Saddam's POW Status and Television Appearance

[adios]

First, Saddam to me resembled the Unabomber to me in the photos of him with his scruffy, unkept beard. Rummy stated that Saddam will be afforded POW status so do his "TV appearances" violate the Geneva Convention accords?

[andyfox]

Now that you tell me TV appearances violate international law, I may have to reconsider my Hollywood Squares proposal.

[Utah]

Thats a darn good point. I don't know much about the Geneva convention (although I suspect it is almost worthless in that no one follows it) but didn't the Bushies complain that showing captured Americans on TV was a gross violation?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Rummy stated that Saddam will be afforded POW status so do his "TV appearances" violate the Geneva Convention accords?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fred and George were walking down a path. Fred stopped suddenly in front of a tree and said "Look at that poor tree over there. It looks like it's sick. Do you think it may have some kind of root problem? Or gypsy moths? Or some other insect infestation?"

George looked at the tree and everything around it. George said "Fred, you should take a couple steps back and take a better look." Both Fred and George took a couple steps back.

"Oh," said Fred, "the whole forest is on fire."

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Rummy stated that Saddam will be afforded POW status so do his "TV appearances" violate the Geneva Convention accords?

[/ QUOTE ]

His tv appearances don't violate the Geneva Convention because right now hes not considered a POW. He won't be given that consideration until were done humilating him on TV and have extracted all the useful information from him. Once those things are accomplished I'm sure we will give him POW status up until the War Crimes Trial starts.

Stu

[adios]

To be honest my wife brought up the POW treatment issue to me and I think she has a point. Anyway I think others question the propriety of Saddam's TV appearance:

Cardinal Says U.S. Treated Saddam 'Like a Cow' (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031216/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_vatican_dc_2)

Cardinal Says U.S. Treated Saddam 'Like a Cow'
Tue Dec 16, 7:59 AM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A top Vatican (news - web sites) official said Tuesday he felt pity and compassion for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and criticized the U.S. military for showing video footage of him being treated "like a cow."

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department and a former papal envoy to the United Nations (news - web sites), told a news conference it would be "illusory" to think the arrest of the former Iraqi president would heal all the damage caused by a war which the Holy See opposed.


"I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures," he said.


"Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he said in answer to questions about Saddam's arrest.


Martino was referring to the videotape released by the U.S. military which showed a grubby, bearded and disheveled Saddam receiving a medical examination by a military doctor after his capture in an underground hole Saturday.


Martino was one of the Vatican officials most strongly opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites).


"It's true that we should be happy that this (arrest) has come about because it is the watershed that was necessary... we hope that this will not have worse and other serious consequences," Martino said.


"But it is not the total solution to the problems of the Middle East," he said.


Martino said the Vatican hoped the arrest of Saddam "can contribute to promoting peace and the democratization of Iraq."


He added: "But is seems to me to be illusory to hope that this will repair the dramas and the damage of the defeat for humanity that a war always brings about."


The Vatican did not consider the war in Iraq "a just war" because it was not backed by the United Nations and because the Vatican believed more negotiations were necessary to avoid it.


Martino said the Vatican wanted an "appropriate institution" to put Saddam on trial but he did not elaborate.


U.S. forces were keeping the ousted 66-year-old dictator at a secret location for interrogation before he is put on trial in the months ahead. He could face the death penalty.


The news conference was called for Martino to present the World Day of Peace message, in which Pope John Paul (news - web sites) took a swipe at the United States for invading Iraq without the backing of the United Nations.

[Wake up CALL]

Perhaps noone told you the war ended, ergo no formal POW status. Milosevic's arrest was televised as well. Perhaps I missed the liberals complaining when that occurred.

[J.R.]

FYI, I think the 4th Geneva Convention applies to civilians captured during an occupation after a war. Civilians includes soldiers who stop fighting.

So it seems Saddam might fit into either definition, however, because Saddam is clearly under suspiscion of actions hostile to the security of the occupying power (the US), the US appears to be able to delay the vesting of Saddam's full rights under the Geneva convention to preserve the security of the US occupation, although the US must treat Saddam with "humanity". Its looks pretty subjective as to when the US must give Saddam his full rights.

