Does this picture show British soldiers broke Geneva Conventions?

[Newsjock]

Source: The Independent

(Mods: Yes, that is the title of the original source.)

A photograph handed to The Independent claims to show Iraqi civilians captured in southern Iraq being mistreated by British soldiers in breach of international law and the Geneva Conventions.

The incident is to be investigated at a public inquiry to be announced tomorrow by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, which will also examine evidence of one of the worst atrocities ever carried out by the British Army.

It is claimed that hours after the picture was taken, the four men were transferred to a UK-run detention camp where they were badly beaten and where 20 other civilians were murdered by British soldiers.

... The covering of a prisoner's face and rear handcuffing on the ground is a breach of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

When this is done to support interrogations, as in this case, it also contravenes Article 31: prohibition of physical and moral coercion. It is also a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the Army's own rules on the hooding of prisoners.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/does-this-picture-show-british-soldiers-broke-geneva-conventions-1826435.html

---

[earcandle]

1. disgusting fuckheads need to learn the law before being put in this kind of power position.

who is running this ship?

Fire the bastards!

[DWilliamsamh]

17. I think you need to learn the law before you pass judgement on the soldier in this picture.

It doesn't show anything like abuse.

[EFerrari]

32. Physician, heal thyself. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

2. No

[demosincebirth]

3. No

[BrightKnight]

4. no

[tkmorris]

5. According to the letter of Geneva, yes

It's nuts though that an inquiry is being made into this, while the United States has done far worse each and every day since the war began. We really are quite far down the rabbit hole aren't we?

[Piewhacket]

6. Agreed. Way down the rabbit hole. Strange place to find ourselves, huh?

Yet here we are.

[boppers]

7. According to some interpretations of the letter of Geneva, using force is wrong.

Taking any photographs, also wrong.

Geneva has lots of interpretations.

[roguevalley]

8. I don't care where they are from. Beat their ass, theirs, ours,

all the people who make the world less safe by what they do.

[No Elephants]

13. Good thing you have no desire for the rule of law bc it's gone anyway.

[roguevalley]

51. your post mystifies me. I don't care who the soldier is or where they

come from, they need to be responsible for the wrong they do. if you find that wrong I either didn't explain the first post well enough or you have the problem.

[EFerrari]

9. Far down. n/t

[sudopod]

39. They got Al Capone on tax evasion

because that's what they could build an air-tight case around.

[hack89]

10. No. nt

[pasto76]

11. no, this picture is not a breach

seperate, silence, sequester. The 3 S's of Enemy Prisoners of War.

Maybe they would be more comfortable if they were sat up. I would consider that.....but dont know if I would do that. Laying like this does make it hard to speak, and I dont want them speaking to each other. Especially when I dont understand their language.

It has become clear that British and US soldiers have violated the letter, and the spirit of the Law of War(which all US soldiers are briefed on in Basic training), this picture does not show anything like that.

SGT PASTO

[DWilliamsamh]

16. Agreed. (N/T)

[EFerrari]

31. Well, yessir, the picture does show serious breaches and in itself is a breach.

You need to go back for regrooving, SGT.

[clixtox]

12. I'd say, "without a doubt"!

If this photo is as described, that's a British soldier in Iraq, and those bound and blindfolded are captives, then there is no reasonable doubt possible. It is obviously a war crime.

Fortunately we will get some answers soon and discover if the British Military establishment is independent, or still firmly ensconced among the "Coalition of the Billing".

Of course as war crimes go amongst our typically venal quotidian activities, like massacring innocent people and destroying civilian infrastructure, this seems somewhat picayune.

That relativeness doesn't diminish the facts as depicted in the photo. That inhumane treatment of a captured person is still a war crime.

Shame on them and shame on us.

We are ultimately responsible, we citizens of the USA!

Bamboozled, or not, we are/were/will be forever responsible.

Happy Holidaze!

[DWilliamsamh]

18. Where's the "war crime" in this picture?

The description is of events NOT DEPICTED in the photo.

[Zhade]

25. Being there at all, since we illegally invaded a nation that wasn't threatening us.

Big picture, people. The war itself is a massive crime that was spurred on by lies.

[DWilliamsamh]

43. As much as I agree that the war itself was wrong and completely unjustified...

The picture doesn't show a war crime buy the soldier depicted. That was my only point. The commanders who ordered the invasion are the culprits vis a vie this particular photo.

There were plenty of real war crimes to be investigated and prosecuted without diluting that with a photo that doesn't show a crime. That was my only point.

[EFerrari]

29. It's in the OP:

"The covering of a prisoner's face and rear handcuffing on the ground is a breach of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees."

