saddam found

"Saddam is a prisoner of war and is being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention"

The US has been very careful not to call him a Prisoner of War but that he will be treated in accordance with the rules for PoWs. I.e. they are retaining the option to call him some other sort of prisoner should the need arise.

They've already broken Geneva by showing the medical examination film which is a clear contravention of the public curiosity clause. Although I don't suppose anybody will be too bothered on that count.

"Handing him over the Iraqis ... will be met with hostility from every corner of the world"

I'd have thought most people would welcome such a move or ata least not object thatr strongly. We are talking about handing him over for a open and ostensibly fair trial by a legitimate tribunal rather than just handing him to a braying mob. One assumes that a resonable system would be in place before any such trial.

For me I can see arguments both for and against both an International Trial (he is, after all, accussed of crimes against other nations) and an Iraqi tribunal.

Matthew

Sorry folks,
but where would he get a fair trial,even if he deserved one, I'm afraid that the Americans have just found the greatest poisoned chalice ever know to mankind, I was and still am against the war that was declared on the Iraqi people [and before it comes up yes I agree Saddam was a all time monster along with all the others that over the years we have funded]the Americans in this case will be dammed if they do and dammed if they don't whatever they decide to do with him. It would have certainly have been better politically for all concerned if he had been "found" dead. Whilst still alive he is still a leader and martyr to his supporters and "we" still might find ourselves in a position of having to defend against hostage takers and killings on a scale unbeknown before. I just hope that I am completly wrong
but I have my doubts.

I'm not sure the US had refrained from calling him a POW. In any event, even if they have not made that admission, it is not clear to me that he is a "prisoner of war". That term is very specific under th Geneva guidelines, and may have passed out of application once the privisional government took over. He has a Geneva status, i just don't know what it is.

As I said before, the US has no jurisdiction to try him, and therefor, despite the issue of the people down in Cuba, there is pretty much no chance the US is going to classify him as something else.

Your consternation at the Cuba status is starting to cloud your judgment. Saddam was a leader of a country that we went to war with - he clearly has Geneva status.

Judd

BTW,

the video footage showing the medical exam was gratuitous. It's these little decisions (like putting the US flag on th face of the Saddam statue briefly) that always defy common sense. I have no idea why there is so much stupidity in these areas.

Judd

Look at the quotes and it'c clear the US has not declared him an PoW. E.g.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say whether Saddam was formally being held as a prisoner of war or where he was being held, but said his treatment was in line with Geneva Convention rules. “He is being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention and provided protections of a prisoner of war,” McClellan told reporters."

(From http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-12-2003_pg7_1)

I have no doubt he has Geneva status as indeed do the people being illegally detained in Cuba. My doubt is that the US would grant him those rights if they thought it might not suit them.

But, like I say, overall I am not desperately concerned about Saddam's exact legal status. He's been caught and at some point he'll get a reasonably fair trial of some sort.

Matthew

Reading what Rummy and some of the others have said, it's pretty clear that he will be treated as a prisoner of war under Geneva.

Whether he is handed over to the Iraqis is another question entirely. Pretty much nobody other than the Iraqis want him to go before the new Iraqi tribunal.

At the same time, the US ought not put itself in the position of implying that the new Iraqi government (which despite how little ACTUAL autonomy they have in all other matters) either (1) cannot effectively prosecute Saddam fairly or (2) cannot do it autonomously.

Judd

Saddam is the responsibility of the Iraqi people.

How they try him and what they do to him is no ones elses concern.

Regards

Mick

I understand that the careful searching of Saddam's beard was the last ditch effort by the U.S. government to find weapons of mass destruction.

HAPPIER TIMES! INNIT!

[This message was edited by Rich Jerskey on WEDNESDAY 17 December 2003 at 06:04.]

The US are treating him as if he wherea prisoner of war, not treating him as he is one. No doubt the legal drones out in e-land will comment on that...

Showing video footage of Saddam undergoing medical examination may have been a technical infringement of the Geneva Convention, if you think that being cared for is humiliating.

On the other hand, it demonstrates that the US are treating him in a humane manner and at the same time, shows the Fedayyin that he has been captured.

If that eventually leads to a downturn in attacks against US forces - and so saves lives on both sides - who cares?

Regards

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

What Mike says is basically it. To be offended by Saddam, "the Butcher of Baghdad", being gone over by a Doc after being captured in order to prove he's captured and ineffective is really looking at it in a rather warped way in my all too humble opinion.

Rich

I didn't say I was offended by it and I did say I was hardly losing sleep over Saddam's rights.

Nonetheless it was a breach of the Geneva convention and a gratuitous one at that. I understand the need to demonstrate that he really was captured but this could easily have been done without showing him being examined for lice. The video was clearly intended to show him in as humiliating a circumstance as possible for political reasons relating to the situation in Iraq. Which is understandable but its still wrong.

