(sorry for ripping the title off from the air america radio segment of the same name)

As everyone probably knows the photos of iraqi prisoner abuse with digital camera phones.

Rumsfeld knows exactly what to do about it.

Rumsfeld Bans Digital Cameras in the Military

Want to know more? It's not being covered by american journalists.

Try it... do a google search
of Rumsfeld + camera + phones

Question for debate:

1. Why do you think american journalists aren't covering this?
2. What is a solution to the prisoner abuse?
3. Do you now think rumsfeld should resign?

1. Why do you think American journalists aren't covering this?

I figure that some American journalists are covering it, but the editors are not printing it.

It might be that it would be looked upon as being somehow seditious, that Rumsfeld could accuse journalists of somehow helping the enemy. Plus, Rummy can have press privileges revoked and journalists shipped out.

2. What is a solution to the prisoner abuse?

Less secrecy, more professional supervision, more staffing, unscheduled and unrestricted visits by the Red Cross and the Red Crescent of prison facilities, you know, like weapons inspections were supposed to be.

3. Do you now think rumsfeld should resign?

I thought Clinton should resign (!). Yes, Rumsfeld should resign. But he won't, and I don't think Bush can afford to replace him right now. He's embedded like a tick.

Rumsfeld doesn't like the U.S. embarrassed by things like this. Does anyone? But he does have a valid point, and this is why he can do it, that there could be security breaches as a result of personnel possessing digital camera phones.

I think its not being covered by the regular mass media because it is some sort of mistake, based off a parody article published a couple weeks ago in the DailyFarce.com. Here is a link:

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/national.cfm?...ers_05200400027

I hope you are correct, Azure Citizen.

At least with The Onion, the headlines themselves are funny enough (or ridiculous enough) that they are not taken seriously. I was unfamiliar with The Daily Farce.

It would be nice to know that Rumsfeld has not banned cell phones with digital camera components.

There actually have been "articles" from The Onion picked up in the foreign press and run as real stories. I recall the Chinese state newspaper doing that a little over a year ago. I don't know if that's the case here or not, couldn't find anything on the official DoD website about it. Drudge ran a link to an Austrailian news source that ran the story, but they attributed to this UK news source called "The Business", the same one identified in The Daily Farce. So who knows?

It would certainly be an egregious and suspect abuse of authority, to ban all military personnel from possessing digital cameras or using them under any circumstances at all times.

When I was over there last year, you'd be amazed how many soldiers had them. We took a lot of pictures. One of my more interesting pictures was of an AH-64 Apache that was lying on its side, having been tipped over by heavy winds in a dust storm while it was sitting on the ground.

What Commanders can do, and have often done, is ban the use of cameras in secure facilities where classified information or equipment is in open view; or ban cameras in defensive areas where release of pictures and sketches could aid an enemy in planning an assault or attack. You're usually put on notice of such a thing by warning signs, announcing that taking pictures are verboten, and that all personal items are subject to search upon entering/leaving a facility or enclosed area.

That brings an interesting legal question to mind for you Azure-Citizen. Could taking a picture of an Iraqi prisoner constitute in unto itself a breach of the Geneva Convention? Even if they were just sitting in a cell? If so, then wouldn't it make sense to ban cameras from detention facilities as a matter of policy?

I pray you guys are right about the spoof.

Sorry about the false alarm if so. I just go so enraged when I read that article...

Good question, Aquilla. I know that the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war states that in addition to being protected from violence and intimidation, POWs must also be protected against "insults and public curiosity," which has been interpreted to prohibit the publishing of pictures of POWs (as Iraq did with photos and video footage of American POWs in both this war and the 1991 Gulf War).

Would an individual soldier taking a photograph of a POW in a cell, and keeping the photograph for his own amusement be a violation of the Geneva Convention? Maybe. I guess it depends on how you interpret "insults and public curiosity."

I know that personally, were I the commander of a detention facility, I would not allow soldiers to photograph POWs in this manner, because it is insulting and demeaning to prisoners to be photographed behind bars like animals on display in a zoo. I know that if I were a POW in the hands of the enemy in the same circumstances, I would be insulted. Of course, photographing prisoners for official identification purposes would be a different story altogether, and not prohibited.

At this point, after Abu Ghraib, it really underscores the problem that has emerged for Commanders of detention facilities in Iraq. If you ban individual soldiers from using personal cameras in the prison for their own purposes, you can prevent the afforementioned "insults and public curiosity" abuse; while at the same time, the decision is likely to lead some to believe you are really just trying to suppress the chance that photos might emerge depicting US personnel inflicting abuses on detainees. Perhaps the solution lies somewhere in the proposals for increased ICRC access and other transparency suggestions as long as they do not compromise safety or security.


Its very understandable lethe. It really would be an overreaching and suspicious abuse of authority for the head of the DoD to ban all personnel from having cameras or using them under any circumstances.

FYI, the DailyFarce went on to publish another parody article building on the first one, in which Rumsfeld is claimed to have expanded the ban to include prohibiting all Iraqi's from using cameras or camcorders at Iraqi weddings:

http://www.thedailyfarce.com/world.cfm?sto...raq_05200400026

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Duplicate topic.<br /><br />Recommended action: Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br /> - Simple Search<br /> - Advanced Search<br /> - Starting New Topics<br /> - Survival Guide<br /> - The Rules<br /> - Staff Directory<br /></td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>

Is the American press fairly revealing, accounts of misconduct in this war?
Rumsfeld's Role in Abuse
How much 'torture' should a POW be able to receive?

Please join us in anyone of those already existing debates.