Part 1

Article 2

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."


Article 5

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power."

4th Geneva text (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html)

[MMMMMM]

Yeah pretty amazing that many of the same folks who supported the war in Bosnia etc. were opposed to the war in Iraq. Both Milosevic and Hussein were despots, but going into Iraq stood more to be in our interest than going into the Bosnia. So naturally the Left favored the instance where we had nothing to gain and opposed the instance where we had something to gain.

[adios]

The only reason I bring it up is that Rumsfeld stated that Saddam would be treated as a POW according to the Geneva Convention after Saddam was captured. So I assume that Rumsfeld considers him a POW since he used the term.

[andyfox]

Only if you define nothing to gain as getting rid of a ruthless tyrant. Which is exactly how the right feels about it; they don't care about it. The right has always suppoted the most brutal peopple it could find, unless they were Communists. Reagan sent biological weapons to Hussein and Bush 41 told him not to worry about going into Kuwait. Because we had something to gain. That's why Bush (W.) and his team said nothing about Hussein as a despot until their other arguments met resistance. And why the right was against the war against Milosevic and for the war against Hussein. That and because the first was a Clinton intervention which, by definition, had to be bad, and the latter a Bush war, which, by definition, has to be good.

The left likes humanitarian wars (or at least wars that they're told are being fought for humanitarian purposes). That's why it supported, for example, the Vietnam War until it found out the good guys weren't too good. That's why it supported the invervention against Milsevic. It would have supported a war against Hussein had the facts of Hussein's regime been presented, instead of the cock-and-bull story the administration offered. Tonight, Bush said "what difference does it make?" when pressed as to whether or not Hussein had WMDs.

What difference? I don't know, maybe it's important to know whether or not he had them; maybe it's important to know if our administration received reliable intelligence; maybe it's important to know whether 200,000 of our fellow Americans were sent to war because they were lied to. It wouldn't be the first time.

[andyfox]

Discerning meaning from Rumsfeld's terminology is a full time job.

The only "liberal" I heard complain about the pictures was some Cardinal. And I don't mean Ozzie Smith.

[adios]

"Discerning meaning from Rumsfeld's terminology is a full time job. "

Rumsfeld left no doubt that he considered Hussein a POW.

"The only "liberal" I heard complain about the pictures was some Cardinal. And I don't mean Ozzie Smith. "

On tonight's Hannity and Colmes, Stanley Weintraub, a historian was criticising the US for the TV pictures of Saddam. He stated that they were in violation of the Geneva convention and that it sent a bad message about the US to the Arab world. Apparently Weintraub wrote a piece in yesterday's USA Today. Also there was a reference to an article in the NY Times. Kofi Annan came out yesterday and stated that he opposed execution of Hussein if Hussein tried and found guilty. Apparently Annan would oppose the execution of other wartime criminals throughout history as well. Other references to possible torture of Hussein by the US have been made. So I think there is concern by some that as reprehensible as Hussein is, that he be treated humanely.

I don't have any sympathy for Hussein and I do understand why the US showed the video they did.

[Cyrus]

"Perhaps no one told you the war ended, ergo no formal POW status."

Can you tell us then, when precisely the war "formally" started ? Thanks in advance.

"Milosevic's arrest was televised as well."

No, just a grimy shot of him being carried through prison yard on his way to the airport to be deported from Serbia. His actual arrest (by the Sebian security police) was not televised.

"Perhaps I missed the liberals complaining when [the arrest of Milosevic] occurred."

You missed it alright, because it just didn't happen! How could it? Perhaps you forget that it was the conservatives who were complaining when a liberal President attacked Milosevic. Perhaps you forget that there were no TV shots of Milosevic being treated badly or in any undignified manner whatsoever.

(Have a cigar while it all comes back.)

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

If anyone deserves to be treated in an undignified manner, it's Saddam. It would literally be impossible to treat him anywhere nearly as badly as he has treated others.