[Amonester]

54. Yes. It's in the OP, but many here didn't bother to read it.

And they posted their own 'feeling' instead of the clear violation of the Article (the Law).

DU 'change'

Oh well...

[No Elephants]

14. ....

Geneva Conventions

*Hooding, cuffing and forced to lie in stress positions in the sun:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

*Article 31 of the Conventions prohibits physical and moral coercion techniques used to support interrogations.

*Article 3 of the European Conventions on Human Rights bans inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Army's own rules forbid hooding of prisoners and handcuffing their arms behind their back on the ground.

Covering the faces in this way restricts breathing, and to all intents and purposes, is the same as hooding. Its use in May 2004 contradicts the assurances given by the Armed Forces minister in 2004 and General Brims in 2006 to the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee that hooding/face covering had been effectively outlawed.

*Handcuffing to the rear restricts breathing, has been known to lead to deaths in custody and renders a prisoner unable to break his fall if pushed."

From the OP article.


I hope, someday, I have the opportunity to arrest every asshole who says "No" to the question asked in the headline, starting with Dummya and Dick.

Isn't the UK also a party to the Convention Against Torture? Seems as though everyone mentions the Geneva and only the Geneva.

[On the Road]

20. It Would Seem that the Guidelines

in the Geneva conventions assume an environment where the prisoner is incarcerated and the environment is firmly under control.

Immediately after capturing a prisoner in presumably hostile territory, soldiers are faced with the possibility of other enemy troops in the vicinity. In that environment, prisoners who are not immobilized and are able to see and communicate represent a threat.

In a combat situation, rear handcuffing and lying face down with a head covering would seem to be a reasonable and humane response.

[EFerrari]

33. And that would be called a justification for war crimes. n/t

[DWilliamsamh]

44. You have no clue what you are talking about. (n/t)

[EFerrari]

45. Another compelling argument.

[On the Road]

46. A War Crime

is abusing an incarcerated POW. That includes hooding, death threats, and putting the prisoner in painful positions.

What is shown in the photograph has none of those characteristics.

It is equivalent to claiming that a police officer can't use force of any kind in a bar fight just because they're prevented from doing so to a prisoner in a cell.

[EFerrari]

47. Nope. Not under the Geneva Coventions.

They cover everyone.

You should read them sometime. I did and was surprised, actually, at how thoroughly they managed to cover just about every situation.

[On the Road]

52. I Will Take Your Word for It

that it is an unambiguous violation of the Geneva conventions. And by that standard, the soldiers should have been trained to act differently when taking captives.

What was done at Abu Ghraib was unconscionable, including the stress positions, hoods, death threats, and all the other violations. And it was unjustifiable by any military or intelligence need.

I just hope a photo like this doesn't become the public face of the argument. I don't think the things pointed as violations come across as cruel, abusive, or unjustifiable under the circumstances. What went on in places like Abu Ghraib, and may still be going elsewhere, is 100 times worse.

[EFerrari]

53. Those people shouldn't be on the ground with their faces covered

or cuffed in that way.

The conventions are on line and their language is pretty clear. I waded through them researching an article last year.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions

The thing is, we're now used to seeing people being treated in this way. That's a problem because this kind of abuse although it isn't torture or rape or murder is abuse and it's prelude to situations like Abu Ghraib.

This is an interview I got with Andy Worthington who has been following Gitmo pretty closely:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00107.htm

It's time to check in with him again.

[DWilliamsamh]

15. Ok... I didn't follow the link ... so if there are other pictures well then maybe I'm wrong. But...

While I am a staunch advocate for human rights and was against the war in Iraq from the very start of the saber rattling that led to it.

This picture does not show human rights abuse. It shows a soldier standing with four captured people, who may be civilians or may be combatants (since many combatants in Iraq where non-uniformed), who are laying on their bellies with their hands bound behind them - a position that prevents them from even attempting to do harm to the soldier in the picture or any other soldier out of the frame.

IF the story of what happened at their eventual destination happened YES that is abuse and against any sane rules of engagement and definitely against Geneva rule governing the treatment of combatants and civilians. This picture doesn't show that.

But this photo does not show that at all. The head line is sensationalist and misleading regarding this picture. There are enough concrete examples of abuses of both combatant prisoners and civilians. Sensationalizing things that aren't doesn't do anything but dilute the true brutality associated with the illegal war in Iraq.

[beyond cynical]

19. Of course not...

don't be silly.

[Piewhacket]

22. Of course not what?

It is claimed that these prisoners were among those transferred to a detaining
authority where they were tortured. This is a serious violation of the Conventions.

