Red Cross Says Abuse Photos Can't Be Shown

[RoyGBiv]

Red Cross Says Abuse Photos Can't Be Shown
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer

GENEVA - The international Red Cross agreed Thursday with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the Geneva Conventions on warfare forbid the U.S. government from distributing photographs showing Iraqi detainees being humiliated or abused.

"He has a good point," said Antonella Notari, spokeswoman of the International Committee of the Red Cross. "The dignity of the people who are detained has to be respected at all times."

<snip>

But, Notari said, the same article also forbids violence, intimidation and insults.

"If you want to quote the article, please quote the whole article," she said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=721&e=6&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_re_eu/red_cross_prisoner_abuse

[maddezmom]

1. does the Geneva Convention ban the media from releasing the photos?

seious question...I don't think it would.

[ZR2]

3. The media is not exempt

from the Geneva Convention. Especially as it pertains to the Powers involved in the conflict.

[maddezmom]

8. so is CBS in violation of the Geneva Convention?

or because the faces were not shown, it's okay?

[ZR2]

15. I guess that is going to be for the war crimes tribunal to decide

looks like there are going to be a shitload of cases.

[Just Me]

CBS did not take the photos and they were evidence of war crimes.

So, I seriously doubt CBS would be in some danger of being charged with some violation of the Geneva Convention. That is just silly BS.

[thecrow]

30. So what are they going to do about it?

Take CBS down???

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. That would be.... BushCO

not the ICRC....

Again thik... their report WAS LEAKED, their report was eyes only and for command level only. TRY to connect the dots here, you are bright enough.

The Taquba report was also leaked, and was clasified Top Secret \ NOFOR

THINK

Try connecting dots, I cannot fully connect them for you

[ashling]

45. I seriously doubt that CBS is a signatory

to the Geneva Convention.

It seems to me that it only affects the powers that are sinatories.

Would be akin to trying to hold CBS to the U.S. Constitution

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Yes,

During the war I remember sending a nastigram to all Media Outlets, as they cannot, technically, even show POWs being given oh water by a US Marine... which they did.

Lets just say I was pleased when CNN started blurring faces and actually told and explained why they could not. In fact, very technically speaking, photos that have been released across the years, from oh WW II Holocaust, all the way to Abu Ghraib are ilegal, under the Conventions

That said, I am torned, as the Convention is correct you cannot do that, but no photos, no way to push the DoD...

So the number that have been released have had the effect needed... even if I would like to bear witness to what our soldiers have done.

Think about this, in this way... what if that was your brother, your father or your son? And by the way,Congress asked that question from General Pace and Depuby Wolfowitz... it was a precious moment.

[Just Me]

34. But, if the prisoners cannot be identified, how does that play?

Moreover, what about all the pictures of various atrocities that have been published for a hundred+ years.

I mean, I understand the requirement of protecting the identities, obviously, of any detainee no matter what characterization they are given by any authority.

However, censoring evidence of war crimes or human rights violations, entirely, seems to allow and even encourage a secrecy which can only lead to further possible abuses and violations of the Geneva Convention.

[killbotfactory]

2. So, we can't see pictures of the holocaust anymore?

Or any other abuses inflicted on humanity by an army?

huh...

[daleo]

22. Good point

In this case, the Geneva Convention objections are pure justification for cover up. They make no sense, and your example of the holocaust (or any other similar cases) is excellent.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Yes and no

having worked for a national society, there is a reason for the
official stance

That said, who do you think leaked some of the camp photos from Serbia? A Red Cross Worker

Who do you think screamed until he lost his voice over Rwanda?
A red cross worker

Ever since oh, the ofificial visit to Tierendstadt, the Red Cross has faced this problem, how to remain officially neutral, yep we don't take sides, and let people know atrocities were commited.

Draw your own conclusions.

I just know that most of the time nobody speaks of what Red Cross workers see or experience... there are lives at stake.

[Shadder]

39. Cool!

Then I never have to see another of bush.

