|
Saddam captured (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| amdmaxx |
http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/pr/cnnpr.html
For Immediate Release
February 13, 1998
CAMERA Charges Reckless Anti-Israel Bias at CNN
BOSTON : Terming CNN "recklessly biased and inaccurate" in its coverage of Israel, the media-watch group CAMERA today denounced what it called a "virtual anti-Israel crusade" by the global television network. In the wake of a February 9 broadcast accusing Israel of using the Iraq crisis as cover to confiscate Palestinian land, CAMERA deplored a "pattern of reporting that flouts the basics of decent journalism."
Executive Director Andrea Levin charged that CNN regularly levels allegations against Israel without regard for their accuracy. "It's a serious matter to say Israel is confiscating land and not compensating owners. Both charges are false. Israel does not 'confiscate' property and does compensate landowners, Arabs and Jews alike, when the state takes land by eminent domain. The question is why does CNN accept as credible any accusation uttered by the Palestinians, while impugning Israel out of hand, however specious the charge?" Levin asked.
Calling for "a house-cleaning at CNN's Jerusalem Bureau and a revamping of the network's reporting practices," CAMERA cited a long record of error-ridden and partisan coverage by the Atlanta network. The organization had also lodged protests with network officials as recently as January over statements by Jerusalem Bureau Chief Walter Rodgers. Reporting on a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Washington's National Press Club, the CNN correspondent said the leader's remarks were "a very slick effort by the arch practitioner of propaganda to reingratiate himself with the American public."
Rodgers appeared incensed at Netanyahu's recounting of Palestinian violations of the Oslo peace agreements. CAMERA noted that a search of CNN transcripts revealed no instance in which Rodgers used similarly derogatory language about other heads of state. On the contrary, noted Levin, the Middle East's most unsavory dictatorships are described respectfully.
"Yasir Arafat recently delivered a speech in Iran filled with venomous and false charges against Israel. He attacked Israel for plotting to replace the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem with a Jewish Temple, an incendiary libel designed to inflame the Arab and Islamic world against Israel. But CNN didn't call Arafat a propagandist," said Levin. "Arafat regularly delivers diatribes in Arabic calling for holy war against Israel and extolling suicide bombers, then talks peace when speaking English to Western audiences — but CNN doesn't call this slick propaganda."
Levin added that in the same January broadcast Rodgers read a Palestinian document containing what he called 'serious' charges alleging Israeli violations of Oslo. Again, the CNN reporter repeated Arab assertions as fact, making no attempt to corroborate them. He charged, for instance, that Netanyahu had "turned at least half a dozen Jews out of jail ... people who were guilty of killing Palestinians." The claim is inaccurate. Israel's President, Ezer Weizman, not Netanyahu, pardoned two Israelis who were juveniles when they committed their crimes and who had served four years of a ten-year term. Four other prisoners had their sentences reduced but had many years yet to serve. "This kind of derelict reporting is pervasive," said Levin.
In contrast to CNN's continual echoing of Palestinian accusations against Israel, Rodgers ignores entirely or dismisses out of hand Israel's enumeration of Palestinian breaches of Oslo. Thus when Israel recently restated its insistence that the PA comply with its obligation to rescind the PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction, Rodgers' reports disparaged the Israeli government's contention and insisted the charter had been satisfactorily revised.
CAMERA said CNN distortions crop up on virtually a daily basis and have been a longstanding problem. Levin cited a report from June 1997 that alleged Israeli policies in Jerusalem have caused a "dwindling" of the Arab population in the city. The facts are precisely the opposite — the city's Arab population has burgeoned, growing at a faster rate than the Jewish population. Indeed, Palestinian officials themselves cite numbers higher than Israeli figures. Nevertheless, despite their having broadcast the bogus charge maligning Israel, network officials have refused to issue a correction.
"We've concluded the network doesn't much care whether they get their facts right," said Levin. "They've got an agenda and they don't let the truth get in their way. You have to assume, too, that a network this irresponsible on the subject of Israel is doing the same thing in covering other stories." |
|
|
| amdmaxx |
CNN's Chain of Bias
by Toby Klein Greenwald - June 19, 2002
Perhaps you've already verbally cauterized the slanted reporting of CNN's Mike Hanna, Jerrold Kessel and that Arab woman who is their correspondent in Ramallah what's her name Rula Amin? You've sent e-mails to "Feedback" that produced only automated responses and you've shared your outrage with your e-mail lists.
