thedrifter
01-16-04, 05:31 AM
01-14-2004
Guest Column: Saddam a POW, U.S. Victims Are Not
By Lynn O’Shea
On Friday Jan. 9, 2004, Pentagon lawyers declared Saddam Hussein a Prisoner of War (POW). With this determination, Saddam is protected under both the rules of International Law and the Geneva Convention, which provides for the treatment of Prisoners of War.
On Dec. 20, 2000, the Pentagon denied those very same protections to American service personnel, by eliminating the legal status Prisoner of War, as it applies to U.S. service personnel. In a Department of Defense (DoD) Directive designated 1300.18, titled “Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures” the designation Prisoner of War was eliminated. The new status is “Missing-Captured” (MIA-C.)
Section E2.1.1.24. of the Directive reads, in part: “Missing. A casualty status applicable to a person who is not at his or her duty location due to apparent involuntary reasons and whose location may or may not be known .... ”
Subsection E2.1.1.24.3 deals with captured personnel stating: “Captured. The casualty has been seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country.”
Thus the new status “Missing-Captured” or “MIA-C.) Nowhere in the Dec. 20, 2000 directive will you find the phrase, “Prisoner of War,” or its acronym, POW.
Publicly, the Pentagon continues to refer to captured Americans, including those captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Prisoners of War. The fact is, the term Prisoner of War is no longer exists as a legal status for American service personnel. Under DOD rules, captured service personnel previously designated POW are now “Missing/Captured.” To our knowledge, neither international law or the Geneva Convention makes any mention of individuals carried by their countries as Missing/Captured or MIA-C.
When the status of Gulf War I Navy pilot Capt. Michael Scott Speicher was changed for the second time, he went from “Missing in Action” to “Missing Captured,” not POW. In his memo of Oct. 11, 2000, then-Navy Secretary Gordon England wrote: “This category denotes that a service member has been seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country .... if the government of Iraq is holding Captain Speicher he is entitled to Prisoner of War status under international law and the Geneva Convention .... Although the controlling missing persons statute and directives do not use the term “Prisoner of War,” the facts supporting a change in Captain Speicher’s category from Missing in Action to Missing/Captured would also support the conclusion that, if alive, he is a Prisoner of War.”
In other words if the status existed, the Secretary of Navy would have designated Capt. Speicher a POW.
We realize that our enemies violate the rules of international law and the Geneva Convention regarding the care and treatment of captured American Service Personnel. Terminology will not change that.
Terminology does change world perception regarding the value we place on our captured personnel.
Doesn’t it downgrade the worth of a battered American service member, displayed on television worldwide, for the Department of Defense to designate him or her “Missing/Captured” rather than “Prisoner of War?”
The status, “Missing/Captured” fails to provide this nation’s service members the moral dignity and international recognition provided by the Prisoner of War status. Yet, we provide that moral dignity and international recognition to Saddam.
Guest Contributor Lynn O'Shea is Research Director for the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families, a nationwide organization dedicated to the resolution of unsolved POW/MIA cases from all wars since World War II. She can be reached at lynn@nationalalliance.org.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=328&rnd=401.8862028377833
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Guest Column: Saddam a POW, U.S. Victims Are Not
By Lynn O’Shea
On Friday Jan. 9, 2004, Pentagon lawyers declared Saddam Hussein a Prisoner of War (POW). With this determination, Saddam is protected under both the rules of International Law and the Geneva Convention, which provides for the treatment of Prisoners of War.
On Dec. 20, 2000, the Pentagon denied those very same protections to American service personnel, by eliminating the legal status Prisoner of War, as it applies to U.S. service personnel. In a Department of Defense (DoD) Directive designated 1300.18, titled “Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures” the designation Prisoner of War was eliminated. The new status is “Missing-Captured” (MIA-C.)
Section E2.1.1.24. of the Directive reads, in part: “Missing. A casualty status applicable to a person who is not at his or her duty location due to apparent involuntary reasons and whose location may or may not be known .... ”
Subsection E2.1.1.24.3 deals with captured personnel stating: “Captured. The casualty has been seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country.”
Thus the new status “Missing-Captured” or “MIA-C.) Nowhere in the Dec. 20, 2000 directive will you find the phrase, “Prisoner of War,” or its acronym, POW.
Publicly, the Pentagon continues to refer to captured Americans, including those captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom, as Prisoners of War. The fact is, the term Prisoner of War is no longer exists as a legal status for American service personnel. Under DOD rules, captured service personnel previously designated POW are now “Missing/Captured.” To our knowledge, neither international law or the Geneva Convention makes any mention of individuals carried by their countries as Missing/Captured or MIA-C.
When the status of Gulf War I Navy pilot Capt. Michael Scott Speicher was changed for the second time, he went from “Missing in Action” to “Missing Captured,” not POW. In his memo of Oct. 11, 2000, then-Navy Secretary Gordon England wrote: “This category denotes that a service member has been seized as the result of action of an unfriendly military or paramilitary force in a foreign country .... if the government of Iraq is holding Captain Speicher he is entitled to Prisoner of War status under international law and the Geneva Convention .... Although the controlling missing persons statute and directives do not use the term “Prisoner of War,” the facts supporting a change in Captain Speicher’s category from Missing in Action to Missing/Captured would also support the conclusion that, if alive, he is a Prisoner of War.”
In other words if the status existed, the Secretary of Navy would have designated Capt. Speicher a POW.
We realize that our enemies violate the rules of international law and the Geneva Convention regarding the care and treatment of captured American Service Personnel. Terminology will not change that.
Terminology does change world perception regarding the value we place on our captured personnel.
Doesn’t it downgrade the worth of a battered American service member, displayed on television worldwide, for the Department of Defense to designate him or her “Missing/Captured” rather than “Prisoner of War?”
The status, “Missing/Captured” fails to provide this nation’s service members the moral dignity and international recognition provided by the Prisoner of War status. Yet, we provide that moral dignity and international recognition to Saddam.
Guest Contributor Lynn O'Shea is Research Director for the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families, a nationwide organization dedicated to the resolution of unsolved POW/MIA cases from all wars since World War II. She can be reached at lynn@nationalalliance.org.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=328&rnd=401.8862028377833
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: