[2dogs]

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6929

Treatment of POWs
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 28, 2003




Earlier this week, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri Ahmad al-Hadithi was quoted as saying that the already brutalized US POWs captured in southern Iraq would, "be treated according to the principles of Islam"..Unfortunately, this statement is not reassuring at all. The classical Baghdadian jurists Abu Yusuf (from the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, d. 798) and al-Mawardi (a Shafi’ite jurist, d. 1058) were prolific, respected scholars who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Baghdadian-Abbasid Caliphate. They wrote the following, based on their interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e., the recorded words and deeds of Muhammad):

“..that one can even ..finish off the wounded, or kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims.. As for the prisoners who are lead before the imam, the latter has the choice, as he pleases, of executing them, or making them pay a ransom, for the most advantageous choice for the Muslims, and the wisest for Islam. The ransom imposed upon them is not to consist either of gold, silver, or wares, but is only in exchange for Muslim captives..” Abu Yusuf Ya’qub Le Livre de l’impot foncier Translated from Arabic and annotated by Edmond Fagnan. Paris” Paul Geuthner, 1921, Pp. 301-302

“...As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favour to them and pardon them.”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah. The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192

Indeed such odious “rules” were iterated by all four classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence, across the vast Muslim empire. Specifically, Ibn Abi Zayd Al_Qayrawani (d. 996), head of the North African Maliki school at Qairuan, and the famous Syrian jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) of the Hanbali school under the Mamluks, wrote the following:

“There is no inconvenience to kill white non-Arabs who have been taken prisoner”. Ibn Abi Zayd Al_Qayrawani, La Risala ou Epitre sur les elements du dogme et de la loi de l’Islam selon le rite malikite. 8th ed. Translated from Arabic by Leon Bercher. Algiers: 1980, p. 163

“…If a male unbeliever is taken captive during warfare or otherwise, eg., as a result of a shipwreck, or because he has lost his way, or as a result of a ruse, then the imam may do whatever he deems appropriate: killing him, enslaving him, releasing him or setting him free for a ransom consisting in either property or people. This is the view of most jurists and it is supported by the Koran and the Sunna…” Ibn Taymiyya, in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, Princeton, NJ, 1996, p. 50


The grisly video aired on Al-Jazeera, and many other Arab media outlets, suggests that indeed, the "primary option", i.e., execution, may very well have been exercised with regard to those US POWs captured in southern Iraq.


In stark contrast, under the Geneva Convention, (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949 entry into force 21 October 1950) PART II GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR , Article 13, it is stated explicitly [http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm]:

“…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…”

Let us pray that humane elements among the Iraqi regime prevail in deciding the fate of US POWs, and they rely exclusively upon the dictates of the Geneva Convention, and not Islamic jurisprudence.

[Leatherneck]

Let us pray that humane elements among the Iraqi regime
Correction: Let us pray that every sane person in the Iraqi regime fears the fate that will befall him if he follows that wacko law. :fire:

TC
TFL Survivor

[agricola]

Wile those are by modern standards barbarian codes, they seem like the most liberal code in the world when one considers what the First Crusade did when they sacked Jerusalem in 1099. You cannot compare legislation from the tenth and eleventh centuries with now (especially when the US has so clearly not been following the Geneva Convention).

[Tamara]

(especially when the US has so clearly not been following the Geneva Convention).

Cites?

[El Tejon]

Madmen and barbarians in all religions.

Ag, how so, old man?:confused:

[CZ-75]

Problem with many Muslim countries is their mindset is still 11th century.

[agricola]

tam,

camp X-ray, or whatever its called now

[Tamara]

camp X-ray, or whatever its called now

I was unaware that Al-Qaeda was a signatory to the Geneva convention.


(That's some pretty impressive moral equivalence you've got going there: "Detaining Terrorists" = "Shooting uniformed POWs".)

[Sean Smith]

agricola,

The Red Cross visitors to the camp disagree with you. Oops.