[MMMMMM]

I got the impression yesterday listening to Rumsfeld that the reason the video was shown was to verify Saddam's identity prior to DNA test confirmation, because he had so many paid plastic-surgeried doubles and it was considered a priority to get outside recognition and confirmation. Also it was considered important to let the Iraqi people know beyond any doubt that he had indeed been captured.

[MMMMMM]

If the Left would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons they had plenty of reasons and plenty of chance to do so. The humanitarian case was overwhelming. But their disdain for anything that would benefit the US and their hatred of Bush clouded their eyes. The humanitarian case was totally separate and not impacted by anything else. That the Left suspected the WMD case was weak should have made ZERO difference because:

Premise: HumanitarianCase=JustifiesWar(1)

IF WMDCase THEN JustifiesWar(1)=JustifiesWar(1) + JustifiesWar(2)

So you either get a final value of War Is Justified or War Is Justfied Even More So.

[ACPlayer]

I truly enjoy your analysis of the reasons for war.

Humanitarianism with the "benefit to the US" thrown in as an aside.

In actually no one cared in power cared about the humanitarian issue and only the dumb think that the US population is benefiting from this misadventure.

It does make for good TV ratings and a post presidency board seat at Haliburton.

[MMMMMM]

I made this same argument prior to the war. It made sense then as now.

[Wake up CALL]

"Can you tell us then, when precisely the war "formally" started ? Thanks in advance.

I'll indulge you Cyrus, the war began when the big hand was on the 12 and the little hand was on the 5, or to keep it simple when the first bomb dropped on Baghdad.

"No, just a grimy shot of him being carried through prison yard on his way to the airport to be deported from Serbia. His actual arrest (by the Sebian security police) was not televised."

How is this any different than televising Saddam while in custody? I do not believe his arrest was televised either.

"Perhaps you forget that there were no TV shots of Milosevic being treated badly or in any undignified manner whatsoever. "

Perhaps you are delusional and contradicted yourself in the same post Cyrus. You really should seperate your contradictions by at least a few minutes if for no other reason than to give ACPlayer time to come to your defense.

I know just where to stick that cigar Cyrus. Do you mind bending over a bit?

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll indulge you Cyrus, the war began when the big hand was on the 12 and the little hand was on the 5, or to keep it simple when the first bomb dropped on Baghdad.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did we really fight a war in Iraq? I'm serious.

[Cyrus]

"I'll indulge you, the war [in Iraq] began when the big hand was on the 12 and the little hand was on the 5, or to keep it simple when the first bomb dropped on Baghdad."

You wrote, in your standard careless manner, that Saddam cannot be "formally" a POW since the war had ended. (Ignoring also the fact that bombs have been raining on Iraq for the past twelve years.)

Your (let's say) unfortunate use of the term "formally" is where you were called on to respond : If a war formally ended and we can no longer have formal POWs, when did that war formally start?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

"How is this any different than televising Saddam while in custody?"

Well, it was you who wrote, very clumsily again, that the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic was televised! (And harrumph were liberals whining about his televised arrest?) You were simply wrong.

"Perhaps you are delusional and contradicted yourself in the same post."

I would be happy if you'd try and point out where I "contradicted myself". These here winter games might continue for a few more posts. (You may even exceed yourself! You already made three factual errors in one post.)

"Do you mind bending over a bit?"

What, no more rough stuff?

[brad]

the fact of the matter, and its on the record, (and watching tv i was almost floored when on msnbc they admitted it )

that US paid all top iraqi general staff to lay down their arms and not fight.

the only real fighting was local militia who fought. the army didnt.

some army units were decimated even though they surrendered.

its on the record, just not well publicized. its an occupation, but it wasnt a war.

search taraq aziz and where he is. i think he got paid and is living in england.

[ACPlayer]

The argument has not improved with age.

It may be your reasons, it may be a good reason, it is NOT the reason that this WH promoted or acted upon. The WH did use this reason as propoganda to keep simpletons on their side.

