> 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 g

> 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? 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/S0020860400080542a.pdf 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.