Iraqi's Murder POW's, Show on TV

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
You are a ****ing faggot. You deserve to get banned for a) the ignorance b) the racism c) the nationalistic drivel and d) the hatred in that statement.

indeed, seconded.

By the way, Drudge, your post has nothing to do with Ste's statements. Ste said that the US applies double standards when it comes to the geneva convention. That the iraqi's ignore some of it is well known. You don't have to repeat your propaganda over and over again.
Also, if you read back in this thread you can read that the most common lethal wound is being shot in the head/face because that's one of the few body parts that CAN be hit in battle.
Now, can you show some prove of the soldiers being shot EXACTLY between the eyes? Can you prove that the wounds they died of were caused after the initial battle?

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
You are a ****ing faggot. You deserve to get banned for a) the ignorance b) the racism c) the nationalistic drivel and d) the hatred in that statement.

No offense but your guilty of atleast 2 of the following you just said.

Following the same lines, shouldn't you be banned?

And after re-reading his post I can only find 3 of the 4 things you stated... racism not being one of them. Hell I cant even find c) in there...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by IndiaSour
No offense but your guilty of atleast 2 of the following you just said.

Following the same lines, shouldn't you be banned?

And after re-reading his post I can only find 3 of the 4 things you stated... racism not being one of them. Hell I cant even find c) in there...

I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect. I was hoping to make him think. And they are all in there.

Yeah, those Iraqi's sure are a humanitarian lot. Did you see them, carefully firing their AK-47's into the river banks while "searching" for rumored downed pilot(s). Oh, and using gas and matches to light the reeds on fire is definitely a kind turn.

The only TRULY cool thing about this is watching them come close to lighting their own ignorant asses on fire.

I guess the Iraqi's are such good shots in battle that 3 of the 5 soldiers killed when they took those POW's were shot, from a distance, in the forehead, directly between the eyes?

Yeah, they are a benevolent lot.

Perhaps if you reread it you will see what I am talking about.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Umbrall
By bypassing the UN, the USA have managed to impart a bit of "good guy" factor to Iraq, in the minds of many. So-called minds, anyway.
Playing the role of the "innocent victim" gets Iraq more sympthy from the mass-media, demonstrators, etc. We'll see how long it lasts.

I'm guessing most of the anti-war types could watch Saddam eating the prisoners alive on television, and then continue to be anti war saying that "it never would have happened if we hadn't invaded"

but on the erstwhile theory that demonstrations in kuala lumpur make a difference to saddam, here's my new idea (im saddam)

those prisoners suddenly turn out to be my bestest friends in the whole wide world. some of them will get a chance to go out in the field with my generals, in their vehicles, and the chick will be hanging out with me every second of every day. i'm not taking a dip in the hot tub without her assistance. as she is eating dinner at my banquets, and sleeping in one of the nicest rooms in the palace, she'll have nothing but the best to say about me to the anti-war crew.

course, americans in general had no pity for the human shields that volunteered to go to iraq. but human shields that bush sent to iraq people might care about. worth a shot?

[Anaximander]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
My name is M_Drudge, and you don't know anything. The Marines never got past Kuwait city.

Next time, just kick your own ass so I'm not bothered.

I'm speaking of nicks not of names. Somebody called Witness Gnat posted a similar thread in the jolt forum. He belongs to the same spectrum as you, even the writing style isn't too different. I mustn't be right of course.

The guy who wrote the book was a sniper. I don't know if he was a marine or not. But he was definitly not only in Kuwait.

About the search for the pilots: What did you expect? These guys bombed the city for days. Using a huge technical advantage, that gives the defenders almost no chance to fight back. Suddenly the Iraqi manage to shoot down one of their tormentors.
I'm really suprised, they didn't torture them to death. Not nice and not good, but you didn't really expect the Iraqi to let them just go? What would happen if the sides were reversed? Mr. Lynch would have a field day!

Nobody ever said, that Sadam Hussain is smitten by the idea of human rights and Geneva Convention. The Americans on the other hand declare (Bush speeches), they're the good. Fighting the evil to achieve liberty, democracy and freedom for the Iraqi ppl. You have to keep the rules, exspecially since the US attacked.

