I wrote this on the Iraqi thread as well:

Someone mentioned the Geneva Convention. I'm not certain what it says but I think that it was a code of conduct about surrendering soldiers. However soldiers were probably defined as "in uniform".

In previous wars there was kind of a mutual repect of uniformed soldiers who surrendered. If you were out of uniform you were routinely executed. Any "snake in the grass" individuals such as even uniformed snipers as well as rebels/partisans/resistance types were also executed.

In Iraq where these "insurgents" are blending in with the population and then striking from alleyways etc, and then blending back in the population, I'm not sure the Geneva Comvention applies to them.

Even if it does their tactics don't garner them much respect, hence they are regarded as less than "soldiers".


Faguzi Dave wrote:

Actually, as I understand it they've always had a say about whether or not they would be photogrpahed in the first place. I remember seeing in an article or review somewhere her daughter remarking that for a period of time around adolescence she objected and her moother didn't photograph her. She later reconsidered and was ok with it again.
I saw her grown up children inverviewed and they had sort of a mixed reaction to the pictures. But the point is can a child "consent" to anything.
They obviously have no concept of what the images are about and where they are going and the long term ramifications.


As for the burned up "contractors" in Iraq whom some believe are really just mercenaries, that were hanging from the bridge picture, their vehicle was hit by a rocket grenade I believe, and already burned up. The yahoos in the pictures had just taken the bodies from the vehicle and hung them up. Although gross enough, they did not take living or dead bodies and burn them.


Michael