[AmandaRuth]

4. Boy, just where is Ken Starr when you need him.... eom

[DifferentStrokes]

5. Oh, too bad

Just think of the row of baby pictures Lyndie was plannning to display along side her lovly collection.

And when her child's teeth get to be just right shade of greeen, she too can enlist in the army for a touchup.

Shall we propose a shower for our mother-to be? Can't wait to see the rest of the lineup in that family.

[Q]

6. The 'detainees' dignity have to be 'respected'...

...but the evidence that shows the indignities can't be shown? What kind of logic is this? This is evidence of crimes against humanity and they should be preserved for a war crimes tribunal and for prosecution of those in command.

[NutritionFacts]

46. The reason

the convention mandates this is simple.

It is intended to prevent a nation using POWs as media pawns. "Oh look at this picture of one of our brave soldiers kicking this cowering <insert nation here> solider. Victory is at hand!" or some such thing.

And I also agree with the red cross for safety reasons. Some of the victims family members might kill the victims if they see them "shamed". Go to yahoo and type "honor killing" if you want to know more.

[maddezmom]

71. how does Saddam and his sons come in to play?

the US gave the tapes to the US media to show over and over to let the Iraqi people know that the sons were dead and Saddam was in custody.

[Just Me]

73. BUT,...the photos are NOT being utilized in the manner you suggest.

They are being utilitized as evidence of war crimes against a perpetrator which is ENTIRELY different. Moreover, the detainees' identities are NOT being revealed.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!

[ignatius]

7. Wait just a minute..what about the 24/7 pictures of Saddam and the

pictures of the dead sons? Surely no hypocrisy coming from this white house.

[RoyGBiv]

11. As usual...

The only time this train wreck of an administration is willing to follow the law is when it benefits them personally.

IIRC, the intent behind the ban on publication of pictures of POW's is to prevent the parties involved from using such displays as intimidation, blackmail, etc.

The spirit of the convention is to prevent this abuse, and I think a substantial argument could be made that without publication of the photos, the abuse would have and will continue.

So this is sort of like the no swimming sign in the lake with the drowning man. Do you save the man or not?

[0007]

19. Good analogy!

So for the sake of humanity the law must be broken!

[RoyGBiv]

20. Credit Andy Griffith...

Or his writers anyway. :-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. True and they were rebuked by Geneva

I still remmeber writing to papers, not that they ever published it, that those photos were ilegal and I quoted chapter and verse

[NNN0LHI]

53. CNN just showed the Saddam video a few minutes ago n/t

[sniffa]

9. but but but

the bush admin. said they were NOT pow's and hence, not covered by the geneva convention.

now they are.

fLip - fLop

[Q]

14. Yeah...I remember the great debate we had around here...

...when the Bushies announced that the 'detainees' wouldn't be considered 'prisoners' of war and given the protection of the Geneva Convention. This is when all this BS started and paved the way for the horrible treatment of prisoners without fear of the US being subject to prosecution under international laws.

[thecrow]

33. That was in relation to the Gitmo prisoners n/t

[Shadder]

40. True, but....

Now we know that the policies from Gitmo were the ones adopted at Abu Ghraib

MG Geoffrey D. MillerCommander JTF-GTMO, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba led a team of personnel experienced in strategic interrogation to HQ, CJTF-7 and the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG) to review current Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence. MG Miller’s team focused on three areas: intelligence integration, synchronization, and fusion; interrogation operations; and detention operations. MG Miller’s team used JTFGTMO procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines. According to information from a classified interview with the senior military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib prison, General Miller's recommendations prompted a shift in the interrogation and detention procedures there. Military intelligence officers were given greater authority in the prison, and military police guards were asked to help gather information about the detainees. General Miller's recommendations were based in large part on his command of the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he won praise from the Pentagon for improving the flow of intelligence from terrorist suspects and prisoners of the Afghanistan war. In Iraq, General Miller's team gave officers at the prisons copies of the procedures that had been developed at Guantánamo to interrogate and punish the prisoners, according to the officer who traveled with him. Computer specialists and intelligence analysts explained the systems they had used in Cuba to process information and report it back to the United States.