Sadam knows very well, that the American population is highly allergic against casualities and cruel death of their own soldiers (and only their own) in comparison to him. You can be very happy, that he still makes prisoners and promised good treatment.

"Next time, just kick your own ass so I'm not bothered."

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect. I was hoping to make him think. And they are all in there.




Perhaps if you reread it you will see what I am talking about.

The only TRULY cool thing about this is watching them come close to lighting their own ignorant asses on fire.

You must mean this as racism. I guess it can be stretched to be just that... but I honestly disagree. Thought thats just my opinion.

As far as the nationalistic drivel... its subtle... but yes... you are correct its there

[Judge]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
errrr IF those americans were executed (which I do not believe from the evidence at hand), what exactly would be the justification in that to start bombing indiscriminately?

IF they were executed, they were executed by the regime, not the civilians, so nothing has changed has it? The regime already were evil remember?? That was the whole point wasnt it???

I was not suggesting that policy would change, but that US and allied soldiers attitudes may change or be influenced by the actions percieved.

It may well be the case that the Soldiers on the ground will take less care with prisoners, and have a lesser regard for civvies.

It has also come to light that there has been a number of incidents where Iraqi's have pretended to surrender, only to ambush US troops. That again causes problems, in that genuine surrenders may be ignored or treated with hostility.

The taking of and treatment of prisoners of war is not an easy task in any conflict, but to flout the rules by parading prisoners before the cameras and interogating them publicly does not bode well for the treatment they are likely to recieve at the hands of the Iraqi's.

Yes I am well aware that Iraqi prisoners have been shown on TV and in the Newspapers, but that is the actions of Journalists and not the action or policy of the Allies.

Nor have any been publicly interogated or humiliated live on TV, which is a clear breach of the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by Judge
Not exactly the same is it?

The US may be holding prisoners, but they are not executing them out of hand.

Now Grow Up Kura,

What do you then call what Texas did 300 times the last years, justice ??
I don´t know the exact numbers but roughly 30% of all dead man walking are not guilty or haven´t had a fair law suit.

Note:
That doesn´t mean the iraq are better but i except more from a so called democracy. There is always another side of the coin.
Just read 1984 from Orwell and you will get a slight image how the U.S. is going to be. Have fun there

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Jori.X.McKie
I don´t know the exact numbers but roughly 30% of all dead man walking are not guilty or haven´t had a fair law suit.

I wouldn't post things like this - it merely makes you look foolish. Unless you want to qualify it a bit more. Not having a fair trial can range from "The judge was biased against me" to "I couldn't afford a good lawyer", so that's pretty meaningless.

As for the innocent people one, stats please.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Jori.X.McKie
What do you then call what Texas did 300 times the last years, justice ??
I don´t know the exact numbers but roughly 30% of all dead man walking are not guilty or haven´t had a fair law suit.

Note:
That doesn´t mean the iraq are better but i except more from a so called democracy. There is always another side of the coin.
Just read 1984 from Orwell and you will get a slight image how the U.S. is going to be. Have fun there

Point completely missed.

The discussion was about POW's not criminals.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Judge

Yes I am well aware that Iraqi prisoners have been shown on TV and in the Newspapers, but that is the actions of Journalists and not the action or policy of the Allies.

Blue-eyed comment of the year award ahoy!

It is so incredibly naive of you to believe that the US has sent those journalists there only so the public gan get objective information on what is going on.

They are there to convey the picture of a succesful war. Tanks rolling toward baghdad, iraqi soldiers surrendering and a paralyzed iraqi goverment. What you see is what the US wants you to see.

Media is a weapon amongst others. As one expert stated: you dont really have to be succesfull in a war, if you can appear to be.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Emperorn
Blue-eyed comment of the year award ahoy!

It is so incredibly naive of you to believe that the US has sent those journalists there only so the public gan get objective information on what is going on.

They are there to convey the picture of a succesful war. Tanks rolling toward baghdad, iraqi soldiers surrendering and a paralyzed iraqi goverment. What you see is what the US wants you to see.

Media is a weapon amongst others. As one expert stated: you dont really have to be succesfull in a war, if you can appear to be.

fckwit of the century of the award coming your way.

