Location of POW camp too sensitive - even for Red Cross

New Zealand Herald ^ | 3-28-2003 | ANDREW BUNCOMBE

[KantianBurke]

"According to the conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has the right to visit all prisoners of war and speak to them in private."

I assume our pilots during the Vietnam War were afforded such luxuries or was it the typical North Vietnamese bs?

[Highest Authority]

Tobacco?

[Howlin]

Don't tell them!

[KantianBurke]

huh?

[pnz1]

I also assume that Iraq will allow the Red Cross to visit our guys..

[areafiftyone]

Oh and have the Red Cross visited our POWs in Iraq? Have they complained to the Iraqi Regime about the inhmane treatment? NO!

[Howlin]

Don't tell them where the camp is.

[TADSLOS]

Search a Red Cross Team for any GPS and other tracking devices, put them blindfolded on a bus with the windows shielded and take them to the location via a circuitous route for a visit, then bring them back the same way. They get what they want, we retain operational security.

[SouthernFreebird]

Charge them a visiting fee and for any food or drink they consume.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yep, do this immediately AFTER the Red Cross has been allowed to visit coalition POWs, speak with them privately, and found that they are being treated in accordance with the GC.

[TADSLOS]

They can bring their own damned food.

[SouthernFreebird]

Think they'd bring donuts for our POWs...for a small nominal fee.

[Publius6961]

which has a right under international law to visit the prisoners.

There is that phrase again.
Calling all losers...

What is it?
Who decides?
How is it enforced?
Does it have any qualifications for having a voice in the decision?

Is "international law" sort of like a "snipe"?

[N. Theknow]

Wouldn't the Red Cross be looked upon by the captives as infidels?

Does the Red Crescent have the same authority?

Are they part and parcel of the same thing or are they entirely separate? Anybody know? Can't do a "google" right now.

[m1911]

Wow. From the responses on the thread I see that nobody realizes that we are losing the PR war and every one of these things makes it worse. Who cares what the Iraqis do to ours or what the Vietnamese did. Saddam "disappeared" almost 300,000 of his own people, so if Bush did that all you'd say is "they did it first"?

We are supposed to be the good guys, why the hell not open the camps to the Red Cross?

[monday]

"What is it? Who decides? How is it enforced? "

The Geneva conventions are an international treaty. Signatories follow it voluntarily. Those who violate the conventions may be tried as war criminals by the victorious side after hostilities cease. Many Germans and a few Japinese were executed after WWII for Geneva Convention violations.

[wcentrella]

Because regardless of if we did or not we'd still be losing the PR war so why take the risks for 0 gains? General Franks said it best "You [reporters] are going to believe what you want to believe regardless of the truth." The media, the UN, these humanitarian organizations they all act like we're inhuman monsters while they ignore the Iraqi's bad points but show over and over the same quote from their dis-Information Minister about how he's going to abide by the conventions, with us talk is cheap with the Iraqis it's accepted. The hypocracy will not change.

[m1911]

First, I don't understand any reason for not letting them in unless they are lying about the numbers or the treatment, and second it helps when arguing that our side is taking the high ground if they actually do.

[musicman]

Maybe they don't want to say the location because it would
probably be in possible "scudd" range????