[parasim]

10. Thanks for the article

I've been wondering about that. I mean, many of us were bitching about the US showing the pictures of Saddam's boys on the slab for the same reason.

Whereas I believe that the pictures certainly are exposing the nasty things going on within our military, I found it odd that whenever I expressed my feelings that perhaps we shouldn't wish that more of these torture pictures would see the light of day because they would just further trample on the rights of the victims, I was considered to be wanting to cover for the Bush administration. And that just simply couldn't be further from the truth.

Riverbend of Baghdad Burning couldn't have said it better:

I'm avoiding the internet because it feels like the pictures are somehow available on every site I visit. I'm torn between wishing they weren't there and feeling, somehow, that it's important that the whole world sees them. The thing, I guess, that bothers me most is that the children can see it all. How do you explain the face of the American soldier, leering over the faceless, naked bodies to a child? How do you explain the sick, twisted minds? How do you explain what is happening to a seven-year-old?

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[RoyGBiv]

18. I realize it's a difficult balance...

But the pictures had to be shown to raise public awareness. With enormous respect to the author of riverbendblog, it's a much different situation in the US where people are still going to movies, hanging out at the bars, etc. Nothing would have been done had the pictures not been available anywhere and everywhere. I want my child to ask me questions. I want every child in this country to walk up to their parents and ask them "Why?"

We live in a world with terminal ADD. If it's not there every day, it's forgotten. BusCo, I think, was counting on that but got surprises by the stickiness of this story.

I'm not sure actually publishing more photos is for better or worse right now, but I do know that keeping the controversy alive, in some way, is necessary, or this will all be shuffled off to the sidelines as quickly as possible.

[parasim]

28. I absolutely agree

I was speaking more about how the Iraqis feel from the standpoint of further publishing of the photos. If it was possible to publish them only in the US, I'd feel differently about it.

The torture photos and the Berg video have certainly given me excellent opportunities to talk with both of my sons (who are of draft age, btw) about what is going on in this country and to get them to turn off the MTV, et al, for one minute to see the importance of them opening up dialogs with their friends as well.

Both of them see things from a liberal standpoint and are starting to talk with their friends about it and that is a good thing.

[mulethree]

12. so only the detainee's can elect to make the pictures public

So if they can get over their personal distress they can publish the pictures to expose the mistreatment.

Hmm "the same article also forbids violence, intimidation and insults" Intimidation and Insults is pretty broad.

[Just Me]

75. If I were a detainee, I know what I would do: demand it all be shown! n/t

[w4rma]

13. Then block out their faces and penises before showing them. (nt)

[bread_and_roses]

16. Do we not have the technology

to obliterate the faces of prisoners in these photos? Or videos, for that matter? I do not want to call on the Conventions in one context, and ignore them in another, but wouldn't that protect the prisoners? It is not as if no one knows that these things have happened, and there is not already a general humiliation attached to these prisoners.

I have no eager desire to see them, I haven't even looked at those available except the ones that can't be avoided because they come up with a link to a news story. But I don't think that the public is going to believe this or realize the appalling nature of what has gone on unless they see it.

[Tellurian]

17. Why is this Holocaust any different from the first one?

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

25. Grotesque exaggeration.

Please don't use that word like that. No offense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. So far there are no mass graves

or mass killings

So stop the exageration

That said, after Tierendstand the Red Cross has had to walk a very
thin line.

How do you leak material without leaking material, and how do you
keep the dignity of individual victims, while waking people
up.

Again, see about their LEAKED report... and for ONCE THINK...

I can't draw the picture more clearly than that...

[Just Me]

41. Well, with secret prisons around the world, how would we know?

[Tellurian]

69. The Red Cross has not released all the horrific information they have

accumulated. This may be a holocaust of global proportions.