You should perhaps read all of my comments, engage that sorry excuse for a brain before opening that maw you call a mouth.

I do not believe that the Media are there to be wholly independant of the Military, obviously they release what the Military want them too, but that is not to say that they also completely swallow what is given to them.

Several days ago, the US declared that Umm Qasar was taken and held by them, it is plain that fighting has continued for some time after that declaration, it is also plain that the BBC, ITN and others have reported that fact. That is not a Media being controlled or we would have heard nothing.

But answer this, and then give clear accurate and concise evidence to prove your answer.

When or where have the Allied Military in Iraq conducted interrogations "Live" on TV?

They havn't which is the whole POINT of my argument, as you completely and utterly failed to understand.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Judge
I do not believe that the Media are there to be wholly independant of the Military, obviously they release what the Military want them too, but that is not to say that they also completely swallow what is given to them.

Several days ago, the US declared that Umm Qasar was taken and held by them, it is plain that fighting has continued for some time after that declaration, it is also plain that the BBC, ITN and others have reported that fact. That is not a Media being controlled or we would have heard nothing.

Great example. As if they could get away with covering up every single setback, especially one the size of a city.Their controll is more subtle than that. But then you are a blue-eyed.

Originally posted by Judge

But answer this, and then give clear accurate and concise evidence to prove your answer.

When or where have the Allied Military in Iraq conducted interrogations "Live" on TV?

They havn't which is the whole POINT of my argument, as you completely and utterly failed to understand.

Your question is stupid. That the US has not commited exactly the same violation does not take them of the hook. Tell me when or where the Iraqi's have shown pictures of American troops surrendering?

Both are basically doing the same thing, using the POWs for propaganda purposes. Only difference is that the Iraqi haven't got videocameras out in the field so they have to shoot their footage later.

And I have said this in this thread before, but as it was ignored I'll say it again (it is worth repeating anyway):

It is easy to whine about the rules when you are holding all the cards and have nothing to gain from breaking them. Let's not forget that if the United States ever would have been on the brink of REALLY losing a war, the way Iraq is now, they would have nuked half the world.

Originally posted by Judge
Point completely missed.

The discussion was about POW's not criminals.

Well the intention was to miss the point as the treament of POW´s and criminals could be compared to show how a country react and stick to his own law. -> see Guantanamo and the new law´s about how to treat with U.S. citizens suspected and not supected to be terrorists.
U.S. are developing to an Orwell´sche country not only comparing their methods of wachting their own citizens more their behaviour in propaganda and justyfing the war.
In U.S. any criticsim about the war is nearly abandon. There is a double standard developing like "we are Gods own land" and we have any right to do what we want to do as we are the democracy par execellence noone has to critize us.
Well in my eyes the U.S. isn´t a democrazy any more it is an oligarchy.

[Mong]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Have you ever heard of a queef? It's the sound a vagina makes when air is trapped inside of it during hard, pounding sex.

Queefs have more intelligence than you do.

Not a flame, just an astute and accurate observation.

This is the world's best flame. That's made my day! It's so good I've even sent it to some mates who will appreciate it, and no doubt use it themself. What makes this flame stand out above standard flames is the clever "not a flame" closing play. Superb!

I remember once this girlf had obviously never experienced one before. She just stood there looking all embarassed going "wtf?!" and I just lay on the bed laughing my head off... I wasn't very sensitive when I was younger

M.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Emperorn
Great example. As if they could get away with covering up every single setback, especially one the size of a city.Their controll is more subtle than that. But then you are a blue-eyed.

And exactly how would the US control the NON-US/UK media? Al Jazeera for example?

Originally posted by Emperorn
Your question is stupid. That the US has not commited exactly the same violation does not take them of the hook. Tell me when or where the Iraqi's have shown pictures of American troops surrendering?

The question is pertinent to your proposition that the US have been acting against the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW's in Iraq. (NOTE I SAID IN IRAQ) Guantanamo bay is a separate issue.