And now the latest obscenity you're losing sleep over is Sheila Macvicar, who felt it essential to insert her description of the legal status of Gilo into a breaking news report of the mass murder of 19 children and adults by an Arab terrorist. And, of course, there's Ted Turner, who may be just a bison rancher at heart, but anyone with that much money is not as stupid as some would like to believe. What's more, his position in the media world makes him lethal.
Well, here's the rub. It's not about a particular correspondent, flawed background information, or a temporary slip of the tongue. And if you're actually lucky enough to get a boiler-plate excuse or clarification from the honchos in Atlanta, relax. It's just their way of putting a Band-Aid on a malignant melanoma. This is the reason why: CNN's anti-Israel bias in its approach to reporting on the Middle East is deeply ideological at all levels.
Here is the proof:
On the CNN Web site's bio page of Sheila Macvicar who on Tuesday reported from the scene of the Jerusalem suicide bus bombing that the bus left the "illegal settlement of Gilo" it says that she covered events in "Palestine." CNN has, in other words, precociously recognized the country of "Palestine" even before the US, the heavily stacked United Nations, and even some Arab governments have.
I asked CNN for an explanation. Even 48 hours was not long enough for it to come up with an answer. One thing is clear: At least two people at the network saw that bio Macvicar and the editor.
The CNN Web site also stated that day: "Gilo is located on West Bank land that Israel captured in the 1967 war. Israelis consider it a neighborhood within the city of Jerusalem; Palestinians consider it occupied territory that belongs to the nearby Arab town of Beit Jala."
I asked the network, "Why does CNN refer to Gilo as an illegal settlement? And if the explosion took place in the center of Jerusalem, why is it relevant where the bus began its round?" The answer to the first question was, "Our policy/language clearly states Gilo is land occupied by Israel in 1967." The answer to the second that it was "important to the context of the story."
Context? What context is relevant to blowing up a bus? As to the "illegality" of Gilo, here are the facts: Before World War II, the vacant land in the Gilo area was purchased by a group of young lawyers, including Dov Yosef, who later became one of David Ben Gurion's most important advisors and government ministers. When the land was taken back from the Jordanians in 1967, it was returned to its owners.
Even an article from Ha'aretz, written in December, 2000, and strongly sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint, paraphrases a Beit Jala resident as saying, "The national honor of Beit Jala is tainted by the sale of the lands. It is an open secret here that Jabra Hamis, a former mayor of Beit Jala, sold Israelis the land on which parts of the Gilo neighborhood were built."
Take a look at the site's section called "In Depth Special." The CNN profile on Arafat and the PLO makes him sound like a boyscout who was promoted to troop leader.
In that same section, CNN indicates that the mass Arab murder of Jewish civilians over the past 20 months is a result of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroll on the (holy to the Jews) Temple Mount. No mention of Arafat's rejection of peace at Camp David. No incitement. No schoolbooks that erase Israel from the maps, summer camps that coach kids in murder techniques, or films on official PA television encouraging young men to go for the 72 virgins.
The item titled "Status of Jerusalem" shows a photo of the Dome of the Rock mosque, and the caption reads: "Palestinians are suspicious of attempts to maintain an Israeli presence in territories occupied in 1967." The same caption appears again on a page called "Jewish Settlers and Palestinian State." The same photograph also appears headlining other sections. Any student of the media knows the impact achieved by showing one particular image repeatedly.
In the "slide show" on Israel, an inordinate number of photographs are on Moslems and Christians, disproportionate to the real population of this mostly Jewish country. And almost the only Jews shown are in black, haredi garb.
In a special CNN section called "Terrorism Q&A," the countries highlighted as "hot spots" are: The Balkans, Indonesia, Burundi, Kashmir, Columbia. One has to dig to find the Palestinian Authority at all, and then, as in the "In Depth" section, Arafat is treated with kid gloves.
In this same section on terror, which links to the Council of Foreign Affairs Web site, who is listed first in the introduction? "The oldest terrorists were holy warriors who killed civilians. For instance, in first-century Palestine, Jewish Zealots would publicly slit the throats of Romans and their collaborators..." In answer to the question, "What are some examples of religious terrorist groups?" no mention is made of Arafat's Fatah, "Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, the Palestinian Sunni Muslim organization Hamas, the Lebanese Shiite group Hizbullah, the radical Jewish groups affiliated with the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, the Israeli extremists Baruch Goldstein...and Yigal Amir..."