[MMMMMM]

My point is that W's motivations are not the main issue. The war was clearly good from a humanitarian standpoint, and probably good to some degree from a strategic standpoint, and probably good to some degree in making us safer from the threat of WMD's getting into terrorists' hands. It was also good as it gives us a central base from which to hunt down Mideast terrorists. So it was good all around--end of story. Those saying Bush's priorities were backwards or that he emphasized the least important things may or may not have a point--but so what? Even if he did, the above argument is irrefutable. It's just about all a plus--and the humanitarian aspect is the clearest, most irrefutable plus of all.

[Wake up CALL]

"Well, it was you who wrote, very clumsily again, that the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic was televised! (And harrumph were liberals whining about his televised arrest?) You were simply wrong. "

Actually I was correct but was too bored to argue with you on this small point. His arrest was televised Cyrus. I was willing to conced a samll point to you but you are too stubborn to accept generosity. Now Saddam's arrest was not televised so I simply compared the pared of Milosevic which you stipulated was televised to the footage of Saddam after his capture.

Your misquotes of others may be cute but hardly effective.

If you insist the war never either formally began or ended then you agree with me that there con be no POW's (Prisoners of War). Thanks again Cyrus, perhaps you are useful upon occassion.

I now have a light for that cigar stuck up your XXX, be careful though it resembles a flamethrower. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

"If you insist the [Iraqi] war never either formally began or ended then you agree with me that there con be no POW's (Prisoners of War)."

I didn't raise the question of formality. You did (foolishly). That's why I enquired whence formality! I do not care about the status of Saddam as a captive of the American army.

"Actually I was correct [about Milosevic' arrest] but was too bored to argue with you on this small point."

Nah, what you mean is that after I called you on your inaccurcy, you run a hurried check and somehow came across an item that seems to confirm to you that Slobodan Milosevic' arrest was televised. Nice try at a recovery, though.

"[Slobodan Milosevic's] arrest was televised."

So why don't you direct me to the relevant news item, then?? I stand ready to be corrected.

"Saddam's arrest was not televised so I simply compared the pared of Milosevic which you stipulated was televised to the footage of Saddam after his capture."

Ah, how silly your backtracking looks from behind! Slobo was deported and his prison yard walk torwads deportation was televised (grimy TV shot, zooming lens, Slobo walking calmly among two guards in a prison yeard, nothing undignified). On the other hand, Saddam was televised getting his teeth examined, something that a Christian priest found to be inhhumane treatment or words to that effect.

You had the nerve to be ask sarcastically whether liberals protested Slobo's inhumane treatment. Count the number of ways you are wrong:

-- Slobo was attacked by a liberal Prez.

-- Conservatives were accusing at the time that liberal Prez for that.

-- Slobo was not arrested live on TV. (No one contested that Saddam was captured on live TV so your diversion is going nowhere.)

-- Slobo's subsequenet treatment was not televised either and he was treated humanely (despite him being IMHO a scumbag).

-- Saddam's arrest was not televised but his subsequenet treatment was and that's what some consider inumane (despite him being IMHO a scumbag).

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone deserves to be treated in an undignified manner, it's Saddam. It would literally be impossible to treat him anywhere nearly as badly as he has treated others.

[/ QUOTE ]
No doubt many people would agree with this statement, and I understand why for Paul Bremer and General Sanchez there were compelling political reasons for airing the tape excerpted from Saddam's medical exam.

However, it was the wrong thing to do. Even though Saddam has committed crimes of the highest order, including torture and murder on a mass scale, there was no justification for broadcasting the tape of him being checked for lice. A medical exam is supposed to private. In the case of prisoners there may be legitimate reasons for attenuating this standard of privacy, for example by having guards present during the exam for security reasons. But there was no security reason requiring the tape to be publicized.

By showing the tape and infringing on Saddam's right to privacy, the U.S. government has derogated from the dignity of all individuals, not just this one.

Yes, there are legitimate reasons for the U.S. government to demonstrate that the man they captured actually was Saddam. But they could have accomplished this by just showing some video of him in his cell, after they had shaved his beard.