The reports by the media (or what you describe as puppets of the allies) show only distant shots, and general overviews of how the captives are being treated, it does not show them being interrogated, nor does it show them with a microphone and camera thrust in there face, nor does it show the fear that they have, and thus humiliating them publicly

Originally posted by Emperorn

Both are basically doing the same thing, using the POWs for propaganda purposes. Only difference is that the Iraqi haven't got videocameras out in the field so they have to shoot their footage later.

And I have said this in this thread before, but as it was ignored I'll say it again (it is worth repeating anyway):

It is easy to whine about the rules when you are holding all the cards and have nothing to gain from breaking them. Let's not forget that if the United States ever would have been on the brink of REALLY losing a war, the way Iraq is now, they would have nuked half the world.

You really need to get out more, and not believe all the lies spoon fed to you.

The Propoganda value of the Allies in showing POW's (under the conditions I have described and you have withessed) are an attempt to show that they are being treated fairly, and to encourage more Iraqi's to do the same.

The Propoganda value of showing cowed and obviously distressed POW's is an attempt by the Iraqi's to instill fear into the allies soldiers, and to also attempt to poison public opinion in the US/UK.

If the Allies were doing the SAME I would also speak out against it.

Or do you not understand the difference?

[Ste]

Originally posted by Judge
The question is pertinent to your proposition that the US have been acting against the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW's in Iraq. (NOTE I SAID IN IRAQ) Guantanamo bay is a separate issue.

No it isn't a seperate issue. How can you complain that your enemy is breaking the Geneva Convention when you are blatently doing it yourself?
They are all Muslim's, whether they are civilians from Afghanistan or civilians from Iraq.
There is no way you can justify breaking any part of the Geneva Convention especially when denying people their basic Human Rights. I'm sorry but the Iraqi breaking of the rules (and to be fair it's not the worst thing they could do) is no way matching the breaking of rules by the US not just in the Geneva Convention but also in many many other treaties.
As was said on C4 news last night - the US always knew the Guantanamo bay situation was likely to backfire in their faces, and now it has.

The reports by the media (or what you describe as puppets of the allies) show only distant shots, and general overviews of how the captives are being treated, it does not show them being interrogated, nor does it show them with a microphone and camera thrust in there face, nor does it show the fear that they have, and thus humiliating them publicly

I've seen close-up shots of prisoners being forced to kneel in front of our soldiers at gunpoint whilst having their hands and feet taped together. Also many others of them surrendering, being searched and sitting in large groups surrounded by barbed wire.
That is blatently humiliating and therefore breaks the convention just as much as the Iraqi forces.
Remember that most, if not all, of their troops will not be able to speak English and most, if not all, of our troops don't speak arabic. If that was not the case then it is very likely that we would see them interrogated.

Maybe the media is different in your country...

Hi strangers. I couldn't sit by while this was discussed. First let me say that some of you are friggen retards. Your methods of arguing have to be the dumbest damn thing I've ever seen. No names mentioned.

With that said, I do not believe our POWs were executed. I've seen the photo stills from the al Jazeera video. I saw one soldier with a chest wound and one with a large calibre head wound. The one with the large calibre head wound is the same soldier you see lying behind the 5 ton wrecker that was ambushed. He was also lacking the tell tale sign of severe powder burning that would occur at close range with any firearm. It appeared to me as though he was shot from some distance. Now, the Iraqis parading around the corpses, that was truly uncalled for.

[Subatai]

The Geneva convention is a horrible joke that is only used as a method for one side of a war to paint the other side of the war as being less than human.

People are trying to kill each other and what upsets people the most is public humilation?

I have to disagree. The Geneva Convention was enacted in order to ensure that soldiers would receive the rights of the most basic of human decency. Protection from humiliation is one of those basic rights. Being upset over the deaths of soldiers and the humiliation of POWs is two totally different subjects and subject to totally different protections under the Geneva Convention.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Ste

No it isn't a seperate issue. How can you complain that your enemy is breaking the Geneva Convention when you are blatently doing it yourself?
They are all Muslim's, whether they are civilians from Afghanistan or civilians from Iraq.
There is no way you can justify breaking any part of the Geneva Convention especially when denying people their basic Human Rights. I'm sorry but the Iraqi breaking of the rules (and to be fair it's not the worst thing they could do) is no way matching the breaking of rules by the US not just in the Geneva Convention but also in many many other treaties.
As was said on C4 news last night - the US always knew the Guantanamo bay situation was likely to backfire in their faces, and now it has.