[Aidoneus]

74. This would beg for an explanation, then

What exactly is your definition of mass grave?

[tandot]

21. How convenient for them. They'd use any excuse to withhold

images of these horrible crimes.

How about blurring out the prisoners' faces?

I am just tired of that whole BS. Cover-ups, secrecy, and lies. What a bunch of criminals we have in the White House :mad:

[Kagemusha]

23. That's like saying you can't show Auschwitz pics to shut Nazis up.

Sorry, it will not fly with me.

[The Stranger]

24. Fucking idiot.

She gave them a nice sound bite headline by agreeing with them.

[RoyGBiv]

35. "Public Curiosity"

It seems there's not a lot of agreement on what constitutes protection from "public curiosity," which is the phrase in the Geneva Conventions being invoked to justify withholding pictures of prisoner abuses. The question, in my view, turns on intent.

It's notable that this clause was added due to incidents like the following:

"Although these rules may sound frivolous or run counter to the imparatives <sic> of modern warfare, they are historically significant. In World War II some 200 US and British POWs were forced to march through the streets of Rome and forced to endure insults and other indignities. It is worth noting that the officer who staged the event was later prosecuted as a war criminal."

http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_GulfWarPOWs.htm

In other words, the intent of this clause is to prevent belligerent parties from subjecting prisoners to abuse. So, the question becomes I believe, is the intent of publishing the pictures to abuse those prisoners or subject them to ridicule?

Obviously, I think, the publication of the original pictures had no such intent behind it, nor would any publication of pictures in which the stated intent is to publicize an abuse heretofore hidden from the public. CBS was, in fact, exposing abuse by the US government, not aiding the US government in the abuse.

The question of publishing the remaining photographs is trickier, for two reasons. First, these photographs are currently in the hands of US government officials, not the press, and in this there is a difference. It's not the press agency specifically that is a party to the abuse unless that agency is in collusion with the government's abusive intent. However, a government would not, generally speaking, inform on itself, and so willingly releasing the photographs could be interpreted as having a nefarious purpose. Second, the abuse has already been exposed, so legitimate arguments could be advanced that further displays are not necessary. What's the intent, and is it justifiable? (This is not necessarily my position. I'm simply trying to offer an interpretation.)

Now, should some news agency come into possession of these photographs, particularly one located in a country not a party to the conflict and not in cooperation with any coalition government, the questions change. Additionally any republication of those photographs by US news agents that originated elsewhere would alter the questions again. I don't know the answer to these questions; I'm just noting that the legality of it is murkier.

Finally, just to touch on a similar subject, publication of photographs of prisoners when they are no longer prisoners cannot be interpreted to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The protocols are intended to protect prisoners while they are prisoners.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Welcome to the nightmare that Red Cross

workers face all the time...

Intent, but the photos that have been released have had the
desired effect, so has the ICRC report that was leaked to the
press and then confirmed by the ICRC...

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v2.0
==================
 
The time now is 3:34:04PM EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004.
 
There are exactly...
3 days,
8 hours,
25 minutes, and
56 seconds left in our fund drive.
 
This website could not survive without your generosity. Member donations 
pay for more than 84% of the Democratic Underground budget. Don't let
GrovelBot become the next victim of the Bush economy. Bzzzt.
 
Please take a moment to donate to DU right now. Thank you for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[pacifictiger]

38. I agree with them on this.

I think for the media to release initial photos to bring attention to the matter was justified because word was on the iraqi street anyway, but now that investigative attention has been focused, to release more would serve no purpose but perverted voyeurism.

[The Stranger]

42. Please. Secrecy is what breeds corruption and feeds a dictatorship.

Fear and secrecy are the tools of oppression. It is only when devilish deeds are exposed to the light of day and the truth comes out that there can be true freedom.

[pacifictiger]

59. at what point though does exposing an awful truth

for the purpose of prevention and healing, move to unhealthy voyeurism and then move on to creating further harm.

