It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does this picture show British soldiers broke Geneva Conventions?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Does this picture show British soldiers broke Geneva Conventions?


www.independent .co.uk

A photograph handed to The Independent claims to show Iraqi civilians captured in southern Iraq being mistreated by British soldiers in breach of international law and the Geneva Conventions.


The incident is to be investigated at a public inquiry to be announced tomorrow by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, which will also examine evidence of one of the worst atrocities ever carried out by the British Army.

20 other civilians were murdered by British soldiers.

evidence of the ro
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Lawyers for the Iraqis and the families of those who died said the case raised allegations that were among the most serious in modern British military history. Tomorrow, Mr Ainsworth will tell Parliament the name of the judge chosen to . the inquiry, referred to as Al Sweady after the lead claimant in the case.


This is pretty bad, judging from the article it seems many innocent civilians died by the UK army's hand on a daily basis.

Which would make this picture in the article the least of the worst.

www.independent .co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
The police cuff hands behind the back all the time - So long as the prisoner is in the company of guards that it's self shouldn't be a problem... The lieing face down? Again on it's own shouldn't be a problem - I suppose the hood has been banned so that's wrong... I think it's a combination of the 3 that's the issue...

But how would our boys have been treated if they were captured? - I very much doubt any western convention would play much part at all.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


This is stupid, c'mon man, this soldier is guarding four Iraqis. Nothing more, it’s not like they were naked and stacked into a pyramid. There tied up, how is that a violation of Geneva? You may want to concentrate on the BS crimes our governments are committing with the looting of the treasury then this garbage.

Tell me how this is a violation of the Geneva Convention?



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Firstly I created this thread because of the mention of 20 civilians that died in the hands of the UK army and the insinuation that this was standard daily procedure, so that's 20xDaysOfIraqWar
The picture, as i've already mention is the least of the worst


secondly did you read the article?
Geneva Rules and articles at the bottom of the page



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Again this is stupid, 20 Iraqis do not die daily in the hands of the british... You would know if that happens... whats going down in the picture is not a violation at all. We dont know what was going on or why those men were detained. Find something else to complain about.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Again this is stupid, 20 Iraqis do not die daily in the hands of the british... You would know if that happens... whats going down in the picture is not a violation at all. We dont know what was going on or why those men were detained. Find something else to complain about.


The Geneva Convention articles are clearly stated at the bottom of the article.
Oh yeah I forgot, your a soldier so you must not be able to understand the laws of the Geneva Convention.

Your clearly biased in support of the military-no matter what they do.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by The_Zomar]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Wouldn't trust those Iraqi lawyers, some of the claims - especially against the Americans - turned out to be false.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
For the reading challenged:


Geneva Conventions

*Hooding, cuffing and forced to lie in stress positions in the sun:

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.

*Article 31 of the Conventions prohibits physical and moral coercion techniques used to support interrogations.

*Article 3 of the European Conventions on Human Rights bans inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Army's own rules forbid hooding of prisoners and handcuffing their arms behind their back on the ground.

Covering the faces in this way restricts breathing, and to all intents and purposes, is the same as hooding. Its use in May 2004 contradicts the assurances given by the Armed Forces minister in 2004 and General Brims in 2006 to the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee that hooding/face covering had been effectively outlawed.

*Handcuffing to the rear restricts breathing, has been known to lead to deaths in custody and renders a prisoner unable to break his fall if pushed.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
lol heck cop's handcuff us and throw us on the ground everyday.
Even before they have no proof we did the crime.

As for the blind fold's..
If they was suspected of war crimes ect...
Would you say it's better to tell them to cover there eyes or close them and no peeking?
so they don't see where there being transported to.
so they can tell there buddy's perhaps later well the base is over there..they didn't blindfold me i saw exactly where it was.

This to me look's and smell's like bs to me..but i may be wrong.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The Geneva Accords also say that combatants must be in a recognized uniform. Legally under the Accords they don't have to capture those guys, they would be perfectly justified in shooting them.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Look there is no violation just from one the one picture. These men could have been getting ready to transport these captives. One picture does not make it a war crime. Now find some more evidence that this guys were there all day long. Holy # I can belive some of the crap that comes on of you people some times.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The Thread title IS a bit misleading. The picture from the article does not live up to the hype.

The content of the article is pretty upsetting, soldiers should NEVER execute civilians. If the alligations can be proven, these soldiers should definately be brought up on charges (and shot, but that part is just my opinion).

If there are worse and more incriminating photos out there, I hope they are saved just for court and not widely released. We don't need to spur another round of be.ings like after the Abu Graib scandal.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


This is stupid, c'mon man, this soldier is guarding four Iraqis. Nothing more, it’s not like they were naked and stacked into a pyramid. There tied up, how is that a violation of Geneva?

Tell me how this is a violation of the Geneva Convention?


As you said the naked pyramid was a violation of the Geneva convention as that's humiliating treatment.

Whether this photo shows a violation or not isn't clear. I think lying on the ground face down with hands tied behind the back is a standard security measure to control a threat, I see the LAPD do it on TV all the time. Maybe there are some other rules against it but not the Geneva convention.

The biggest question is whether the blindfolds impede their breathing , and if they do, then I would call that a violation of Geneva, but I can't tell from the photo if their breathing was impeded by the blindfold or not. I don't think a blindfold as a temporary security measure is a violation either.

Also keep in mind that one thing that might determine if there's a violation or not is how long people are subjected to these conditions. If they are kept like this for many hours then it's probably a violation, but if they're kept like this for a short time immediately after capture until they can be detained in a more secure location, it's probably not a violation as long as they can breathe ok.

The OP article says:


"The treatment of the detainees shown in the photograph does not amount to a breach of the Geneva Conventions, it is important to remember that our first priority at the end of such attacks is to protect our personnel from further threats.


If they can breathe ok (and the photo doesn't prove otherwise) and if they weren't kept in this position for an excessively long time, I would tend to agree with that statement.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The Geneva Accords also say that combatants must be in a recognized uniform. Legally under the Accords they don't have to capture those guys, they would be perfectly justified in shooting them.


No it doesn't say that they "must" be in recognised uniform. Please brush up your info again it's inaccurate.

Also I would like to add, till now I have nowhere seen anything suggesting British soldiers committed acts of torture so for that I really do respect them. I have come across reports and info. suggesting they helped American troops in rendition flights.

Seems Torture was main "official policy" of GW Bush and American soldiers, sadly they all got away with it.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by December_Rain]



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join