[El Tejon]

Ag, what are we doing in Cuber that is in violation?:confused:

[agricola]

I was under the understanding that those in Cuba were being held as "unlawful enemy combatants" and had not been accorded POW status. If this has changed and they are now being held as POW's then thats for the good. Oh, and the majority of those held were seized fighting for the taliban, which at the time was the recognized government of the Islamic Republic of Afganistan.

[2dogs]

Sorry, didn't know what I was talking about.
















Edit: Blind ignorance

[trapshooter]

I was under the understanding that those in Cuba were being held as "unlawful enemy combatants" and had not been accorded POW status.

Ag, as you are(should be) aware, the Conventions are reserved for those in the uniform of a recognized government fighting under the flag of that government. It does not apply to those not in that uniform fighting under no flag, but just to indulge thier predisposition to killing anyone they don't agree with.

Besides, the talibunnies lost. As you know, he who wins gets to write the rules.

These yokels are far better off in Gitmo than they would be running around from cave to cave, avoiding the careful attentions of the current legal Afghan government and the 82nd Airborne.

Quit whining and get on the train. Your government agrees with ours. Try to understand why.

[El Tejon]

Ag, the AQT thugs captured in Afghanistan were outside the scope of the agreement. Regardless of how the US designates them, what are we doing that upsets you?

[Coronach]

Agricola-

It has already been mentioned, but the Geneva Convention applies to soldiers of a national army, fighting in uniform under their national flag.

Therefore, the Geneva Convention applies to Iraqi regulars and US regulars.

It does most assuredly not apply to the Taliban. It also may or may not apply to Iraqi and US 'irregulars' operating in Iraq. It will depend on exactly what the circumstances were surrounding the capture.

What is obvious is this:

1. The US is following the geneva convention

2. Iraq is not.

3. Even when we are not according POW status (read: Taliban), we are still treating the prisoners humanely.

4. They are not.

I recognize that it is far easier to criticize a western government (who will listen to you and actually care what you think) than it is to criticize a non-western one (who doesn't give a flying, uh, fig what you think, and will ignore everything you say), but lets deal with reality here.

Mike

[agricola]

trap/el tel,

for a start its the government designating them as "unlawful combatants". given how untrustful so many of you clearly are, i fail to see how their actions become noble and correct once you leave CONUS. if they are POW, then they can hold them until the end of hostilities - which is what the GC says - if they are not, then they are either criminals (like JWL or the "Tipton Taliban") or not guilty of anything, in which case they should be let go. or maybe the US has been reading the Islamist jurists originally posted at the start of this article?

my point was, and remains, if the coalition seeks to berate the Iraqi regime as being in breach of international law, then it should have its own house in order first. besides, given that the regime is fighting for its life, you can hardly expect or be shocked by their behaviour, especially as barbaric as SH is. you dont expect murderers to worry about killing other people when they are cornered and facing the chair, do you?

[CZ-75]

Oh, and the majority of those held were seized fighting for the taliban, which at the time was the recognized government of the Islamic Republic of Afganistan.


I believe you are wrong on this. Only a few Islamic govts. and not even the UN recognized the Taliban. I believe the UN delegation from Afghanistan was made up of elements associated with the Northern Alliance.

[cordex]

Tamara,
I was unaware that Al-Qaeda was a signatory to the Geneva convention.
And I was unaware that the United States signed said convention.

For those who don't think this matters (from the 1949 Geneva convention):
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
Trapshooter,
Quit whining and get on the train. Your government agrees with ours. Try to understand why.
Your government agrees that some firearms can be denied to the public and that possession of bits of metal or little baggies of weeds are reasons to throw people in jail for 10 years or more. Doesn't mean I should jump on the train, now does it?

Agricola,
I was under the understanding that those in Cuba were being held as "unlawful enemy combatants" and had not been accorded POW status. If this has changed and they are now being held as POW's then thats for the good. Oh, and the majority of those held were seized fighting for the taliban, which at the time was the recognized government of the Islamic Republic of Afganistan.
How are a bunch of gentlemen wielding an array of different weapons, wearing an array of different clothing, fighting for an array of different warlords supposed to be protected by a conventioned signed neither by their government nor the other warring parties (US and civil forces) which covers uniformed military personnel?