The issue is seperate, due to one small and irefutable fact, the captives in Guantanamo Bay are Civilians, therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply.

You can argue that they are being treated badly, you can even argue that there Human Rights are being abused, but you cannot argue that they are covered by the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by Ste


I've seen close-up shots of prisoners being forced to kneel in front of our soldiers at gunpoint whilst having their hands and feet taped together. Also many others of them surrendering, being searched and sitting in large groups surrounded by barbed wire.
That is blatently humiliating and therefore breaks the convention just as much as the Iraqi forces.
Remember that most, if not all, of their troops will not be able to speak English and most, if not all, of our troops don't speak arabic. If that was not the case then it is very likely that we would see them interrogated.

Maybe the media is different in your country...

Standard operational procedure.

1) Examine and search all captives for hidden weapons or devices that may cause harm to themselves there fellow captives or you.

A sensible precaution.

2) Dissable your captive in a humane way, by application of restraints untill he/they can be moved to a holding area.

Again a sensible precaution.

3) In a forward holding area employ such means as to keep secure and seperate from your regular forces any and all captives.

This is in effect what the Allies are doing, the Holding areas are temporary, Prisoners are held there untill transported to a rear area where proper accomodation can be provided.

The langauge they speak or understand is wholly irrelevant, the average combat soldier does not interogate prisoners, nor does the average POW have a lot to tell.

Interogations are carried out by the Military using the correct procedure, as they are entitled so to do under the code.

The Iraqi's are attempting to interogate people in front of TV cameras, in essence humiliating them into addmissions. What none of us see or can even know, is what intimidation is going on outside of the shot, or what threats have been made.

Perhaps you will recall the TV footage from the last Gulf War Where a UK Pilot had to give a statement to Camera, condemning the British, US and the Allies?

What was subsequently discovered was that he had been threatened with excecution if he refused.

Perhaps similar intimidation is going on with the Allied Captives?
I dont know, and neither do you, but a leopard has a hard task changing it's spots.

Oh and for the record I watch Channel 4 News as well, and ITN BBC, Sky, CNN, and just about any other you care to mention.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Judge
The issue is seperate, due to one small and irefutable fact, the captives in Guantanamo Bay are Civilians, therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply.

They're civilians because the US defined everyone they captured as a civilian, if they were military or not.

Originally posted by Judge
The issue is seperate, due to one small and irefutable fact, the captives in Guantanamo Bay are Civilians, therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply.

I would think they would be covered under the Geneva Convention as militia. The Geneva Convention merely refers to hostiles as "parties to the conflict." However, as hostilities in that particular operation are still ongoing, they are subject to detention as long as necessary. They are not eligible for release until all hostilities cease. As they were seized as prisoners of terrorist organizations, they are eligible for detention as long as we fight terrorism.

[Ste]

Originally posted by Judge
The issue is seperate, due to one small and irefutable fact, the captives in Guantanamo Bay are Civilians, therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply.

You can argue that they are being treated badly, you can even argue that there Human Rights are being abused, but you cannot argue that they are covered by the Geneva Convention.

They are either criminals or prisoners of war. You can't just make up a new definition to bypass international law.
Captured in another country during a war - therefore POW's. And Geneva convention applies.
Even if you bypass that then they are criminals and have the right to trial.
They have been there for 18 months now! no trial, no lawyer, shown on television being tied up, blindfolded and carried around on wheelbarrows.
It doesn't matter what you define it is - it is illegal and immoral.

Standard operational procedure.

1) Examine and search all captives for hidden weapons or devices that may cause harm to themselves there fellow captives or you.

A sensible precaution.

2) Dissable your captive in a humane way, by application of restraints untill he/they can be moved to a holding area.

Again a sensible precaution.

3) In a forward holding area employ such means as to keep secure and seperate from your regular forces any and all captives.

This is in effect what the Allies are doing, the Holding areas are temporary, Prisoners are held there untill transported to a rear area where proper accomodation can be provided.