Presumably the medical exam was fairly thorough and the entire exam was taped. The U.S. government chose to release a select portion of the tape, Saddam being checked for lice and his mouth being violated by a tongue depressor, because that would humiliate him without creating undue sympathy. There was no legitimate reason for them to show that part of the tape, just as there would be no legitimate reason to show a tape of Saddam using the toilet.

This is just my opinion of what is ethical; I am not commenting on whether the Geneva Convention applies and, if it does, whether broadcasting the tape contravened it.

[Cyrus]

At least, we were spared the sight of the routine proctological exam. (A bootleg tape might air over the net sometime in the future.)

FWIW, I happen to agree completely with what you wrote.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

I agree it's somewhat unethical but I think it will probably have desirable effects (psychologically speaking) in the Middle East. For instance Khadafy just capitulated and even urged other Arab states to disarm as well (regarding WMD's and WMD programs). Khadafy probably doesn't want to end up like Saddam, and since his house was hit once before he has that sense of true vulnerability. Also, I think it is important to dethrone the image of Saddam as Lord Of Iraq in the Iraqi public's eyes. Nothing brings a tyrant down-to-earth in the minds of the people the way seeing something like this does. It sends a message to both the common Iraqis and to other regional totalitarian regimes. The Middle East mindset typically has a high awareness of dominance/submission and pure power due to cultural factors and due to the fact that most there live under very authoritarian rule. I think it is important that Saddam go as quickly as possible from Lord to Dog in this psychological arena of power and status.

So yes, I do agree that it was humiliating and somewhat unethical, but I think that's a good thing given the tyrant and the setting.

[MMMMMM]

The "Real Butchers of Baghdad"

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14072

One of Saddam's disguises

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14098

Looking Good!

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=13938

Saddam Hotel

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14023

New Book in Series

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14097

Saddam Endorses Gillete Razors

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=13913

Saddam Gets Queer Eye Treatment

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14069

Saddam's Makeover

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14088

Saddam's Nightmare

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14247

Saddam's Good News!

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14011

Dubya Serves Saddam's Head on a Platter

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14005

NEXT!

http://www.strangecosmos.com/view.adp?picture_id=14052


Merry Christmas Cyrus and To All!

[andyfox]

"the routine proctological exam."

Is there such a thing?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
A top Vatican (news - web sites) official said

[/ QUOTE ]

Already the credibility is virtually gone. Until this...

[ QUOTE ]
I felt pity to see this man destroyed

[/ QUOTE ]

Need we go on further? FK the vatican and their stupid pacifism. I suppose they'd be upset about seeing bin laden and his cronies destroyed too.

al

[Schneids]

Exactly.

I feel pity for all the people who lost their sons and daugthers, mothers and fathers to this scumball's ways. Seeing him get "treated like a cow" is the least that can be done for all these people.

[Cyrus]

You guys don't get it. I don't have to agree with or support (!) my Prisoner Of War to treat him humanely! It is my moral obligation to do so -- a concept that should be self-evident.

It also best serves my interests : When I treat my prisoners humanely, I help strengthen the (otherwise unenforceable) rule of humane treatment of prisoners, because, at some point in time, I'm a cinch to have some of my own guys taken prisoners by others!

Do you believe that Iraqi government had the right to publicise TV images of American POWs being examined by an Iraqi doctor in the mouth? Yes or no? (Careful: The answer cannot be based on which side was "right" in that war; this criterion is irrelevant.)

For those of you who still have trouble understanding this, please remember that the greatest war criminals of all time, criminals that Saddam Hussein is a Salvation Army trombonist compared to them, were treated by the American armed forces and their allies very decently and humanely. Their dignity was protected and their state of captivity was not exploited, in the media or anywhere else.

But, of course, the American government's ethics are currently very different from the time the Nazis were tried in Nuremberg.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel pity for all the people who lost their sons and daugthers, mothers and fathers to this scumball's ways. Seeing him get "treated like a cow" is the least that can be done for all these people.

