US Occupation jails AP photographer for 5 months and refuses to charge him

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that didn't happen?

It's one account, there is a possibility it didn't happen

I remember Marines in Haditha making reports that all these people died from explosives, which was a total lie

Leaving out the Iraqi citizen killed and then had an AK47 planted on him and the reports that said he was an insurgent

Leaving out the Iraqi girl and her family murdered...etc

The list goes on and on

One (or even a couple) report is not gospel

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's one account, there is a possibility it didn't happen

I remember Marines in Haditha making reports that all these people died from explosives, which was a total lie

Leaving out the Iraqi citizen killed and then had an AK47 planted on him and the reports that said he was an insurgent

Leaving out the Iraqi girl and her family murdered...etc

The list goes on and on

One (or even a couple) report is not gospel

so you are saying that he wasn't detained with those people? If so why doesn't he or the AP make that claim

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so you are saying that he wasn't detained with those people? If so why doesn't he or the AP make that claim

Uh, he's not allowed to give a defense, and the AP HQ is not located inside an occupation jail cell

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Uh, he's not allowed to give a defense, and the AP HQ is not located inside an occupation jail cell

in the end, it doesn't really matter we will let him go when we please

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

in the end, it doesn't really matter we will let him go when we please

That's why it DOES matter

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

in the end, it doesn't really matter we will let him go when we please

which is why you are losing the hearts and minds, and the war

if any government does survive, it will be an ally of Iran and our enemy

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

which is why you are losing the hearts and minds, and the war

if any government does survive, it will be an ally of Iran and our enemy

is that your wet dream everynight?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

is that your wet dream everynight?

It's reality...


The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA

CNN.com - Iran president backs 'united' Iraq - Sep 12, 2006

Torture in Iraq worse now than before? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

notice how the AP hasn't made the claim that he was working as a journalist when he was detained?

So they know that for certain? If he's a journalist, getting close to the militants and conducting interviews is pulitzer material.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So they know that for certain? If he's a journalist, getting close to the militants and conducting interviews is pulitzer material.

re-read the article where they talk about journalists being detained as a pretty common thing until things get sorted out. this looks a little different than that

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The administration has expressly denied treating them as POW's because POW's have too many rights.

Only some of those captured in Afghanistan and held at Gitmo. Those captured in Iraq are POWs fully.


Even then, the ones at GITMO have all the rights of POWs except for a paycheck and cigarettes. They have medical attention, full religious freedom, the guards are punished harshly if they do anything even close to out of line.

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Which is why they're not accusing him of anything... if they accuse him, he falls into a category. Instead they just don't accuse him and CLAIM he isn't a civilian.

HE IS A POW, HE DOESNT HAVE TO BE ACCUSED OF ANYTHING. Because he didnt commit a crime, merely is a fighter for the enemy.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Embedded journalist? Is a photographer rolling around the desert on one of our tanks a civilian still?

Depends on if they are believed to be helping the miltiary or not. Either they are citizens and should be released asap or they are civilian contractors and held as POWs.

[Ardentfrost]

HE IS A POW, HE DOESNT HAVE TO BE ACCUSED OF ANYTHING. Because he didnt commit a crime, merely is a fighter for the enemy.

He has to be accused of being a combatant to be held as a POW. Otherwise he has to be tried as a civilian in Iraqi courts and cannot be held by the occupying force.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He has to be accused of being a combatant to be held as a POW.

Since when ?

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, 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.

Article 5
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

He was captured with the enemy. He is to be considered a POW unless he is put in front of a military tribunal that decides he is not one of those protected groups.



If one of the US embedded journalists was captured, he would be held as a POW.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Since when ?

He was captured with the enemy. He is to be considered a POW unless he is put in front of a military tribunal that decides he is not one of those protected groups.



If one of the US embedded journalists was captured, he would be held as a POW.

Ok, I'll buy that... but he's still not being held as a POW and in 5 months hasn't seen a tribunal.

He's neither a civilian or a POW according to how he's being held. He's gone straight to internment with no trial, no accusation, no nothing.