That's not the argument. I'm saying how can they show that on television and at the same time complain that the Iraqi's are?

Perhaps you will recall the TV footage from the last Gulf War Where a UK Pilot had to give a statement to Camera, condemning the British, US and the Allies?

What was subsequently discovered was that he had been threatened with excecution if he refused.

Well actually I was a little too young to care back then BUT I have seen the footage recently and yes - it is shocking. And I wouldn't be surprised if similar things are happening now. But I also wouldn't be surprised if those things also happened in Guantanamo Bay but oh wait - they're civilians so it doesn't matter.

You can't enforce a treaty in some ways and break it in others. You only need to look as far as Israel to see the double-standards applied by the US government.

[Judge]

Originally posted by TejasCop
I would think they would be covered under the Geneva Convention as militia. The Geneva Convention merely refers to hostiles as "parties to the conflict." However, as hostilities in that particular operation are still ongoing, they are subject to detention as long as necessary. They are not eligible for release until all hostilities cease. As they were seized as prisoners of terrorist organizations, they are eligible for detention as long as we fight terrorism.

They would only be covered as Militia, if they were clothed in a distinctive way that identified them as seperate from the general population. (or at least that is my understanding of the code?)

Originally posted by Ste
That's not the argument. I'm saying how can they show that on television and at the same time complain that the Iraqi's are?

There is one fundamental difference. The detainees in Guantanamo were filmed by independent news organizations. Their faces were also never shown. However, the POWs in Iraq not only had their faces shown, they showed the faces of the deceased. It was also state run media. Iraq doesn't have any independent news organizations, so whatever is released to al Jazeera has a governmental stamp on it.

Originally posted by Judge
They would only be covered as Militia, if they were clothed in a distinctive way that identified them as seperate from the general population. (or at least that is my understanding of the code?)

I looked for that, but the convention doesn't address it. I assume that part was left open to interpretation. In Vietnam, most of the Viet Cong wore nothing that distinguished themselves as militia, but were awarded Geneva Convention rights regardless. Well, when they were in the U.S. custody. When they were in South Vietnamese custody, they had a tendency to "disappear."

http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html

[Ste]

Originally posted by TejasCop
There is one fundamental difference. The detainees in Guantanamo were filmed by independent news organizations. Their faces were also never shown. However, the POWs in Iraq not only had their faces shown, they showed the faces of the deceased. It was also state run media. Iraq doesn't have any independent news organizations, so whatever is released to al Jazeera has a governmental stamp on it.

You know as well as I do that if they didn't want the prisoners in G-bay to be shown on TV then they wouldn't.

And anyway you quoted me talking about the current prisoners in Iraq.

Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm


Ste, the same logic applies. The Iraqi POWs shown on CNN are not having their rights violated. CNN is not supported or funded by the U.S. government. They are a 100% private organization. Now, keeping that in mind, the government CAN allow CNN full access to a POW camp to film all the Iraqis they want so long as they do not humiliate them. Merely showing their faces while they sit on a park bench would not violate the convention. Lifting the heads of the wounded while laughing at them while the video captures this, yes, that would be in violation. There is a huge difference.

[Judge]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
They're civilians because the US defined everyone they captured as a civilian, if they were military or not.

The US defined them as civilians for a number of reasons, I am not saying it is right or justifying the action they took, but that the Geneva Convention does not apply to Civilians.

Just to understand the concept of why they were defined as such, I took the time to look it up.

The Majority of the captives at Guantanimo bay, are NOT Afghan Nationals, which in itself is not agains the code, but a failure to come under any recognised command of the indigenous government or military authourity is.

It is also the case that they were not wearing any sort of distinctive uniform or means of identifying them as combatants despite the fact they were taking part in Combat.

Article 2 of the Geneva Convetion on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

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, fulfil 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.

Article 13.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Article 17

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

[Intrepid00]

Originally posted by wu_trax
and, btw, im not sure, but doesnt it violate the geneva convention to cut off the water and electricity supply of the 2 million inhabitants of basrar?

Well, tell the Iraq's to stop putting AA guns and other weapons of war right next to these public facilicest to deter us from shooting them.