[/ QUOTE ]
And why stop there. Americans accused of murder, robbery, sexual assault should be placed in the stockades so that the decent law-abiding folk can throw rotten fruit at them.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel pity for all the people who lost their sons and daugthers, mothers and fathers to this scumball's ways. Seeing him get "treated like a cow" is the least that can be done for all these people.

[/ QUOTE ]
And why stop there. Americans accused of murder, robbery, sexual assault should be placed in the stockades so that the decent law-abiding folk can throw rotten fruit at them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, why not? I'd be all for it. Public humiliation is a great form of deterrence. I hope Dr. Al will chime in to confirm this fact.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that Iraqi government had the right to publicise TV images of American POWs being examined by an Iraqi doctor in the mouth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's see, if the iraqis were actually giving our POWs medical care instead of toturing them, we might have a real philosophical discussion on our hands. Personally, I think it's pretty benign showing a POW getting MEDICAL CARE. If that was all I ever saw of how the Iraqis treated US POWs then I would be quite happy with it.

Yes, NAZI pows (and mere German soldiers too) who were our POWs were treated quite humanely, including given medical care. That's fine with me.

al

[Cyrus]

"If the Iraqis were actually giving our POWs medical care instead of torturing them, we might have a real philosophical discussion on our hands. Personally, I think it's pretty benign showing a POW getting MEDICAL CARE."

So far, so good. (Without any need for "philosophical discussions"!) No torture, no problem.

Now let's assume that the broadcasting of such images (ie getting medical treatment) is taken to be demeaning, dehumanizing, callous, etc. (Here, have in mind American POWs getting their pix taken, not Saddam.)

With the assumption that the broadcasting of such images can indeed be interpreted as above, would you still be in favor of broadcasting pix of American POWs and Saddam getting their tonsils examined, their armpits deloused, their hair shaven, their [censored] shone on, etc ?

If you're still OK with those broadcasts, you'd have to explain to me the objective a brutal treatment would serve. (If you were to argue that you're OK only with Saddam's treatment, you'd have to explain how the U.S. would demand in the future humane treatment for its soldiers!) If you're not OK with it, we'd only have to verify whther the treatment was indeed demeaning, etc, or not.

[Cyrus]

"Why not? I'd be all for it. Public humiliation is a great form of deterrence.#

This is a throwback to times past, of greater barbarism. And it is also a measure of your own society's morality and decency, not the accused's. The level of a society's civilisation is not measured by how it treats its leaders but its outcasts.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Demeaning or not, there wasn't much of any substance shown on the saddam footage anyway. The only one anyone complained about being demeaned in this way was saddam, and the fkr deserves it anyway in my view, so in this particular case i don't care. Showing such images of arab prisoners in general tho I would be against because of the social taboos of arab cultures on the matter.

Really showing saddam is almost a moot point cuz there's no force in the universe that would have kept those pictures off american television, which is not justification for them, just the sad truth. Really they were a bit unneccesary, I only really wanted to see the footage of his capture and hear confirmation of his identity.

al

[MMMMMM]

I agree that common criminals should not be publicly humiliated, but Saddam is not a common criminal, nor a common POW; and his photo segment served good purposes.

[Cyrus]

"I agree that common criminals should not be publicly humiliated, but Saddam is not a common criminal, nor a common POW; and his photo segment served good purposes."

I specifically argued that war criminals should also be treated humanely. I also gave the specific example of (arguably) the worst war criminals of all time, the Nazi leaders. They were treated extremely decently and humanely. And there was no call for worse treatment.

That demonstrated conclusively the huge difference between the two regimes, western democracy and fascism. And their cultures.

(Of course, we have come a long way since then, as your line of thinking, and lots of others' here, amply proves.)

[adios]

Any predictions on who Saddam's lawyer will be when he is put on trial? The propriety of future "Crimes Against Humanity" trials involving Hussein would seem to hinge on providing credible legal representation for Hussein. Possibly prominent French lawyers would be good candidates? Any thoughts how this process should proceed Cyrus?

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, that photo shoot of Saddam was NOT inhumane treatment.
Furthermore, it served good purposes.