Still, I believe you have a point. US forces should not expect to be treated in accordance with the Geneva protocols as we are not a signatory nation, and neither is Iraq. However, outrage at summary execution of POWs is more understandable to me than outrage at generous food, water, medical attention, dental care (!!!) and shelter.

Everyone,
Am I missing something with regards to US being held to Geneva?

[Coronach]

LOL.

Agricola, they ARE unlawful enemy combattants. They were in combat, they were not in uniform. This is not even a debate (for the purposes of clarity, we will ignore the Taliban-as-gov't issue. We hold that the Taliban is not any form of gov't and have never recognized them as such. But as they also have not met any of the other requirements for Geneva portections, its a non-issue). We can and we will do whatever we darned well please witht them. It just so happens that, given our quality as a nation and a people, we are engaging in humane treatment. Not because we have to, but because it is the right thing to do.

Also, our "mistrust" of government certainly does not stop at the boarders of the USA. We're rightly skeptical of any governemnt, anywhere. But our "suspicions" are somewhat lessened by two key facts:

1. Iraqi soldiers and Taliban fighters are not accorded constitutional protections, but rather are accorded much less rigorous protections and

2. I have not heard anything to make me think that we're doing anything wrong.

In other words, our house is very much in order. Iraq might not think so, but since we're at war, I now don't really care what they think. You may not think so, either, but as a member of a free country, you're entitled to your opinion. It is, however, just your opinion.

As to your latter point, no, I'm not startled that Saddam will do anything and everything to avoid losing power in Iraq. He is a murderous thug. This goes to show how start the contrast is between the US/UK and Iraq is.

Mike

[hops]

The Geneva Convention spells out who is and is not a combatant subject to which rules within the Geneva Covention.

The Yahoos in Cuba are not soldiers - uniformed personel of Country. They are at best irregulars, at worst terrorists.

On Iraq. Yes, one can technically say that the U.S. have violated the Geneva convention by showing Iraqi POW's on TV. Ok, we're even there. But, I'm willing to bet big cases of 7.62 x 51 ammo that the Iraqi POW's are being treated much better than the U.S. POW's in Baghell.

So, the U.S. is doing a much better job (they get an A- grade and the clowns in Baghell get F- grade) in following the Geneva convention.

As far as I am concerned, Iraqi's combatants wearing civillian garb, are spies and subject to immediate on the spot execution if captured. Discretion left to the field commander. No Geneva protection unless determined that they are true civillians pressed in to service at gun point by Iraqi thugs, as is being reported.

Exception is Iraqi regulars wearing their uniform under civillian garb or even under U.S, uniforms. Technically, the Iraqi's should remove the garb to reveal their true status before entering combat. Sort of like the flying a Flag under False pretences in NAVAL warfare. Before entering NAVAL combat you're to raise your real colours. So, they get Geneva protection.

[Khornet]

America=bad.

Thus, if you house, feed, provide health care for, and even facilitate religious observance for your prisoners, but you are American, you're acting barbarically.

If you execute and rape your prisoners, but you're not American,
you're excused.


Call it the crime of Fighting While American.

[Coronach]

Yes, one can technically say that the U.S. have violated the Geneva convention by showing Iraqi POW's on TV. Ok, we're even there. But, I'm willing to bet big cases of 7.62 x 51 ammo that the Iraqi POW's are being treated much better than the U.S. POW's in Baghell.No no no no no no no no no.

There is a difference between a reporter, acting on his own, filming a surrender in progress, and a government holding a press conference and parading POWs before their state-run media.

One is the action of a free press, the other is a propaganda photo-op.

This is a HUGE difference.

Mike

[mons meg]

Cordex wrote:
Still, I believe you have a point. US forces should not expect to be treated in accordance with the Geneva protocols as we are not a signatory nation, and neither is Iraq.

