Breaking the Silence

Romair,

Here is the relevant section of the Geneva Convention Treaty defining who is a prisoner of war:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

If you take a look at it (Article 4), its clear that the executed man does not meet the requirements for being a PoW and so was executed as a `terrorist.` The GC actually gives a definition of ``uniform`` and the executed man does not meet it:

---

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.

---

BTW, since he had also killed serveral civilians, he was also in contravention of point d above. The Iraqi `resistance` is also in contravention of article d above and so forfeits its claims to GC protection, I would think. If anyone wants to argue that the US is also in contravention of the same article, file suit in the Hague and have it.

Tahmed,

Its not ``sahib`` vs. ``non-sahibs`` that is the distinction (although it often seems to boil down to that) but what category of prisoner you are. IIRC, your friend would have been a category A prisoner, most of whom are political prisoners. Category A prisoners are allowed, on payment, such facilities as air conditioners, bearers (another prisoner who is paid by the privileged prisoner), their own room, etc. The normal prisoner is a Category C prisoner and his is a very sorry lot indeed.

Most sahibs who wind up in prison are usually political prisoners since no real sahib, who has the money, would ever be convicted of anything anyway. Remember the big fuss the PPP and Benazir make whenever Asif Zardari is denied an air conditioner and satellite dish? Isn`t the Glorious Islamic Republic wonderful?

Indian Chowkies: How are things done in India? Same as us?

Romair # 10 - would you, as a good Pakistani and a good Muslim, from your various interacts here, presume the same reasoning applies to, say, the Arab militia killing black Muslims in Sudan? Would you, or the good author Beena Sarwar, try to write about this subject? Why don`t I see the media from Pakistan speak with equal vehemence about its own day-to-day atrocities, so quick on the uptake when it comes to others attacking them?

NHK, on another board, is correct. ````Islam is undergoing the final painful pangs of getting rejected from the mainstream everyday life.```` You, Romair, and to a large extent the writer Beena, are living examples of this.

When will we see the acceptance of truth from those who profess to build opinion in or for Pakistan?

fuzair #8: ``Spies/saboteurs/terrorists/etc., caught out of uniform with weapons are not usually thought to enjoy the ``protections`` of the Geneva Convention......Gen. Eisenhower ordered all Germans caught in US uniform during the Battle of the Bulge to be executed on the spot; conceptually not very different from what Gen. Loan did to the captured VC sapper....I was not discussing the geopolitical context of the war but of one act.
``

It is impossible to look at that one act, without looking at the geopolitical and moral context of the war, in which it was committed. This is probably why the picture of the Police Chief shooting the Vietnamese still carries such an impact, despite all the reasonings provided to justify it. The world doesn`t agree with the context in which the shooter was there, in the picture, in the first place.....


Who defines who is out of uniform and who is not? One could make a pretty good argument, based on this, that the American contractors who have been caught - contractor in many cases meaning civilian mercenaries hired through security agencies - can be lynched like they were in Fallujah, since they are not in uniform.

Under no circumstances should anyone caught, in any capacity, be executed like this. They should not be lynched, their heads should not be cut off, nor should they be shot in the head, nor should they be put in cages in Guantonomo. It doesn`t matter what they were wearing, or not wearing.

This is due to two simple facts: No one can know, just based on the occupiers media, who did what and who is a terrorist, a militant, an insurgent, a freedom fighter, etc. In my opinion, any govt. which attacks someone, some area, which did not attack first, is committing state terrorism. Doesn`t matter whether they are do it in uniform.

The second reason is that such a differentiation, gives countries the right to wave human rights and Geneva Conventions whenever it suits them. This is what the USA did in Abu Ghuraib and in Guantonomo. Bush simply declares that Geneva Conventions will not apply in such and such areas, and that is that. This is what the individuals who cut off the head of the US civilian used to justiy their act also. I am sure they would provide a similar reasonings for their actions that the US administration provides for its invasion in which 10-15k people have been killed.

All said and done, no country should be allowed to invade another country, another region, another ethnicity etc, occupy it, kill its people, jail them, and then label some of then decide which of the citizens deserve Geneva Conventions and which do not. Its like a rapist sueing his victim for shooting the rapist, in self-defence, with a banned weapon.....One cannot charge the victim before one charges the rapist......

