"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."
-- Article 13 of the Geneva Convention
-- Article 13 of the Geneva Convention
Seeing this site really made the war hit home for me.
I will add one more:
-propaganda value for local, international and regular Russians cannot be overstated here
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
Ok, it's low on the war crime scale, but you are in or out on the Geneva Convention.
This is a genuinely useful resource for them and their families, a means for parents of Russian soldiers to be able to get on phone with their kids.
Sure. They're just being uploaded to YouTube with comments enabled.
4chan's /pol/ already found the Facebook profiles of some of these POWs and are messaging their friends and relatives for fun.
I'd rather be paraded down a street.
In fact some of them are made to call their family in some of the videos circulating.
The right and human thing to do is following the Geneva Convention. You'll have to make a pretty amazing case if you want to argue it should be disregarded in this case.
It should be obvious there's better ways to inform families of these POWs, not just because a less public/propaganda way is more respectful, but also because a more direct route is more likely to reach them.
But that's obviously not the point. This is pretty standard as propaganda goes and fits neatly with the other narratives that are spun.
That can be understood and accepted, but it definitely shouldn't be celebrated.
What legal precedent do you have that these alleged acts violate international law, norms or customs?
I am very familiar with jus ad bellum, jus in bello, war crimes under the Rome Statute and ICC case law, but I am unfamiliar with any legal precedent/case law in support of a position that Russian POWs are being mistreated in violation of any international laws.
Assuming you could find some case law on point, I doubt you will, I believe it was Russia themselves who told the United Nations and the UN Security Council that this wasn’t a war but a “special operation.” I’m not exactly sure how Russia would seek application of the laws of war by the international community while simultaneously telling the international community this is not war.
Figuring out legalities is something that happens over years after the fact.
During the actual war, you'll have to keep your arguments short, preferably steering towards moral right - few have time for legalities.
The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum, and regardless of whether some country agreed to be bound by it, few would disagree with the lines it draws.
It certainly wasn’t written anticipating the development of the internet decades later and does not expressly prohibit the creation of a website identifying the POWs.
If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it, no one is going to entertain someone who makes this argument on the basis of moral superiority when they don’t seem to understand the law nor the history from which the law was derived.
Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, [...] against insults and public curiosity."
Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that.
> If you are making the argument that Ukraine has violated the rights of POWs or any laws, the burden is on you to prove it,
No. I am trying to say that they should be treated better than what they are treated like right now. I am not arguing for anyone being tried for war crimes at some later date. Once the harm is done, that's for others to figure out. I'd rather no harm was done in the first place.
My argument isn't "look they're breaking the Geneva Convention", my argument is "what they're doing sucks, even the Geneva Convention has something to say about it". If that came across differently at some point, my bad.
> Out of curiosity what experience do you have in these matters? Do you work for the UN? Are you a lawyer that works for the International Criminal Court? You seem so sure of your interpretation of the Convention, yet have no support for the same.
You might want to try that in a place that cares about these things. I heard people typically put their credentials on their Twitter bio, so maybe that place is a better fit?
My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention. In fact it says the same thing when I look it up in other languages I speak.
>Having them state their full names on a YouTube video with comments certainly isn't protecting them against public curiosity or insults. What sort of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile those two?
No mental gymnastics required. The writers of this weren’t thinking of youtube or even newspapers, this is about parading your prisoners through the streets and exposing them to hostile crowds.
And besides, simply not letting the prisoners see social media comments about them protects them against insults and public curiosity. If you can’t see it, it can’t hurt you and therefore you are protected.
You cannot be serious. Does anyone even need to point out the gaping holes in this argument? Even if I was willing to concede the second half, you're going to bar them from the internet for the rest of their lives? Everyone they might interact with too? You think that stuff won't turn up when their future employers, spouses, friends, whoever, Google their names? In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now. You think this will not affect them, that they will magically never learn of it?
As... enlightening as arguing with two throwaway accounts was, I think we'll have to "agree to disagree" at this point. This is going nowhere fast.
This is not something the Geneva convention is supposed to protect soldiers from.
> In fact their families are receiving gloating messages and insults from 4chan's /pol/ users right now.
Their families are also not protected by the Geneva convention.
I think it’s a bit hilarious to expect protections beyond the Geneva convention while fighting a war of aggression.
I asked you for legal precedent or interpretation supporting your interpretation, that is how law works it’s not mental gymnastics.
Taking photos and video of POWs is commonplace since WWII, including recording their surrender, medical treatment, statements, etc….
What makes this a violation of the Conventions while the practice is generally accepted? The mental gymnastics is thinking without any support your authority should prevail on the basis you have a command of the English language.
>If I actively tried to make a spectacle out of them, I couldn't do much better than that.
You don’t seem to have any experience with law or the Geneva Conventions you are trying to interpret, you don’t seem to be familiar with the history, realities and atrocities of war.
It’s an insult to POWs throughout history to pretend recording them reading their names is the greatest public spectacle you can think of. Please take the time to talk with a veteran of any war.
> My credentials are an adequate command of the English language, allowing me to read and understand article 13 of the third geneva convention.
Here is a legal analysis written by an Army Officer/lawyer and head of International Law at the Red Cross, hopefully it gives you an elementary understanding of the photographing/recording POWs vis-a-vis the Geneva Conventions:
https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0...
I’m sure your first reaction will be to skim it and look for a sentence or two you can twist into support for your position (ie mental gymnastics), please try to refrain and only reply if you can support your position with actual legal precedent where similar acts have been found to violate the Conventions.
> The Geneva Convention is an easily understood bare minimum
You obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The Geneva Convention is not at all a bare minimum, it provides POWs with far more rights than what are usually afforded to regular prisoners.
True in some places, not in others.
If you support the Russian government, then sure.
You are being incredibly disingenuous. In fact you are doing your whole argument a disservice with a comment like that.
Those who don’t want war in Europe should absolutely cheer for this.
I'm glad we now both agree on what this actually is.
Of course this is psychological warfare, but it’s also the right thing to do. Both can be true at the same time.
Talking on the internet is easy.