After Ted Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of AOL-Time Warner, equated Israel's attempts to defend itself as terrorism, the network's initial response to the public outcry was, "The views of Ted Turner are his alone and do not reflect those of the network." The vice chairman's remarks are no reflection on the slant of a media conglomerate?
As a journalist, I requested an explanation , so a CNN PR firm got back to me (after a long wait) with a full page response from Turner. An excerpt: "I believe the Israeli government has used excessive force to defend itself, but that is not the same as intentionally targeting and killing civilians with suicide bombers." The PR woman explained that it took a long time to get back with the answers to all my questions because the staff was busy "formulating" them.
I asked, "Does CNN provide its journalists with information regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What are its sources and who edits the material ?" The CNN answer was vague, referring to people who were "experienced and knowledgeable," "from a range backgrounds" and, in addition, there was a "rigorous editorial checking procedure." The facts, ma'am. I asked for names. I got obfuscation.
NOW, CONSIDER the following publicly accessible information: In September 1997, Turner announced his historic gift of $1 billion over 10 years to the United Nations Foundation and we all know how friendly that organization is to Israel.
But Turner, it turns out, is not the end of the story.
Take AOL-Time Warner's chairman, Steve Chase. Mr. Chase, his bio tells us, was instrumental in founding Helping.org. This led to the founding of Network for Good, an online philanthropy portal, which leads one to think it's about charity. But among the "philanthropies" it encourages one to support is the left-wing activist movement "American Friends for Peace Now." And it gets better.
This ostensibly charitable organization includes a section called "Center for Defense Information: The World at War." On that page, written in January, 2001, you can read about conflicts throughout the world. Scroll down and you'll see a subtitle: "Israel-Palestine." The paragraph states: "The last effort to forge a durable peace collapsed in July, with devastating results. Almost as soon as the leaders returned to the Mideast, violence broke out. The new strife, called the Al-Aksa Intifada, has claimed well over 300 lives, almost all Palestinian." The last effort just "collapsed," like a natural disaster. Violence "broke out," like a case of the measles. No accountability here.
So I checked out the author of this report. His name is Colonel Daniel Smith, (Ret.) and he's chief of research for the Center for Defense Information in Washington. I read some of his articles.
He's soft on Iraq. He thinks that the Treaty of Rome establishing the International Criminal Court (according to which the 200,000 residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and some Israeli soldiers, can be tried as war criminals) should be ratified. Most significant, in an article quoted from the The Weekly Defense Monitor, he severely chastises not only Israel, but the United States for it's ongoing support of Israel.
Concerning Camp David, Smith writes, "Failure at the negotiating table was followed by failure of trust, failure of patience, and failure of peace itself. In late September 2000, the Barak government authorized a visit by Ariel Sharon, accompanied by a large police escort, to Muslim religious sites and another massive police and military presence on September 29, a Friday, and therefore the Islamic holy day. Clashes were inevitable, and by mid-October the Al-Aksa Intifada was underway and spiraling out of control " Nowhere in his entire "analysis" is the word "terror" mentioned, at any point. Just "resistance."
So this is the chain: It begins with the AOL-Time Warner/CNN executives, whose "historical" experts and orientation are the likes of Colonel Smith. They in turn hire editors who offer news reports and "background" heavily slanted toward the Palestinian viewpoint. Their underlings hire the correspondents in the field. And that, folks, is what you're getting in your 24/7 news Sheila Macvicar.
Make no mistake. Going head to head with AOL-Time Warner is not like boycotting a company that doesn't recycle their paper towels. Their holdings include Home Box Office, Time Inc., Time Warner Cable, Warner Broadcasting, and Warner Music Group, among others.
I am reminded of the joke about the elderly Jewish man who preferred to read anti-Semitic newspapers to Jewish ones, because, he said, according to the former, "The Jews are controlling the media and running the world."
Being of the optimistic Jewish genre, I valiantly sought a ray of light in the CNN executive. The closest I came was the discovery that Ken Novack, a vice chairman at Turner's level, used to be a senior partner in a mostly Jewish Boston law firm that sponsored Israel National Biotechnology Week, and that Richard Parsons, the CEO of AOL-Time Warner, sits on the board of Estee Lauder. Maybe Ron can explain to Dick and Ken about integrity in journalism over lunch.
Meanwhile, don't bother with the Sheila Macvicar's or Rula Amin's, eager accomplices though they are. They are only the final links in a very well-healed and ugly chain of anti-Israel bias. Shouting about Macvicar is like admonishing the woman who refilled the toilet paper in the Goebbels' commode, while he was busy with his sergeants, master planning the lies that justified the evil of the Third Reich. |
|
|
| anuneventrade |
| Since when did anyone really think that the news wasn't biased? :rolleyes: It's biased in every country. |
|
|
| rizen |
| damn this thread is long and dont have time to read it all, so im just going to say... who ing cares. this just proves saddam was even less of a threat. what happen to his co-conspirators, miles of underground tunnels, chemicals that can get into our water system and kill millions, WMDS! and so on that FOX and every reactionary echo machine was raving about. if they prosecute saddam for killing his own people in the 80s, is regan and his administration going to be tried too? that would be the best thing ever, im serious :p also nice going on violating the article 13 of the geneva convention. |
|
|
| Vlad |
| Art, look at the writers of all those articles, they are all jews, and if that isnt biased, than I dont know what is. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
also nice going on violating the article 13 of the geneva convention. |
How does he qualify for article 13? That's equivalent to saying the allies should not have broadcast the Nuremburg trials in 1946. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
How does he qualify for article 13? That's equivalent to saying the allies should not have broadcast the Nuremburg trials in 1946. |
I heard a small part from a news conference on the radio that is pretty much the same as the following:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...6/ts_nm/iraq_dc
"Saddam was captured by U.S. troops on Saturday after a tip-off in a hole on a farm near his hometown of Tikrit, north of Baghdad, and is being held as a prisoner of war."
also http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...people_ryder_dc *HOT* :D |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by amdmaxx
http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/pr/cnnpr.html
For Immediate Release
February 13, 1998
CAMERA Charges Reckless Anti-Israel Bias at CNN
BOSTON : Terming CNN "recklessly biased and inaccurate" in its coverage of Israel, the media-watch group CAMERA today denounced what it called a "virtual anti-Israel crusade" by the global television network. In the wake of a February 9 broadcast accusing Israel of using the Iraq crisis as cover to confiscate Palestinian land, CAMERA deplored a "pattern of reporting that flouts the basics of decent journalism."
Executive Director Andrea Levin charged that CNN regularly levels allegations against Israel without regard for their accuracy. "It's a serious matter to say Israel is confiscating land and not compensating owners. Both charges are false. Israel does not 'confiscate' property and does compensate landowners, Arabs and Jews alike, when the state takes land by eminent domain. The question is why does CNN accept as credible any accusation uttered by the Palestinians, while impugning Israel out of hand, however specious the charge?" Levin asked.
Calling for "a house-cleaning at CNN's Jerusalem Bureau and a revamping of the network's reporting practices," CAMERA cited a long record of error-ridden and partisan coverage by the Atlanta network. The organization had also lodged protests with network officials as recently as January over statements by Jerusalem Bureau Chief Walter Rodgers. Reporting on a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Washington's National Press Club, the CNN correspondent said the leader's remarks were "a very slick effort by the arch practitioner of propaganda to reingratiate himself with the American public."
Rodgers appeared incensed at Netanyahu's recounting of Palestinian violations of the Oslo peace agreements. CAMERA noted that a search of CNN transcripts revealed no instance in which Rodgers used similarly derogatory language about other heads of state. On the contrary, noted Levin, the Middle East's most unsavory dictatorships are described respectfully.
"Yasir Arafat recently delivered a speech in Iran filled with venomous and false charges against Israel. He attacked Israel for plotting to replace the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem with a Jewish Temple, an incendiary libel designed to inflame the Arab and Islamic world against Israel. But CNN didn't call Arafat a propagandist," said Levin. "Arafat regularly delivers diatribes in Arabic calling for holy war against Israel and extolling suicide bombers, then talks peace when speaking English to Western audiences — but CNN doesn't call this slick propaganda."
Levin added that in the same January broadcast Rodgers read a Palestinian document containing what he called 'serious' charges alleging Israeli violations of Oslo. Again, the CNN reporter repeated Arab assertions as fact, making no attempt to corroborate them. He charged, for instance, that Netanyahu had "turned at least half a dozen Jews out of jail ... people who were guilty of killing Palestinians." The claim is inaccurate. Israel's President, Ezer Weizman, not Netanyahu, pardoned two Israelis who were juveniles when they committed their crimes and who had served four years of a ten-year term. Four other prisoners had their sentences reduced but had many years yet to serve. "This kind of derelict reporting is pervasive," said Levin.