We indeed need to look at the inhumanities in our own prisons. The fact is that many of those in prison are in fact totally innocent people - their crime is that they are poor and weak, and so are easily rounded up by the police (complete with false witnesses) in order to get some local heavy off the hook. The problem is that there is a vast difference in living conditions of ``poor`` vs. ``sahib`` prisoners.

Once, when visiting Pakistan, I called by the Rawalpindi Jail in order to request a meeting with an old family friend who had been imprisoned because he had tried to overthrow the government (he was one of the disgruntled military officers after 1971 who had plotted a coup). The warden asked me to hold for a second and passed the phone to this ``prisoner`` - the prisoner and the warden had been chatting in the warden`s office. The prisoner invited us to come visit him whenever since, as he jokingly said, he wasnt planning to go anywhere. Myself and my wife went, the prisoner was there at the gate to receive us, escorted us to the warden`s office. A bearer (sahib prisoners get a bearer) came and asked us if we wanted tea of coffee, which he then brought along with biscuits and things. The warden had graciously vacated his office so we could chat. Our friend had also organized a cricket team in the prison. (He has now served his sentence, and is living a good, prosperous life).

Now, this is the way to treat prisoners. Why cant we treat all prisoners with the same respect (OK, they dont need personal bearers, but at least treat them like human beings)? Even if they are poor.

Jang,

The photo you are referring to was mislabelled as being the result of a US airstrike. It was actually S. Vietnamese planes that accidentally attacked the wrong village; by that time, 1972, most US combat troops were out of S. Vietnam. As far as the villagers are concerned, it is of course immaterial who dropped the bombs/napalm; the result is the same. As far as the American public goes, it makes a big difference.

Romair:
The man executed was a VC sapper captain, i.e., elite `terrorist` cadre, who was caught with papers identifying him as a VC sapper captain. Spies/saboteurs/terrorists/etc., caught out of uniform with weapons are not usually thought to enjoy the ``protections`` of the Geneva Convention. Its not till the 1970s revision of the Geneva Convention that (IIRC--need to check on this) that ``civilian combatants`` caught out of uniform have to be read their rights and allowed to call their lawyer--so to speak. Gen. Eisenhower ordered all Germans caught in US uniform during the Battle of the Bulge to be executed on the spot; conceptually not very different from what Gen. Loan did to the captured VC sapper.

http://www.nctimes.net/news/050100/w.html
The above story makes it very clear who the executed man was and that it was no `random` act of brutality.

As far as the Vietnam war goes, for many Vietnamese it was a war of national liberation all right and the biggest mistake the US made was in listening to the damn French and withdrawing their support for Ho Chi Minh in the 1940s and giving Vietnam back to the Nazi sympathizers, errrr, the French. However, I was not discussing the geopolitical context of the war but of one act.

By concealing..the facts..v r indeed encouraging them to do it again. it was quite heart moving..heart aching..heart burning..to c the photos..

same was repeated at various other times.but the ones sacrificed were silenced for ever..though i`m not quoting.that coz..some members previously criticised that..coz..they are one of them..

and the ones to be apprehended..are roaming..free with the arrogance..and y do v consider the white skinners..the chitti chamree..to be the civilised people..
with the facts surfacing..their faces are revealed..

#3 by fuzair

There is onother picture etched in amerian memory, which got the V. war stopped, that of the naked girl with her clothed napalmed.

Beena,

This is exactly what i was telling all the brownies, go to your own prisons and take pictures, instead of whining on chowk. (If it is unislamic to take pictures, thousand words will do.) Reality is that we dont really care about the abuse in the prisons. Its all cyber-narabazi.

Hello Romair . . . I specified ``committed and selfless`` media.

By the same token, in my opinion, a committed, selfless and credible Human Rights Organisation, with absolute transparency about its motives, should have access to ``places like Abu Ghuraib etc``.

But more than that, if ordinary visitors, domestic and foreign, have access to at least the public spaces of ``places like Abu Ghuraib`` etc., then a lot is served. IMHO, it starts from there.

Vereesh #1: ``This media, by rights, needs to be accessible to everybody.``

Do you think Human Rights organizations should also be accessible to everyone. Or do you think it is alright to ban them from places like Abu Ghuraib etc.?

Fuzair #3: Are you suggesting that a General has a right to fire a gun into a person`s head, without any judicial inquiry? Did anyone hear that person`s side of the story? Maybe the General had killed his whole family, first. Or did that Vietnamese guy just kill out of a sense of enjoyment?

