Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - [internetworkers] Captured Status, Iraq

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [internetworkers] Captured Status, Iraq
  • Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:12:11 -0400 (EDT)

and now to stir things up...

So there's this kid, some private, captured in Iraq (along with the
several civilian contractors). The media keep referring to him as a
hostage. I take issue with that for two reasons.

First, in that the Geneva Conventions were drafted at a time when war was
massive and "conventional", it leaves little consideration for "irregular"
forces. Rather, it doesn't give them much legitimacy.

There is no Iraqi military to speak of, so anyone with a gun shooting at
Americans *must* be a thug or a terrorist. Bah! Granted, most of them
probably are, but we seem to be ignoring that perhaps there are Iraqis
making an attempt at a militia, to defend their country. This captured
private is a prisoner of war. There's a war going on, and just because we
don't see camo' uniforms and Iraqi flags doesn't mean there isn't some
sort of military.

Secondly, and this really is the more important point, by not
acknowledging him as a POW ourselves, we give it to these Iraqis to also
not call him a POW. In essence, we're allowing them to strip him of POW
status. That has a great deal of bearing under the Conventions. Granted,
again, I don't think it would much matter either way as far as how they
treat him, but we sure as hell shouldn't be giving public authority to
them to not call him a POW.

just my $0.02,
Alan





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page