[Cyrus]

You did not follow this sub-thread carefully enough. I specifically asked that we assume the treatment of Saddam as being inhumane. Based on that aassumption, I asked whether inhumane treatment to Saddam Hussein of any sort was acceptable.

You responded quite clearly that it was. ("Saddam is not a common criminal.." etc. But the status of Saddam's acts was irrelevant. Now you're trying to get out of it by altering the assumption.)

If we do accept that inhumane treatment does not become our civilisation (it becomes Saddam's), then we can discuss whether the specific treatment was demeaning, insulting, etc. To help out the thinking in this process, I asked you and the other respondents to judge Saddam's treatment exactly as if he was an American POW hekld by Iraqis: Would you folks be OK with seeing on TV a bunch of American POWs, dishevelled and distraught, opening their mouths for an Iraqi military doctor ?

--Cyrus

PS : I have already stated my position on the issue more than once in this thread. In case you or anyone else still does not understand, even after reading the posts, I'm sorry. But I'm out of this thread, faster than Christmas.

[Cyrus]

"Any predictions on who Saddam's lawyer will be when he is put on trial? The propriety of future "Crimes Against Humanity" trials involving Hussein would seem to hinge on providing credible legal representation for Hussein. Possibly prominent French lawyers would be good candidates? Any thoughts how this process should proceed?"

I'm not a lawyer and my personal knowledge in matters of int'l law is elementary. But I do know that this will have to do with how the whole situation in Iraq plays out in world diplomacy.

I do not know how it will play out. Bush may choose the ultimate show of force, which will be to try Saddam on American soil. Lots of American lawyers are already salivating at the mere thought of this. (That trial would have, of course, a myriad problems of legitimacy. More salivating.)

IMHO, the best thing would be to have Saddam Hussein judged by an Iraqi jury, under Iraqi law and procedure. At the same time, in case Saddam is found guilty of crimes against humanity, he should also be tried in the respective World Court. (Serving of concurrent sentences? I have no idea how it's done or which court will have preference.)

I would speculate that Saddam is more likely to be found guilty of crimes against humanity, in the world court, rather than (in a fair trial) in an Iraqi court. In an Iraqi court and under Iraqi law, I'd say that most, if not all, of Saddam's vile acts would be defended as actions "under extreme circumstances" (embargo, war), "to protect national sovereignty" (Kurd insurgence, Shiite rebellion), "against subversive terrorists" (Muslim fundamentalists), etc. Political leaders' actions cannot be judged by common law. WHEN YOU DETHRONE A DICTATOR, YOU USUALLY PUT HIM ON TRIAL (if at all) ON THE "VAE VICTIS" PRINCIPLE ALONE AND NOTHING ELSE. So let those who suffered under the dictator, the Iraqis, if they so choose, have Saddam be tried in Iraq like any other befallen dictator before him, let them give him his day in court and do whatever they decide to do with 'im, in legalistic fashion.

To summarize : Saddam Hussein being judged in an Iraqi court is IMHO the best option -- legally, politically and cost-effectively (perhaps under the supervision of a US-led, UN-approved team of judges, as far as due process is concerned, under UN Human Rights). His lawyer? They should allow Saddam free and state-paid access to the laywer(s) of his own choosing. That's Iraqi-state-paid. Lawyers can be French and/or Iraqi and/or American, whatever.

The cleaner the trial, and the cleaner American's comportment is in all this, the more convincing to friend and foe alike will be the legitimacy and the honor of American intentions in Iraq. Dare we hope for at least some sanity in this mess?

--Cyrus

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Any predictions on who Saddam's lawyer will be when he is put on trial? The propriety of future "Crimes Against Humanity" trials involving Hussein would seem to hinge on providing credible legal representation for Hussein. Possibly prominent French lawyers would be good candidates? Any thoughts how this process should proceed Cyrus?