In any occupation, the sympathies of the world, will generally be with the occupied individuals, and not with the occupiers. This is why the occupying power always has to portray the occupied as terrorists, insurgents, militants, etc. Never as freedom fighters. And it has to throw its whole media into the campaign to paint the occupied as victims of terrorism from their own countrymen.

Otherwise, it becomes morally impossible to justify any piece of the occupation. The Soviets considered the Afghans to be insurgents, even when all of Afghanistan was up in arms against them. And the Americans still call the Iraqi resistance dead-enders and what not, even though the whole country is anti-USA at the moment. Yet, George Bush still keeps saying that he is out to, ``liberate`` Iraq, when opinion polls in Iraq, even before Fallujah and the photos, overwhelmingly consider Americans to be the dead-enders.

Once the media has painted the local militants into terrorists (ironically against their own people), then the battle is turned into a battle between terrorists and the occupying military. Not realizing that those, ``terrorists`` would not be fighting, if they military had not occupied them, in the first place. And that those, ``terrorists`` have the overwhelming support of the local people, which is why it is so difficult to catch them.

When the WMD story fell by the wayside, as did the Al-Qaeda connection, the USA had nothing to rely on to justify its invasion. It couldn`t just stand up and say that an extremely pro-Israel neo-con think tank had encouraged it into war, and it needed to control the oil in Iraq, just in case, something happened to the Saudi monarchy.

So, it went back to the age-old excuse of cilvizing the natives, liberating them, and helping them set up a properous society. Obviously very few people, except Americans themselves, bought this. So it had to truly over-emphasize it.

This is why these photos have such an impact. 70-90% of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were innocent, according to ICRC. The USA has, itself, released so many now. As well as from Guantonomo. The proof in the photos is such, that even the biggest spinmasters of the USA media and govt. cannot spin this one.

John McCain, a Vietnam POW, said that in Vietnam, other than physical beatings, nothing even close to this ever happened to US POWs. I think these photographs will haunt the US foreign policy for a long time, as they should. It is the first time, I have seen nearly the whole US govt., totally toungue-tied, being forced to admit it has done something wrong. Because even its best and brightest like Limbaugh, are having a tough time spinning it.

Even Hamidm cannot figure out how to justify them......

Sometimes a photograph does more disservice than service and a thousand words are indeed better than a single picture--but only if you actually want to know something rather than have your prejudices confirmed. Many educated people of a certain age, and those who have actually read history, remember the (in)famous photo of the police chief of S. Vietnam executing a VC terrorist by a bullet to the head. Many people in the West, especially the US, were repulsed by this one graphic depiction of the brutality of the S. Vietnamese government that the US had been supporting for years.

However, the ``truth`` turns out to be a bit different. This was a VC who had been captured after killing several of the General`s men during the Tet Offensive (an ostensible `truce` during the war) including (apparently) one policeman`s entire family. The photographer who took the photo, Eddie Adams, wishes he had never taken it since it was used completely out of context by people who had a political agenda that was against that of the General`s. Pictures might be important but they can`t replace context.

Take a look at the following if you are interested in more details and context.
http://www.nandotimes.com/nt/images/century/photos/century0258.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg082699.html

This article is a non-starter. Of course, these things happen in India and Pakistan. Everyone knows that you wouldn`t get a single conviction here if the police didn`t use some ``persuasion techniques`` of their own.

In fact it seems rather silly when Amnesty International and others raise a hue and cry over our ``human rights violation`` record. We`re poor countries, least bothered about human rights unless they affect people like us.

The sad thing is the whole world thought that America was different- that was a country in which they actually let criminals scot free on a technicality, read them Miranda warnings, gave them access to free phone calls (well, at least one) and lawyers. And it still is, like Dubya eloquently put it, ``We don`t do things that way in America`` when the first photos were released. Of course they don`t! That ain`t America, bubba! That`s Eye-rack! anything goes over there!

````The question is, will it take graphic photographs to make our authorities address the issue? ````

I don`t think even graphic photographs will make authorities address the issue, if one essential component for perception building is defunct. The first step towards making any ``authorities`` responsive and responsible in a sustained manner would be to first have a committed and selfless media, willing to take positions on reportage. This media, by rights, needs to be accessible to everybody.

Good luck.