... Before Nam it was generally conceded that we fought the British tooth and nail, without any of the archaic adherence to the "gentlemanly rules of war" which the Britsh insisted on, stiff upper lip and all that. The British were portrayed as being out of step with a place and time where the people fought a war to win, not to be nice about it, and there were many portrayals of the British marching politely in step while the Americans cunningly took the opportunity to fire from behind the natural cover that the American landscape afforded them...I am not concerned here with the accuracy of this portrayal, which, while generally accurate, has some holes in it; I am talking about the portrayal...We were the rebels with a cause not concerned with hypocritical rules about how to behave when killing each other; if you're gonna do it, do it, don't pretend it's a square dance was the general sense. The along came VietNam...and there we faced an enemy not concerned with whether or not we felt they were behaving properly, but did whatever they had to do to win...and we were the ones out fo step, the ones seemingly left crying foul while licking our wounds, the ones who had to rationalize why we lost, and much like the British oh so long ago, our commanders were criticized for adhering to rules of war which didn't apply. Since then we no longer seem to portray the British as we once did; we seem to have distanced ourselves from the fact that, during the Revolution, we may have won the war, but there is no doubt we were the ones to hit below the belt to do it. Case in point: The Patriot, that Mel Gibson revolutionary film wherein all the atrocities and rule breaking the Americans do is justified by thie barbarous actions of this one British cavalry commander...who was a workj of fiction so complete that, unlike Cornwallis, he never existed. Good thing to because, contrary to the portrayal in the film, we had nor needed any excuse to break the rules of war... There were no, repeat, NO instances of the British doing anything remotely underhanded...in fact Cornwallis was criticized at home for treating mere 'rebels', ie criminals as adversaries in the military sense. Remember too that, unenlightened by the clarity of vision that hindsight offers us, to the British we were just one more uprising of rebellious yokels and they saw it not unlike we would see an armed inserrection of the Montana Freemen, or some such thing. Despite the fact that we A) Were not a 'legitimate army' by the standards of the day, and B) we repeatedly did thingsd which were considered cowardly and contrary to the rules of war like shooting surrendering troops etc. the British never took similar actions, kept their values, and lost thier colony. I am not debating here who was right, morally or pragmatically, but the need we currently feel to rationalize the disparity in 'gentlemanly conduct' during that war is, I feel, a reflection of what we faced in Viet Nam..I have never heard this proposed by anyone, but I have seen a significant difference in the portrayal since our experience as the Superpower losing to the smaller guy with nothing to lose, and I think that there is a connection...Any thoughts about my thoery? Maybe I'll write a treatise on it...
I'm gasping at MacBeth's post. Although the details of war's rules change, some actions were always considered unethical or unsoldierly, for example, killing prisoners, ravaging the civilian population, rape and treachery (false surrender, et al). And your history is really shaky here. The British regulars and their allies, Tories and some Idian Tribes, committed scores of atrocities. In many instances, the redcoats, especially the cavalry cold-bloodedly massacred men who surrendered. When rules of war are broken, it is usually the most defenseless who are harmed. Just ask the Vietnamese civilians. I don't know how it could even be remotely palatable to defend that proposition.
Lol! What a response... Ok, first of all, no need to get on the defensive, I wasn't trying to excuse some action of the Iraqis like pretending to surrender...This was purely academic musings brought on by a combination of thinking about the rules of war, etc... Seond of all, you are wrong, dead wrong. For one thing, killing prisoners, ravaging the civilian population, and rape were, for much of military history, not only not unacceptable, but standard practice...moreover the possibility of rape and pillage were motivation recruiters used, and was one of the primary motivations commanders used to incite the troops to action. I don't know where you get your information, but it obviously skips whole periods like the Classical Age...the MiddleAges...the Renaissance...etc... No the Redcoats did not. There were excecutions for treason, but administered according to the rules of war, not shooting at surrendering troops. The actions of thw auxiliaries, ie native troops were considered outside the articles of war at the time unless under direct control of a CO...Seriously, do you even know what the Articles of War were, or are you just assuming things based on your contemporary perceptions? Who defended anything regarding any atrocities? I specifically said that I wasn't talking about for or against, but about portrayal and perception.
Well, if our troops are treated now anything like they were treated during the Gulf War you can be sure they are being beaten and tortured. While now it's speculation what's happening to them (although the pictures are pretty convincing, IMO) I see no reason to believe that the Iraqis would treat POWs different now then they did then. Also, I have no doubt that Americans have probably (and unofficially) beaten Iraqis either during this conflict or the last. But I'm pretty damn sure that such beatings are the undertakings of individuals acting on their own volition ranther than with the sanction of the Iraqi government. Face it, those Iraqis loyal to Saddam are some very brutal people. I remember one woman (former) POW being interviewed on TLC or the History Channel for some post Gulf-war documentary and she implied that she was raped. She said the thing that went through her head was (paraphrased) "I'm filthy and stinky and gross and you're making a move on me?" Probably none of the Iraqi POWs was raped while in U.S. custody.
While I in no way wish to trivialize what may be happening to our current POW's, I would like to point out that our female soldiers don't need to be captured by an enemy army to be sexually assaulted: Women Vets Report High Rape, Sex Harassment Rates By Stephanie Riesenman NEW YORK (Reuters) - Thirty percent of female US military veterans report having been raped or suffered a rape attempt during their military service, according to a new survey. While the study authors say their research was not intended to estimate how much sexual violence women in the military face, the findings are in line with past research on how often such violence occurs. Most importantly, study author Dr. Anne Sadler told Reuters Health, the research identified risk factors for rape and sexual harassment, findings that could be used to make the military a safer place for women. The news comes just as the Air Force Academy announced it will investigate more than 50 cases of sexual assault or rape reported at the school over the past decade. In the current study, Sadler and colleagues from the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Iowa City surveyed women who had served in the military from the Vietnam era to the present. They interviewed and received responses from 506 women. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 83, with an average age of 40. Most were white. Almost half had served in the Army, 23 percent had been in the Air Force and 22 percent in the Navy. Rates of reported rape were consistent across the time period studied, Sadler told Reuters Health. More than three-fourths of participants reported some type of sexual harassment during their military experience. Unwanted sexual contact--such as touching or fondling of the buttocks, thigh, breasts or other body part--was reported by 54 percent of women. And 30 percent of females experienced one or more attempted or completed rapes. Thirty-seven percent of the women who reported a rape attempt or a completed rape had been raped more than once, while 14 percent of rape or rape attempt victims reported having been gang-raped. Many of the women sad they were concerned for their safety and changed their behaviors to cope. They became less friendly, avoided eye contact and tried to appear more masculine. Some told the researchers they socialized only with women or got a boyfriend to avoid being sexually harassed. Some carried a weapon, while others moved off base because they wanted to feel safer or wanted to "have leisure time without being sexually harassed," the researchers note. Women who joined the military at age 19 or younger, who were of enlisted rank or who experienced childhood physical or sexual violence were more likely to be raped during military service. Rape perpetrators were frequently non-commissioned officers and peers of similar rank. They were often under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the attack. "Our study found military environment risk factors to be more powerfully associated with risk of rape than individual risk factors," said Sadler. "Work environments that allow inappropriate sexual conduct can significantly increase women's risk of rape."
The Red Cross says that both parties violated the Geneva Convention, but they didn't say to what degree the Iraqis violated it more. Those percentages are a little lower than the ones normally found on college campuses, if that puts things in perspective...
In addition to what Mrs. JB and treeman said, the fact that the video was taped by state-run, not independent, media is where the difference lies.
I'm not sure how it "puts things in perspective," but then again, I believe any percentage of rapes is too high, regardless of the setting in which it occurs. I also find it galling that these women are asked to put their lives on the line for their country, yet they don't even feel safe around their fellow male soldiers. This report from ABC news runs contrary to your assesment of the college rape situation: 3 Percent of Women Report Rape, Attempted Rape During Typical Year By Geraldine Sealey ABCNEWS.com Jan. 26 — About 3 percent of college women say they have been victims of rape or attempted rape during a typical school year, according to a government report released today. The study, "The Sexual Victimization of College Women," looks at the frequency and nature of sexual assault on American college campuses, and is based on interviews with college women. About 1.7 percent of female college students reported being raped, and about 1.1 percent said they were victims of attempted rape, according to te report from the U.S. Justice Department's National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 1.7 percent of the college women reported being coerced to have sex. An estimated 13 percent of college women had been stalked since the beginning of the school year, according to the study. The high incidence of stalking surprised the researchers, said lead author Bonnie S. Fisher of the University of Cincinnati.
One rule for them Five PoWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay? George Monbiot Tuesday March 25, 2003 The Guardian Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them". He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes. This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the defence department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life. His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72). They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery. The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light. You would hesitate to describe these prisoners as lucky, unless you knew what had happened to some of the other men captured by the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. On November 21 2001, around 8,000 Taliban soldiers and Pashtun civilians surrendered at Konduz to the Northern Alliance commander, General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Many of them have never been seen again. As Jamie Doran's film Afghan Massacre: Convoy of Death records, some hundreds, possibly thousands, of them were loaded into container lorries at Qala-i-Zeini, near the town of Mazar-i-Sharif, on November 26 and 27. The doors were sealed and the lorries were left to stand in the sun for several days. At length, they departed for Sheberghan prison, 80 miles away. The prisoners, many of whom were dying of thirst and asphyxiation, started banging on the sides of the trucks. Dostum's men stopped the convoy and machine-gunned the containers. When they arrived at Sheberghan, most of the captives were dead. The US special forces running the prison watched the bodies being unloaded. They instructed Dostum's men to "get rid of them before satellite pictures can be taken". Doran interviewed a Northern Alliance soldier guarding the prison. "I was a witness when an American soldier broke one prisoner's neck. The Americans did whatever they wanted. We had no power to stop them." Another soldier alleged: "They took the prisoners outside and beat them up, and then returned them to the prison. But sometimes they were never returned, and they disappeared." Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, then driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US special forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot. The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded that: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites". It should not be necessary to point out that hospitality of this kind also contravenes the third Geneva convention, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", as well as extra-judicial execution. Donald Rumsfeld's department, assisted by a pliant media, has done all it can to suppress Jamie Doran's film, while General Dostum has begun to assassinate his witnesses. It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US government fought first to prevent the establishment of the international criminal court, and then to ensure that its own citizens are not subject to its jurisdiction. The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
I read some statistics from my campus paper that said 1 in 3 women in campus were victims of rape of any kind. I guess it could be a little biased... That gave me an impression that it was typical of the society we live in. I should do better in going to more sources to back up a number....
i just watch a footage of the pow bought down from the helicopter were giving water n medical care from the iraqis. and the american soldiers was chewing gum.. so i dunt think he was mistreated ... the iraqis also claim they are peace loving muslim so they will treat all humanly