In addition, the photo plainly shows the prisoners are bound, gagged, hooded, and lying on
their stomachs in the sun without water or means of hygiene. Confinement of prisoners
in this manner is specifically prohibited by several articles of the conventions.

So what about that seems silly?

[ieoeja]

24. A photograph showing us what occurred for a fraction of a second ...

... proves all those allegations? Seriously?

For all you know they were tied up like this awaiting transport for all of five minutes.

[EFerrari]

28. WTF. Did you look at the picture or read the article?

Covering a prisoner's face is a violation all by itself.

So, are you saying that violating the Geneva Conventions for five minutes is not a big deal?

[ieoeja]

35. Did you read the question (does this "picture" prove...).

You know what else I see? No uniforms. And according to the Geneva Convention, that makes these guys the equivalent of spies for which the Geneva Convention authorizes execution.

So we either have criminals being arrested which means no Geneva Convention.

Or we have a bunch of people eligible for execution if the conventions do apply.

[EFerrari]

37. I'm sorry but that's wrong. Geneva has provisions for every kind of person

uniformed or not.

[Piewhacket]

34. So what you are saying is you didn't know that

its still rape even if you only stick it in for a second?
So who are you trying to kid? You?

A photo of prone hooded and bound prisoners with a British soldier standing guard
is evidence of the mistreatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva accords.

Authenticated, it would be sufficient evidence to cause an inquiry leading to
prosecution of the soldiers who did it and the officers who ordered and authorized it.

That's probably why it was taken. Probably. I know I would have taken the photo
if I had been there. Ewww betcha.

So is that crystal clear enough for you now, corporal?
Just trying to keep you out of trouble. Cheers.

[ieoeja]

36. According to conventions: no uniform means spies means death penalty.

So if you really want to apply the Geneva Conventions, they could line them up against a wall and kill them all right now and still not be war criminals.

[EFerrari]

38. That must be those Alternate Geneva Conventions.

Where did you find them, on Palin's Facebook page?

[Piewhacket]

40. So what you are sayin is... don't put you in charge of prisoners and stuff. Gotcha.

I can tell you don't know this but the conventions require
a presumption of prisoner of war status.

So if you shot the prisoners we'd just end up
having to hang you.

I know, I know, seems so unfair.
But what can anyone do? Its the law.

[ieoeja]

41. The applicable rule:

I was wrong about the shoot 'em now part. They do have to give them a tribunal. After which they can then shoot them. Because they are not POWs. The applicable rule (from GCIII, Article 4, part 1, paragraph 2):


2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


They fail 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d). So they would qualify as unlawful combatants which means they are subject to domestic, not international laws, according to GCIV.

[Piewhacket]

49. Actually this is your fifth mistake in a row. The applicable rule is still

Conv 3 Art 5 which gives a presumption of protection under the Geneva Convention until
such time as a competent tribunal determines their status.

Which means, (since I'm having to do all this remedial explaining ) that not only do you
NOT get to shoot them, but you ALSO DO NOT GET TO DECIDE if they should be shot.
A competent tribunal decides their status, not you.

And given that that you actually know exactly NOTHING about the men in the
photograph except that they are apparently prisoners being mistreated by British forces,
your claim they don't qualify under 2b, 2c, and 2d is not only amusing, its actually
incompetent. The tribunal would have to release them with an apology and some cash.

So I'm figuring you've been getting all these ideas of yours from the same place.
That's it, isn't it?

[crazyjoe]

42. plus, their pants are getting dirty!!

[Solly Mack]

21. I recommended this earlier

prior to any comments

and having read the thread...

My,my,my.

[Zhade]

26. Yeah, there are some real dimbulbs responding.

NT!

[Solly Mack]

56. They haven't bothered to read the article

and they haven't bothered to keep up with the coverage of abuse and torture - because this has been covered extensively over the last several years.

Reading this thread made me sick to my stomach.

With a few (very few) exceptions...

[EFerrari]

30. We have met the enemy.

[Solly Mack]

55. Sadly

:(

[Therellas]

23. probably......however

compared to what is really going on over there those prisoners may as well be waiting to get into Disney land.

[Ozymanithrax]

27. Taking photographs like this is a war crime.

POW's are not supposed to be photographed as it is demeaning.

[EFerrari]

48. That's right. n/t

[proteus_lives]

50. "which will also examine evidence of one of the worst atrocities ever carried out by the British..."

Army"

Then they've toned down. They used to strap people to the mouths of cannons and pull the lanyard in India. And chop off the feet of rebellious laborers in Africa.