[/ QUOTE ]
He'll probably have a team of lawyers. It could well have American lawyers on it. I don't know why you suggested French lawyers. There are many lawyers, of various nationalities, with experience defending clients accused of crimes against humanity, notably before the two UN tribunals for Rwanda and for Yugoslavia.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you are hopeless. Go back and reread the subthread and you will see that I was not "trying to get out of anything." I was demarcating my position regarding public humiliation for a range of people from accused Americans to common criminals to Saddam himself. This was entirely germane as M.B.E. and Schneids2k02 had a lively little subthread about it leading up to the post of yours to which I was responding. And by the way, I don't think such treatment of POWs would be inhumane in and of itself, but I think it is best not done because it has the potential to lead to abuses. However Saddam's is a special case, plus he might not even technically be a POW.

[adios]

"I don't know why you suggested French lawyers."

Seriously given the context of what I wrote is it that hard to figure out why I wrote it? The issue isn't French lawyers it's the propiety of a trial for Hussein. Perhaps I'm totally off here but it would seem to me that a trial where Hussein was defended by lawyers comprised of only the coalition countries may be suspect in the minds of many in other countries.

[adios]

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't know why you suggested French lawyers."

Seriously given the context of what I wrote is it that hard to figure out why I wrote it? The issue isn't French lawyers it's the propiety of a trial for Hussein. Perhaps I'm totally off here but it would seem to me that a trial where Hussein was defended by lawyers comprised of only the coalition countries may be suspect in the minds of many in other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I still don't get what's significant about French lawyers. I would imagine that there are qualified lawyers from France, who have represented clients charged in relation to Yugoslavia or Rwanda, though I don't know for sure.

I would assume that in principle, Saddam would be permitted to choose his own defence team. I say "in principle" because there are two restrictions.

First, the tribunal itself could set reasonable criteria on who will be allowed to appear as counsel before it. For example, it might set the criterion that all counsel must be fluent in the working language of the tribunal. It could also disqualify counsel who it finds to be disruptive or to have failed in their duties as officers of the tribunal.

Second, the question of payment. As I understand it, the Americans and Iraqi Governing Council have confiscated or frozen all of Saddam's assets. So does that mean that Saddam's defence will be funded by the IGC on a legal-aid basis? If so, the IGC would presumably be able to direct the size of the defence team and the amounts they can reasonably incur for fees and disbursements. That could get highly problematic and I hope some alternate arrangement could be worked out for funding Saddam's defence.

By the way, these comments are loosely based on my limited knowledge of procedures before the two International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. I'm no expert in international criminal law, but I've read a little bit about it.

One further comment. Any lawyer on Saddam's defence team will have duties and loyalties to the client (Saddam) and to the tribunal before which he is charged. But in fulfilling his or her duties the lawyer is expected not to have any loyalty to his or her own government. Lawyers in the U.S. particularly are familiar with this concept, which is also accepted internationally. Lawyers in the U.S. frequently act against the federal government on a variety of matters, while still remaining patriotic Americans. This would be no different.

[MMMMMM]

"Perhaps I'm totally off here but it would seem to me that a trial where Hussein was defended by lawyers comprised of only the coalition countries may be suspect in the minds of many in other countries."

I agree, but I think this says more about the minds (or lack thereof) in those "other countries" than it does about anything else. As William F. Buckley said, "If there is anybody in town who believes that Saddam Hussein is not guilty of crimes however described, what we need to worry about is him, not Saddam."

Article: "Try Saddam?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200312171403.asp

[M.B.E.]

There's a good article by Anthony D'Amato (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew132.php) on the web site Jurist about the Iraqi Special Tribunal for Crimes Against Humanity.

[ACPlayer]

The South African Truth and Reconciliation process may be worth considering. The barbaric treatment meted out by the Apartheid regime is probably more sadistic and systematic and widespread than in Iraq. The TRC led by Bishop Tutu etc has acted as a tremendous cleansing force in South Africa.

The TRC probed various actions carried out by the govt and its henchmen, including murders of innocents and opponents of apartheid. The seargents and captains etc all were called to account. Unfortunately, some of the Presidents took refuge and refused to testify. That part of the process may need to be addressed.

Anyway, this is an Iraqi issue. Of course Bush will want to do it his way, perhaps with an Iraqi cover. OTOH Bush will be busy sitting on Boards and giving speeches by then.