Mark Dodd reports creates fury

Mark Dodd who never misses a chance to denigrate our military provides info in the form of a beat up about battle field security of prisoners in Afghanistan
SUSPECTED Taliban militants arrested by Australian special forces in Afghanistan have been detained in “dog pens” in actions that have left Australian Muslim groups outraged and prompted a protest from the Afghan ambassador in Canberra.
As a matter of interest I wonder how the local Muslim groups become aware of the situation. I can just imagine Mark phoning the local Muslim organizations saying “I have a FOI report and you should be outraged…could you give me an outraged statement please? Mark continues
The use of dog pens appears to contravene the Geneva Convention covering the treatment of prisoners of war.
No it doesn’t.
Article 25 of the Convention states: Prisoners of war must be quartered in conditions as favourable as those enjoyed by the detaining power.
Article 25 is talking about the long term incarceration of POWs once they have been removed from the battle field. When initially captured, prisoners are secured in any way possible, ie with ropes, handcuffs or ziplocks and a rifle at their head until they can be evacuated rearward. The soldiers have to keep a constant armed vigil over them and if they can be confined in some cage then all the best for the sleep patterns of the soldiers.
But there are cultural sensitivities at play over the use of dog pens. Islamic decrees warn Muslims against contact with dogs, which are regarded as unclean.
Cultural sensitivities at play! We are talking about the Taliban here. I can’t believe that they have the temerity to call dogs unclean. UPDATE: Mark Dodd phoned taking umbrage at my opening line and quiet reasonably so, I might add. I had gained an opinion of a certain alacrity on Mark’s part to publish articles that put the ADF in a negative light but as he explained, he often publishes what he is given by defence. That being the case, and with further reading of his work beyond that which had previously caught my eye, I must agree and will not be so cavalier with the ‘ever ready to denigrate the ADF’ line. I will however maintain the right to an opinion when I feel my old regiment is under attack and not recognized for it’s sterling service. My point on Article 25 of the Geneva Convention referring to conditions after the PWs have been removed from the battle zone has not been answered though and I can only suggest the lawyer offering the opinon to Mark look at it a little closer. There has been more than one occassion in the past where I have been involved in guarding PWs in the field where we have simply had to make do with what we had available – with the guy mostly static, on the ground, blindfolded, with their arms tied behind their back and a rifleman dedicated to keeping them that way. PW cages or prisons are generally not the responsibility of Infantry.

3 comments