>As terrible as it is, there have been times when the only way the military and our government actually knew that missing soldiers were POWs and not deceased or missing in action was because their capture was televised. It actually gives the family hope (when they are not interrogated or humiliated on tv).

True enough. But I would think that some agreement could say that a single still photo with name under, mug-shot style, would work reasonably.
Especially in these days of digital cameras.



>
>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>How do we know that the Iraqi TV folks didn't just come across these and over-zealously "report" it??? People DO get anxious some times, especially reporters and especially when bombs are dropping around them.
>>>
>>>Because Iraqi TV is state controlled. These are not independent reporters. They work for the government of Iraq. The American POWs were in a room. Are you suggesting that the Iraqi military took the POWs into this room, and that Iraqi TV reporters just "stumbled" upon them?
>>
>>I'm saying that I just don't know BUT that I can conceive of a situation where a reporter/cew is around, they hear shouting that TRAITOROUS ENEMY are in hand and they run to the place and get going. Who knows??? Sometimes control does slip momentarily, in any endeavour.
>>
>>>
>>>>I'm very confident that you are WRONG. If the U.S. has signed on to the Geneva Conventions - and we all know they have - then ALL of its citizens are bound by them. So maybe it is high time for the U.S. government to publish its rules and guidelines to the U.S.-owned media so that they can ensure remaining in compliance. Sure, that might look like a form of censorship, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.
>>>
>>>I don't think either you nor I are international law experts. For what it's worth, I would be glad if no TV networks showed any POWs.
>>
>>We agree on that!!! There really is NO NEED for any POW to be shown at any time.
>>But I do see it as an IMPORTANT virtue of a media organization to be even-handed, in the sense that if they are inclined to show one side of a story then they should be ready to show the other side too.
>>Right now this WAR has all the appearances of a bad video game and it is in fact far more gruesome than that!
>>
>>Let me also say, just for the record, that General Franks said that 'this will be a war unlike any other in history' and so far he is looking true to his word!
>>Acknowledging that war is hell and that people die in wars (civilian and military), it is nevertheless amazing to me that facilities like power and water and roads are being kept intact and that bombs by and large are proving to be very precise with targets apparently well chosen. He and Secretary Rumsfeld have gone to some lengths to describe target choosing and civilian avoidance including inadvertent passers-by or installed shield civilians. I ONLY HOPE THAT THIS ALL DOESN'T DEGENERATE - but I suspect it will - ONCE BAGHDAD IS THE OBJECTIVE.
>>And I also want to say that it is **MY** observation that there is far more propaganda coming from the coalition side than there is from the other side AT THIS POINT.
>>
>>
>>SNIP