Saddam's POW Status and Television Appearance

[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?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

"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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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).

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[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.