[WikiEN-l] Iraq and chemical weapons

[Ray Saintonge]

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Well, I don't think this is all that special.  There's a controversy,
>so we don't take a position on it.  We merely report.
>
As things stand perhaps the most acceptable source on whether or not 
Iraq has these chemical weapons would be to base our writing on the 
reports of Hans Blix to the Security Council.  From the parts that I did 
hear they were full of well crafted diplomatic ambiguity.

>We can *never* take a position on whether the campaign is morally
>justified, nor on whether it "violates international law".
>
Agreed, though I do have my own views.  The Security Council has not yet 
had a public debate on the invasion.  It is ultimately for the 
International Criminal Court (ICC) to decide.

>>...which may have ramifications about whether Iraq is 
>>bound to treat POWs according to the Geneva Convention or 
>>can "legally" torture, execute or rape them.
>>
>
>I'm not aware that any provision of the Geneva Conventions which make
>torture, execution or rape of POWs legal, even if the conflict itself
>is somehow illegal.  But certainly an NPOV discussion of what,
>exactly, constitutes a war crime, is valid.
>
The Iraqis havc stated that they will follow the Geneva Convention.  The 
alleged violation that triggered this discussion had nothing to do with 
rape or torture, but with the much less serious violation of displaying 
the POWs on TV.  I have the distinct impression that the families of 
those POWs were relieved to see them alive.  The interviewers could only 
ask very basic questions because of their very limited command of the 
English language.  One person who had been captured during the earlier 
Gulf War did remark on CNN that she was treated more harshly by the 
local troops that captured her than by those further up the chain of 
command who later took over custody.  There's nothing surprising about this.

>>The question is, how do we handle this when writing articles about
>>the war?
>>
>NPOV.  We don't take a position on anything controversial.  We state
>what others have said.
>
>For some of these things, our best friend will be time.  There's a lot
>going on "in the fog of war" that simply can't be treated very well in
>an _encyclopedia_, until the facts are more settled and widely known.
>
Some of the issues that divided the Biblical Israelis and their 
Mesopotamian contemporaries are still unresolved. :-)

>At the same time, people have always enjoyed writing current events
>articles, and they are a strength, so I see no reason to avoid them,
>so long as we're careful and so long as we understand that the full
>story may not come out for many years.
>
Since I have definite POV's on some of these issues, I find that I do 
best to keep away from the main themes, and limit my comments to a few 
incidental aspects where I can keep my temper under control.

Ec