[The Stranger]

67. Read some John Stuart Mill.

If you don't like it, don't look at it. But don't interfere with others' right (obligation?) to see, to know, to be informed about what the government is doing. These are crimes committed by the military and are of extreme public interest.

[Canuckistanian]

43. My God! NOW they invoke The Geneva Bloody Convention??????

How CONVIENIENT! I thought it DIDN'T APPLY to fighting terrorism.

It must be nice to be able to PICK and CHOOSE the laws you want to follow and the ones to ignore.

Holy Friggin Koresh. Irony IS dead. Hypocrisy has taken its place.

[ashling]

47. I think the cat is out of the proverbial bag

Do I get credit for using "cat" in my subject line?


:dem:

[Lindacooks]

50. Yep, you're right

Same with Gitmo 'detainees'. They're called 'detainees' so the creeps in charge don't have to follow the Geneva Convention. What a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

[AP]

44. Pictures like these ended Vietnam. I'm sure the victims in the photos

won't complain if showing the American public the pictures results in a major change in US policy in Iraq.

[NutritionFacts]

48. I think consent should be gained

from here on out rather than "oh I'm sure they won't mind".

For one thing - female victims here have to worry about honor killings. I'm sure they don't want to die to satisfy your curiosity.

Further, now that it is exposed I don't know if I (were I in there position) would want a picture of me being victimized spread around the world. Maybe you would, but that's not exactly something I would be very happy about. It would add to the injury.

A member of congress like McCain (former POW who would likely be honest) should go and collect consent to release images if it is desired as the military can not be fully trusted. Assuming consent would allow image release under the geneva convention. (which I suppose it probably wouldn't, but I'm not entirely sure)

[AP]

52. they can blur out their faces. problem solved.

[NutritionFacts]

58. Really?

What if someones daughter has a recognizable birth mark on her leg?

What if she has her leg cut and the family notices a scar in that same exact area?

Your carelessness could lead to people being killed in honor killings. Good job. Hey, so long as you get to see them it's all good I suppose. Just blur out the faces and if she gets killed well what the hell you blurred out her face what more does she want?

Plus add to the fact that even IF her family can't tell it's her SHE knows it's her. People knowing their picture of being raped/abused/whatever has been spread around the world (when in their society even showing too much skin is a serious offense) could lead to a few shame induced suicides. But again, you needing to see them being raped is paramount the their desires and well being for some reason so what the hell.

[AP]

61. I think if that family thought it was going to change US policy in Iraq,

they might not mind.

Anyway, this issue is clearly a red herring.

[NutritionFacts]

62. You obviously

know NOTHING of honor killings which are a MAJOR problem in parts of the middle east and elsewhere. They happen for FAR less than this too.

The family is not going to give a damn rather or not it changed US policy. She will be killed - end of story.

Red herring? Sure, right.

I don't know what's more scary - these crimes or people who try to justify their desire (which is in its self perverted) to see rape pictures ahead of the victims well being.

[AP]

63. Then blur out the birth marks too.

[NutritionFacts]

65. Pathetic

You have NO legit reason to see rape pictures ESPECIALLY when the victims life and well being is endangered by doing so. This callous attitude about it is sickening.

I know a group of soldiers with similar ethics...

[AP]

66. The legitimate reason: so that we know what we're fighting for in Iraq.

I think it would stun the public out of their complacency.

You don't think that's legitimate?

Don't you think it's important for Americans to know that we're fighting the kind of war?

[NutritionFacts]

68. What are you talking about?

So you are willing to get more people killed/shamed/mentally anguished so you can prove a point? Because that's what you will be doing.

You're damn right I don't think that's legitimate. The ends don't justify the means.

You are aware some of the crimes are against minors right? So you are essentially suggesting we make child rape pictures available so that you "know what we're fighting for".

Yea, I think I've got a good idea exactly what some people need to see... <wink wink> Just the fact some can stand to look at it, let alone ask for more if it regardless of the victims life and well being, speaks volumes.

