saddam found

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

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

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.

Though only if it's not raining, or no bugger will bother voting anyway, bloody government always win don't they ?
Fritz Von Dickedtater

Graham Ricketts

What is this all about. No "official" people in the US of UK governments ever said that the SH was involved in 9/11. In fact, there are many quotes from Bush and co saying exactly the opposite - that there is NO evidence that SH had anything to do with 9/11. Clear as that.

BUT, for some reason, despite the fact that the US media and Uk media (other than SKY and FOX) have done everything they can to dispell the notion that SH had anything to do with 9/11, we have people on this forum suggesting that it IS the media's fault a good portion of the US thinks SH had something to do with 9/11 (which for some reason they do).

My look at the media and the governments confirms in my mind that neither party suggested that the two were linked, and in fact claimed there was no link in fact. So, I am at a loss as to WHY a good portion of the US thinks there was a link even though BUSH has denied such a link.

Is this a part of Bush's mindgame - by denying any link between SH and 9/11 he confirms such a link exists?

Here's what I think:
1) Intelligent people watch and read the media and the government.
2) The Media and the Government has denied a link between SH and 9/11, therefore,
3) intelligent people do not believe there to be a link between SH and 9/11

However,
1) Stupid people do not watch the media and government
2) Stupid people think all middle easterners are the same
3) Stupid people think there is a link between SH and 9/11.

(none of this takes into account actual, though slight, evidence that there may have been some link or that such evidence may arise.)

It's stupidity and nothing else.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
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

---

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Nonetheless it was a breach of the Geneva convention and a gratuitous one at that.

---

Please explain what the breach is.

quote:

---

The video was clearly intended to show him in as humiliating a circumstance as possible

---

Hmmmm. Two thoughts spring to mind here
1. You live in a very, very sheltered world; or
2. The video you have seen, which obviously shows a naked, beaten and bleeding Saddam strung up by his heals while undergoing a rectal examination, is not the one that I saw (which looks like a dental advert.)

quote:

---

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.

---

Let me get this straight; Saddam should not be shown undergoing a medical examination so that clearly beat up RAF pilots won't get paraded in GW1?? Or should medical checks not be shown?

quote:

---

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

Matthew

---

Matthew you have been over exposed to The Grauniad - you seem to have spelt the word "LOGICAL" as "RISIBLE"

Regards

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

"Please explain what the breach is"

Article 13 of the Third convention: "Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence and intimidation and against insults and public curiosity". The latter is taken to mean that prisoners should not, for example, be paraded on TV.

"Hmmmm. Two thoughts spring to mind here
1. You live in a very, very sheltered world; or
2. The video you have seen, which obviously shows a naked, beaten..."

The video was clearly designed to show him a humilaiated and broken man. If that was a Birtish serviceman on Iraqi TV I am fairly sure you would be jumping up and down (as would I).

"Let me get this straight; Saddam should not be shown undergoing a medical examination so that clearly beat up RAF pilots won't get paraded in GW1??"

Correct. In both cases the the public parading of POWs is illegal under the Geneva conventions and morally wrong.

"Or should medical checks not be shown?"

You cannot show POWs on TV. Showing them undergoing medical examination just compounds the problem.

Matthew

SH is not an ordinary POW he was the leader and primary cause of war - leaders (as always ) get different treatment from the run of the mill.

SH was one of the few that exercised choice in his behavour over the last 30 years.

Anyway the Geneva Convention gets updated and rewritten to suit the type of conflict that has just occured and is not a set of rules handed down at the beginning of time. So it is not a sacrosanct set of rules - it is only valid until it changes.

Derek

<< >>

With the initial onslaught of missiles on Baggers, Saddam Hussein would have had a good 20 minutes warning due to the howling of dogs all over the city, picking up their engine sounds well early, innit.

Source Rageh Omaar BBC Reporter on the spot at the time.

Fritz Von Welli'llbedoggonned

Graham Ricketts

Piss² People like our mate Rio Ferdinand tend to forget things they don't want to remember ? innit. Must be all that Dark Energy out there ?
$106,000 for a Baseball, now there's a thing !!

Check out what the Beeb is doing:

"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous." The Beeb insists that the email merely restates existing guidelines. "We wanted to remind journalists whose work is seen and heard internationally of the need to use neutral language," says a spokesman.

Found this on the daily dish. After all, it is said, Hitler, too, was elected in an even freer election.

When are you going to get some control over this outfit.

Judd