According to the International Red Cross website at www.icrc.org, the United States is signatory to all of the accords with the exception of the two amended protocols in 1977 dealing with guerilla warfare, etc. I am not sure which protocols Iraq has signed, but they are signatory to the one dealing with POWs, even if it was before the current regime came to power.

There is an amazing amount of misinformation out there regarding the Geneva Conventions (plural) and the Hague accords. I suggest more people check out the ICRC website for more information.

Edited to correct URL link.

[Khornet]

of the world: listen up.

"The conditions were even better than our homes. We were gine three meals a day--eggs in the morning and meat twice a day; facilities to wash, and if we didn't wash, they'd wash us; and there was even entertainment with video games."
-Sirajuddin, 24, Kandhar taxi driver and GTMO survivor

Sayed Abasin,21: "There is no need to lie. I'm telling you the facts. They treated us very well." Abasin was seen 37 times by the GTMO medical staff.


www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin1.asp


You can only equate our treatment of POWs with theirs if you don't know the difference between right and wrong.

[S_O_Laban]

Coronach, exellent point. There IS a difference. The Govt. does not controll nor anwser for what the free press does or says.

[cordex]

According to the International Red Cross website at www.icrc.org, the United States is signatory to all of the accords with the exception of the two amended protocols in 1977 dealing with guerilla warfare, etc. I am not sure which protocols Iraq has signed, but they are signatory to the one dealing with POWs, even if it was before the current regime came to power.
My bad. You are correct. I believe I was looking at a site dedicated to the 1977 protocols (which neither the USA nor Iraq signed).

[El Tejon]

Ag, if we stop to accept the Euro moral equiv view, where are US hands unclean? Where are the Emir's hands unclean?

[agricola]

el tel,

they both are unclean, thats the point.

the rest,

what law have these men broken to be "unlawful combatants"?

fyi the GC says:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.



http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[Khornet]

Looks like your boys fail the 2(b) test. Or did you mean that you can pluck phrases from the different clauses and reassemble as needed?

[agricola]

they dont fail test six....

[Tamara]

(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.

Looks like Taliban troopers fail on points (b) and (d), at least...

Also, you haven't responded to the fact that the International Red Cross inspectors gave Camp X-Ray the "okie-dokie". May I, from this, presume that you are privy to info that the Red Cross inspectors were not? What exactly did you see on your visit to Camp X-Ray that the Red Cross guys didn't? :confused:

[agricola]

tamara,

as i understand it they said conditions in the camp were humane. given that there is no legal basis for their detention, they could hardly state that they were being detained in line with a relevant statute, because there was no statute in force.

[Sean Smith]

as i understand it they said conditions in the camp were humane. given that there is no legal basis for their detention, they could hardly state that they were being detained in line with a relevant statute, because there was no statute in force.

Thus neatly contradicting all your own statements about how the U.S. detentions in question are illegal and inhumane. :rolleyes:

[agricola]

if there is no legal basis for their detention then they cannot be detained, and illegal detention is of course inhumane. in fact, pretty much the only legal basis is that contained in the Islamist jurists at the start of the page... you are doing with your captives as you will.

[El Tejon]

Ag, AQT are detained because they are thugs that harmed us. They stepped into the yellow footprints by declaring themselves beyond the law. They assumed the risk, so be it.

They do not fall within the definition of PoWs. By international law we could shoot them as pirates. However, the US is far too humane to do so. Instead we will extract information from them and it will hopefully aid our killing of other pirates.

To compare the US to thugs in charge of Iraq is going a little far, even by Euro standards.:)

[NeverAgain26]

How about forgetting about the Geneva Convention for a second and acting like a human being instead of something worse than an animal?

Animals do not kill willfully for the sake of killing. They kill to eat or for self-defense. American and British POW's who have been captured are no longer a threat so the self-defense argument does not justify excuting them. I doubt the sons of b*****s Iraqis are planning to eat them so no use killing them.