Of more concern of course is that treating him in this way makes it very difficult to argue that this shouldn't happen to other prisoners captured by other regimes in the future. Like for example the RAF pilots paraded by Saddam on Iraqi TV during the first Gulf war.

Mike's comment that being cared for is not humiliating is frankly risible.

Matthew

Whatever might otherwise be said of the medical exam footage, it was without question a breach of Geneva. A poor decision was made in broadcasting that video, pure and simple.

Despite what I might otherwise think the the capture, the actions of the militar in general and the war itself, there exists plenty of stupidity in the upper ranks. It even more imparative that the strongest among us must take the high ground.

Judd

The consensus among people I know here is that broadcasting the medical exam was a mistake, whatever Ashcroft and Rumsfeld say. All we needed to see was Saddam in his full crusty mode. The rest should have been private.

If we're supposed to be the good guys, then we should be beyond reproach in the treatment of even the most monstrous of our enemies.

Davie

This may be a bitter pill to swallow for those who looked upon him as a leader and to see him taken alive and offered medical aid by the mortal enemy must strike at the very core of their beliefs. Those powerless people of whatever country or creed who were living their dreams vicariously through Saddam may feel his capture as blow to their pride and the screening of the medical examination as loss of face and an insult to one and all.

I suppose the big question is what dreams do these people now follow and what happens if their dreams do not match those proposed by the Coalition forces?

Roy

The tv screening was to prove to Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis, in a real way that it is him, therefore when he is no more, the<y will believe it, Savvy ?


Fritz Von Obviousinnit.

Graham Ricketts

The Geneva convention is not relevant to the head man who created the offensive policies, it is relevant only to the worker troops who are only "following orders".

SH was the cause of the problem, along with his cohorts, of all the offences against humanity in Iraq. And so is not the typical prisoner of war, he is one of the causes of the war along with GWB and TB, however it is the current loser that losses face.

Similarly if Iraq had won against the UK - I would expect to see Bliar strung up from Tower Bridge to demonstrate to us that we had a "Regime Change" taking place.

Showing how SH was cleaned up from being scruffy refugee to a prisoner of war was essential to prove identity to the rest of the world.

Derek

<< >>

Certainly not an original observation on my part, but if Hussein is tried doesn't it seem likely that all sorts of sorid tales will find their way onto the front page of mainstream newspapers? Could prove very embarrassing to the current administration.

Joe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Showing how SH was cleaned up from being scruffy refugee to a prisoner of war was essential to prove identity to the rest of the world.

---

Granted. But I side with the others who say that was ALL that needed to be broadcast. The tick search may have been hugely amusing, but it was way over the top.

Alan

Joe said "if Hussein is tried doesn't it seem likely that all sorts of sorid tales will find their way onto the front page of mainstream newspapers?"

Prosecutor: I accuse you of Crimes against Humanity, specifically your gassing of the Kurds?

Saddam: Yes. I developed a chemical weapons progamme using various agents and precursors sold to me by the US.

Prosecutor: Moving on, what about your WMD programme.

Saddam: I refer the questioner to my previous answer.

(Although to be fair these facts were recently on ABC's main evening news programme so maybe they are known to at least some Americans)

Matthew

Well, the interesting question now is "What will happen to Iraq?" (not "What will happen to Saddam?", everybody knows what will happen to him).

Some reflections. Most Iraqi people hated and feared Saddam, for obvous reasons. Most Iraqi people detest being conquered by the US.

Up until now most Iraqis have feared that if the US goes away, Saddam might come back. In the choice between the risk of Saddam coming back and having the US troops in their country, they choose the US troops.

But now Saddam won't come back and the Iraqi people can concentrate on getting rid of the US...

JohanR

quote:

---

(Although to be fair these facts were recently on ABC's main evening news programme so maybe they are known to at least some Americans)

---

No. We're all lug-eared simpletons. Even having read the information in your one-act play above, I still don't understand it. I'm really counting on the rest of the world to figure out the truth, and then hopefully they can pressure my government into doing the right thing. God bless the informed, and all the fine, fine work they're doing.

I'm off to Burger King for their new WMD combo meal (What? I thought it stood for "Whopper, most delicious!")

j

jayd,

My point was that the US media has left the majority of the US population woefully ill-informed on such issues not that Americans are somehow incapable of understanding such infomation.

I note, for example, the well publicised survey from beofre the war that showed some 60% (IIRC) of the US population believed that the 9/11 hihackers were from Iraq.

Matthew

Matthew,

quote:

---

My point was that the US media has left the majority of the US population woefully ill-informed on such issues...

---

If only people read the comics page more carefully.

Joe

Matthew,
I'm sorry to have to say that the great British public were not that far behind in the truthful information stakes ,remember Blairs and co's speeches. There have been a awful number of people world wide that have been conned by their politicians over the last few months.I just hope that we all remember what was said, come the elections.
oldie.