The pictures out now will do just fine thank you very much.

[AP]

70. How is opening America's eyes to what this is all about risking

getting more people killed?

Do you think the people killing Americans need these pictures as incentive? Do you think this shit isn't what they already suspect is going on? They live there. They talk to each other. They see their friends disappearing off the streets into American custody cut off from lawyers and the public.

Americans, on the other hand, don't have a fucking clue. We think we're fighting for freedom and we're shocked that there's torture and rape going on.

And do you think America is going reevaluate what were doing there sooner or later by not knowing the truth?

[AP]

72. Furthermore, I'm losing track of your objections

You object because it's a violation of privacy, but if the birth marks are covered, you object because it's prurient?

Is that right?

What I find obscene is trying to use "obscenity" as an excuse for hiding the truth from Americans.

We're adults and I hope we can handle the truth. If there are a handful of sick Americans who get off on these pictures, well I'm not going to let those sickos determine the course of American foreign policy.

Do you want to run everything by the most demented Americans you find before you decide if it's appropriate for the rest of Americans to know? That sounds sort of like how we got into this mess in the first place.

[Gopens]

49. The Geneva Convention might prohibit distribution of the photos ......

... by the U.S. government, but not American media outlets, which are protected by the First Amendment.

This has been discussed here before, but the Geneva Convention does not supercede the U.S. Constitution.

I'm sure there might be potential libel concerns in situations like these, but no one can tell the media what it can or cannot publish or disseminate.

[NutritionFacts]

51. A treaty

stands on the same level as federal law.

Technically, a treaty or federal statue is to be adhered to UNTIL a court decides such treaty/statue unconstitutional.

[AP]

54. But the treaty probably says that governments can't disseminate photos...

...as a propaganda tools. I'm sure it doesn't say that governments have to prevent the news media from reporting on these issues once they have possession of the photos.

What the US Gov't is probably doing is saying "we can't give you the photos that we have because we're bound by the treaty."

if the press already have the photos from any other source, I'm sure the treaty can't stop them from being released.

Anyway, I'd bet a lot of money that the sprit of the treaty doesn't apply here. The photos would be evidence of a greater violation of the geneva convention, and they wouldn't be used for the purpose the convention addresses.

Remember when the US released those pictures of the people down in Gitmo being wheeled around in carts and kept in cages like dogs. What was being down to them might have been on the border of treatment in violation of the geneva convention, but it was almost definitely a violation of this provision of the convention to allow reporters to take pictures of them for the papers so that the world could see that the US is treating these people like they aren't even human beings. (And I don't believe for a minute that, telephoto lenses notwithstanding, the US didn't show those reporters exactly where to stand to get the best shots without letting it appear that the gov't was arranging the shoot).

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. You got the gist of this

Congrats and yes it is that complex

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

56. The humorous thing is noticing WHEN our gov't decides to honor Geneva

and listen to the Red Cross...right about the time that to do so covers their ass. Convenient, eh?

[NutritionFacts]

57. This would be too big of a loop hole

"it doesn't say that governments have to prevent the news media from reporting on these issues"

Ok, so Hitler can allow "news media" to distribute images of POWs he wants rather than his "government".

[AP]

60. What I said is actually the case, if you look at the article.

Also, I think my Gutanomo example addresses your concern. That was clearly framed to seem like it was independent journalism (which the treaty doesn't regulate) since journalists generally aren't allowed to roam Guatanomo looking at things they're not allowed to see.

An issue your analogy raises is, however, if the independent media had pictures of what was going on in the concentration camps (which people didn't realize was happening) the Geneva Convention DEFINITELY wouldn't have prevented the press from reporting the truth to the world.

Do you see the difference between using humiliation as propganda (Guantanamo) and using evidence of crimes to inform the public (Holocaust and Iraq)?

[DoNotRefill]

64. The IRC is just pimping for Tom Delay...

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :evilgrin: