The Command Post - Iraq - London's Guardian / Observer Alleges Violations Of Geneva Conventions In Iraq By U.S.

May 26, 2003

London's Guardian / Observer Alleges Violations Of Geneva Conventions In Iraq By U.S.

The Observer | Special reports | Red Cross denied access to PoWs

The United States is illegally holding thousands of Iraqi prisoners of war and other captives without access to human rights officials at compounds close to Baghdad airport, The Observer has learnt.

There have also been reports of a mutiny last week by prisoners at an airport compound, in protest against conditions. The uprising was 'dealt with' by the Americans, according to a US military source.

The International Committee of the Red Cross so far has been denied access to what the organisation believes could be as many as 3,000 prisoners held in searing heat. All other requests to inspect conditions under which prisoners are being held have been met with silence or been turned down.

There is circumstantial evidence that prisoners are being gagged and hooded, in the manner of the Afghans and other captives held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - treatment in itself questionable under international law.

Unlike the Afghans in Cuba, there is no doubt about the status of these captives, whether PoWs or civilians arrested for looting or other crimes under military occupation: all have the right, under the laws of war, to be visited and documented by the International Red Cross. 'There is no argument about the situation with regard to the Iraqi armed forces and even the Fedayeen Saddam,' said the ICRC's spokeswoman in Baghdad, Nada Doumani.

'They are prisoners of war because they have been captured during a clear conflict between two states. If they served in the armed forces or in a militia with distinctive clothing which came under the chain of command of one of the warring states, they are protected under article 143 of the Geneva Convention.'

Posted By Robert Prather (The Mind Of Man) at May 26, 2003 05:18 AM | TrackBack

Comment Policy and Decency Standards
: The comments here serve as an open forum in which you are encouraged to debate, discuss and post relevant links. It is Command Post policy that we will not tolerate any racial or ethnic slurs or obvious attempts to bait other guests of this site into a battle. We provide you the space here to discuss the topic at hand and to engage in lively discourse. Please remember that your IP is logged every time you leave a comment and the editors of Command Post reserve the right to terminate you ability to comment here if you do not conform to our commenting policy. Thank you.

"If they served in the armed forces or in a militia with distinctive clothing which came under the chain of command of one of the warring states"

In this conflict, that's a big "if".

Is there a holding pen for the sh*tbags in civilian clothing, mostly nationals of other countries besides Iraq, who aimed weapons at US forces and lived to tell? I'm sure there is.

ICRC claims "could be as many as 3000" ... or then again, maybe not.

Reading the article, the alegations of "beatings" come from a French TV reporter (arrested for theft, released because he was innocent) who claims he was beaten and has a black eye to prove it.

Plausibility of mass beatings of actual Iraqi POWs: low.

Plausiblility of French journalist being beaten: higher.

I think the American public would be much more upset with the latter than the former.

Posted by: lewy14 at May 26, 2003 05:41 AM

Any violations noted by Saddam...remember him? How was the Red Cross, the Guardian, et al on that particular issue?

Posted by: JRK at May 26, 2003 05:59 AM

I'm just reporting here. Note I said it was the Guardian, who we all *know* to be a pro-American newspaper dedicated to accurate reporting. I made a special point to name the source simply because of who was making the allegations.

I posted on it over at the op-ed page and basically, if it's true and they were in uniform, we should obey the rules. I'm not convinced of its truth yet, though.

Love the comment about the French journalist.

Posted by: Robert Prather at May 26, 2003 06:09 AM

Robert,

I read your Op Ed post as well. I absolutely agree, if the allegations are have any truth to them at all, its wrong. We should be open about what's going on with Iraqi prisoners of all categories.

If we were mistreating actual POW's, I can think of at least one very influential US senator who would be extremely unhappy.

And to what end? It just doesn't make sense. Not as an organized, institutional policy. I would be surprised if there had been no instances of abuse - but I can't see it as a policy.

By the way, it's now official: we are an occupying power (along with the UK), and we have all the obligations of one under the Geneva Convention. This due to the adoption of the UNSC resolution revoking sanctions on Iraq. See Steven Den Beste's excellent summary here:

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/HealingtheUNRift.shtml

Did I say "DenBeste" and "summary" in the same sentence? My bad... 8)

Posted by: lewy14 at May 26, 2003 06:41 AM

lewy14,

The world needs more commenters like you. The words Den Beste and summary definitely don't belong in the same sentence.

We should do the right thing and I'm confident we will. This could just be the latest "museum looting" story that ends up being nothing. Note how they put the ominous quotes around the phrase "dealt with" in the story, as if that suggests illegality on our part.

Remember: probably a "museum looting" story.

Posted by: Robert Prather at May 26, 2003 07:06 AM

Hye guys,

The conflict hasn't been declared over, so technically the US doesn't have to release the prisoners...

Also, I'm sure its taking a little time processing the prisoners, afterall some may have punishments heading their way, as some rightly deserve.

The heat, they live in Iraq, they should be able to cope...

Posted by: Original Mark at May 26, 2003 08:03 AM

If it's true, it's NOT policy. How could it be? A little common sense here.

OBTW - French Reporter - suspected of 'stealing' a bag? He was just holding the guys purse... Lover's quarrel.

Posted by: Dave Dube at May 26, 2003 08:19 AM

It's undoubtedly not policy. You're right. I still say it's not true and won't believe otherwise until a more reputable source reports on it.

Posted by: Robert Prather at May 26, 2003 08:37 AM

Notice the article is ALL speculation, if, buts, and maybe's. Sounds like a slow news day at the observer, and they are trying to invent a story.

If I recall, there was a red cross statement a few weeks ago saying they had access to all POW's

And please, the distinctive clothing thing? LMAO
I would think that it is a difficult task trying to figure out who is who in detention camps, this will take time.

Posted by: Bubba at May 26, 2003 08:47 AM

// Any violations noted by Saddam...remember him? How was the Red Cross, the Guardian, et al on that particular issue? //

Are you critizing the Guardian and the Red Cross here? If so, do you consider that to be the pertinent topic?

Posted by: Anthony at May 26, 2003 10:15 AM

Anthony,

I had a hard time trying to figure out just exactly what that sentence meant. Maybe JRK will revisit after your worthwhile prod. I won't speak for JRK, but one possibility is that he is referencing the violations regarding our folks taken as POWs. Maybe?

Posted by: Dave Dube at May 26, 2003 11:53 AM

Guardian yes, Red Cross no. No one's said anything about red-cross, they have said that the source is unreliable as it has proven to be in the past. (see various other Guardian stories, especially ones about the looting of muesums.)

Posted by: NookOfNorth at May 26, 2003 12:31 PM

Also take note that the article mentions the red cross, but doesn't quote any spokesman from it, therefore it can be seen as "fiction", speculation or just plain news making(lies) by the writer

Posted by: Bubba at May 26, 2003 03:18 PM