In contrast to CNN's continual echoing of Palestinian accusations against Israel, Rodgers ignores entirely or dismisses out of hand Israel's enumeration of Palestinian breaches of Oslo. Thus when Israel recently restated its insistence that the PA comply with its obligation to rescind the PLO charter calling for Israel's destruction, Rodgers' reports disparaged the Israeli government's contention and insisted the charter had been satisfactorily revised.
CAMERA said CNN distortions crop up on virtually a daily basis and have been a longstanding problem. Levin cited a report from June 1997 that alleged Israeli policies in Jerusalem have caused a "dwindling" of the Arab population in the city. The facts are precisely the opposite — the city's Arab population has burgeoned, growing at a faster rate than the Jewish population. Indeed, Palestinian officials themselves cite numbers higher than Israeli figures. Nevertheless, despite their having broadcast the bogus charge maligning Israel, network officials have refused to issue a correction.
"We've concluded the network doesn't much care whether they get their facts right," said Levin. "They've got an agenda and they don't let the truth get in their way. You have to assume, too, that a network this irresponsible on the subject of Israel is doing the same thing in covering other stories." |
woow you are dumb even as a 14 yr old!!These articles dont mean ,it just proves that you are biased.You name Fox news as a reliable news source??now thats a joke,if u think they a reliable,perhaps it is time to get your head check kid. |
|
|
| occrider |
ARTICLE 13 -- PROTECTED PERSONS
[p.143] The purpose of this Article is to specify to what persons, on their being wounded or falling sick, the Convention applies.
A. ' Search for a definition. ' -- From the first the Geneva Convention accorded its protection to wounded and sick members of the armed [p.144] forces. But whereas in 1864 the only mention was of "officers and soldiers"(in French, "militaires"), in 1906 the wording adopted was "officers and soldiers and other persons officially attached to the armed forces".
In 1906 these terms might well appear clear and adequate. Whereas it was felt necessary to protect wounded officers and soldiers, civilians were regarded as being outside the struggle and enjoying general immunity.
But the idea of belonging to an army is a conception which gave rise to serious disputes during the Second World War, particularly when it came to determining the status of certain combatants who had fallen into the enemy's hands. It is common knowledge that national groups continued to take part in hostilities, whereas the enemy refused to acknowledge their belligerent status, and their members, or "partisans" as they were often called, fighting in more or less compact units in occupied territory or outside the mother country, were often not regarded by the enemy as being regular combatants.
This was one of the chief problems with which the experts and the International Committee of the Red Cross were concerned in dealing with the revision of the Geneva Conventions. It further engaged the full attention of the Diplomatic Conference of 1949.
It was in connection with the Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war that the problem called for consideration, and it was in connection with it that the solution was finally found. For it was in that Convention that the problem assumed its essential significance. It was necessary to determine what categories of persons falling into an enemy's hands were to be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 supplied the answer to this question.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I : General provisions
ARTICLE 4
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, incuding 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.
In any which way, I don't think very many would consider showing proof of his capture is in any way a violation of geneva war conventions. If anything, the US is showing the world that it is upholding its geneva convention obligations by providing a non-recognized combatant medical care ;) |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
In any which way, I don't think very many would consider showing proof of his capture is in any way a violation of geneva war conventions. If anything, the US is showing the world that it is upholding its geneva convention obligations by providing a non-recognized combatant medical care ;) |
"The International Committee of the Red Cross said the showing of the prisoners on television violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity."
I do agree on the showing or proof :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rizen
"The International Committee of the Red Cross said the showing of the prisoners on television violates Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions, which says prisoners should be protected from public curiosity."
I do agree on the showing or proof :) |
Yes, however, article 13 does not cover a persons such as Saddam Huessein as being a prisoner of war protected by the Geneva conventions as stipulated by article 4 ... simple as that. Article 13 is not an all binding article except for the medical care clause ... which can be clearly seen given to Hussein. Therefore, although YAHOO may label him as a prisoner of war or whoever else, he is likely not categorized as a prisoner of war entitled to complete combatant rights as specified by the geneva conventions given his failure to meet the conditions established by Article 4, section A, subsection 2. |
|
|
| occrider |
Well, eligible or not, I guess the US has decided to given him status as a pow and protections of the geneva convention. More than the bastard deserves imo ....
Edit: wow I'm an idiot ... forgot to post the link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/...3506777,00.html |
|
|
|
|