We have their POW's medi-vacced on our choppers to our hospital ships getting the same treatment we give to our people. We are feeding the Iraqis (civilians and POW's) as we go along. Can you imagine how our POW's are being treated by the Iraqis if the Iraqis torture their own people and shoot them in the back if they leave their positions?

Ag, stop spouting legal points, think like a human being and tell me we are doing something wrong. Even in Gitmo, they get fed, they get Korans and they are treated decently. Are we interrogating them? A bit roughly? Can you imagine how the Iraqis will interrogate our folk (if they let them live)? I am all for a little sleep deprivation and psych manipulaion if it means we get the info we need to keep safe. There is a line and I a sure our people in Gitmo are not crossing it. I am sure our enemies have no such line when they interrogate our people.

When the Iraqis were pretending to surrender and then whipped out weapns and started blasting away, they showed themselves for the kind of scum they are. Is this who you are sticking up for? It makes me sort of sick.

I'm no lawyer, but use common-sense and decency and stop sticking up for the enemy.

NA26

[agricola]

neveragain,

i) any Iraqi breaches of the GC or any of the percieved "laws of war" should be dealt with accordingly;

ii) the same should apply to anyone elses breaches of the GC. those in Guantanamo Bay are either POWs or they are criminals; they, whatever you paint them as, have rights and if they are innocent of a crime and arent classed as POW then they should be repatriated;

iii) pointing out the illegality of a government policy is neither approving of an alleged enemy action nor is it being indecent. with regards to that action, it is a deception that we consider beneath us, but war is all about deception and i am sure the Iraqis consider using PGM's from 10000 ft as being not fair, deceitful etc etc.

[El Tejon]

Ag, we could let the pirates go and very well may someday after we kill their brothers. However, we are doing nothing wrong by holding them. In fact, when one considers we could have executed them, it is far more humane to incarcerate them.

i) We will deal with Iraqi breaches after we destroy their army and shoot the Emir's loyalists. It will be a lesson for all of God's Monkey House. I hope to see a televised trial before we turn right or left from Baghdad (please let it be left).

ii) Our holding the pirates in Cuber is not a violation of international law.

iii) My point being that the Iraqis are violating international law as a matter of policy of the Emir. The US is not and is going above and beyond (far more than many here wish) being humane.

[hops]

Coronach - I said 'technically'. I do not think that the Geneva convention differentiates between 'Govt. Controlled Media - like the BBC, and non Gov.org controlled media like Fox.' I'd have to read it some more.

Take out the 'technically' in my reason as to the U.S. 's Iraqi POW's on TV, and I wholly agree with the jest of your view.

[jmbg29]

they dont fail test six....They don't need to.

They fail the first test. Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. Nor do the meet, the standards of part 2 a), b), and d).:rolleyes:

[Coronach]

I do not think that the Geneva convention differentiates between 'Govt. Controlled Media - like the BBC, and non Gov.org controlled media like Fox.' I'd have to read it some more.Well, IANAL, but I don't see how any nation could be held accountable for the actions of its media, a non-government entity, in publishing things that they observe. Now, if the Gov't gives photo ops, thats different. But if, say, the BBC catches a US unit accepting a surrender, how is the US violating geneva? And if they're not violating it with the BBC, they're not violating it with Fox. Unless, of course, there is something to indicate that it is staged deliberately for PR.

JMO. IANAL.

Mike

[Khornet]

are you getting all your data from the Guardian?

Test six: openly bear arms. Tell that to the Marines shot by "civilians" who produced weapons hidden beneath their robes. Or is it" openly bearing" so long as they pull out the AK before they fire, but not if they shoot through their robes?

[trapshooter]

cordex,

My remark to Agricola was/is confined strictly to the subject of the thread. No other. That should be obvious, if you have ever read any of my posts on the subjects to which you infer. Deflection to these other, unrelated issues, won't work. Satisfied? :banghead:

As far as the position of anyone who continues to suffer the mis-guided notion that somehow, our treatment of the nitwits at Guantanamo Bay is somehow analogous to Iraq's treatment of US/UK troops captured in the current conflict:

What are you smoking? It's got to be illegal. :scrutiny: