| |
|
Ganesh: I've heard it mentioned by a reporter on the ground that interviewing POWs is indeed prohibited under the Geneva Convention, as would, presumably, identifying them by name.
But a mere photographic likeness is probably not considered sufficient to clinch identity—as borne out by the continuing was-that-Saddam-or-was-it-a-double foofaraw currently inflaming the chattering classes.
Indeed, I can think of several famous war photographs that feature clear shots of the faces of POWs—in particular one from WWII, (I forget the photographer, unfortunately) with two German soldiers, badly beaten, falling to their knees to plead mercy every time the door to their cell was opened...
Another of an Australian POW just moments before his execution by beheading, blindfolded, on his knees, Japanese officer standing above him with the sword: the photo was taken surreptitiously, by an inmate, and smuggled out into the World—so the photographer was not constrained by the Convention, but LIFE magazine, which ran the photo, presumably was.
But (again, AFAIK) the prisoners in question were never identified by name in the magazines: it was always just "an Australian POW."
The military and the press are both institutions with a sense of history: I doubt that the rules of this engagement are being worked out on the fly—both parties know damned well what the other is and is not permitted to do. That said, this level of interconnectedness, the so-called "embedding," is AFAIK unprecedented—and the ol' fog of war does lead to the occasional fuck-up.
Bill: That "Amerikkka" thing is pure comedy gold. It just gets funnier
every
fucking
time. |
|
|
