BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....

Subject: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:19 PM

I was listening to a very interesting show on WPFW this morning about the Geneva Convention and the treatment of Saddam. Fraces Boyle, who is a professor of international law at the University of Illinios made some very interesting observations.

First, it has been widely reprorted that the US Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld, has said that Sddam is being treated as if he were a P.O.W. and in accordance with interantional law.

Now, let me also interject something here which I also hadn't given much thought to and that is the repetition of showing clips of someone looking in Saddam's mouth with a flashlight and picking thru his hair looking for lice. The show had a reporter who is in Iraq, Mat ____________ ( I can get a last name later if anyone needs it) who has talked with Mnay Iraqis who, though are happy to have saddam captured, are incensed by this *spectical* being aired...

Which brings us to Article 13 of the Geneva Convention which states:

"Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and **public curiousity**"

Now Saddam is clearly a bad man. This is well understood. But does this give the US a right to humiliate him and turn film over that certainly has fallen into the "public curiuosity" wording of protection? And does it help the US *cause* to further infuriate the Arab world in the airing of such footage?

I think not and it sure does tarnish the "war on terrorism" by heightening, rather than lowering, the hatred of the US by the Arab world. I am ashamed of the Bush adminstration's behavior. It's borish, bullyish, arrogant and just plain unwise and here is just another example that they don't want to get along with anyone...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:38 PM

"Public curiosity" versus "news." Saddam Hussein. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:45 PM

And of course the US administration was so very mindful of that article when five US military were paraded on telly by the Saddam regime a few months ago. Do they really not know how badly it plays around the world when they reduce themselves to the level of a regime they fought a war to depose?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:57 PM

"Parading" and sticking a flashlight in someones mouth and picking thru his hair don't seem to share the same level of offense.

And besides, two wrongs don't make a right. We are either going to lead the world by example or not. I *not* then how can we reasonably ever expect countries to act better?

And keep in mind. Part of our war on terrorism should be shorten Osaom's recuting lines rather than the opposite.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:18 PM

Not sure if you're arguing with me, Bobert, but just to make it clear: I couldn't agree more with what you've just said.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:41 PM

Guantanamo Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:13 PM

Guantanamo Bay? You mean Johnny Ashcroft and Donnie Rumsfeld's *black hole* where you just go in, no charges, no trials, no nuhtin'? I'm sure, from reading yer other posts, pdc, that you can't believe that would be positive alternative...

Actually, I think the only thing that the US should do is just hang on to him, keep him safe and then, if and when there is a *real* government in a soveriegn Iraq, turn him over to that government but not until. It's not up to the US to try him or fir any puppet government to do so...

I will add one interesting thing to the discussion. If and when Saddam is tried and the gasing of the Kurds comes into play as charges, itshould be interesting on how Bush and Co. are gonna deal with the reopening of chapters of history that teh US would rather be kept under the carpet...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:20 PM

His capture and the shots immediately after it were hugely important news, and especially hugely important to Iraq. They were not being released in the spirit of exposing him to insults or to public curiosity except about whether it was in fact him. I don't see a violation of the intent of the Convention here.

But it is the kind of non-issue that is peculiarly liable to be made into a teacup-storm and already is being. I think (from what I have seen) that we are treating him decently.
The first thing we did was make sure he didn't need medical treatment.

I think far more embarrassing is the way the personal opinions of GW have been made into headlines, making him look bloodthirsty.

Maybe he really is, but it is embarrassing to show his fangs to the world -- far more so than showing Hussein's medical check. Pox on both their houses.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:36 PM

Yeah, Amos, but why the medical exam, which I'll admit reminded me of a veternarian examining a monkey, as "news". Why not wait a couple of hours until after shaving him to show pictures? What would be the damage?

I don't agree that this is "non issue" in that the, from the reports of a reporter in Iraq, it has angered Iraqis who weren't Saddam supporters.

I'd like to see the US quit pounding its chest if pounding its chest is going to incite Arabs to want to kill us. If we don't make a better attempt at respecting other folks culures in our War on Terrorism, we'll loose it...

"You don't ever count your money when you're sittin' at the table
they'll be time for countin', when the dealin's done..."

Lotta wisdom in these line's....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:17 PM

If that kind of thing was to happen to Bush at the hands of foreign troops, I am certain that Americans who loathe the man's guts would be infuriated, and would see it as a personal and national insult.

And before anyone jumps in saying "How dare you say Bush and Saddam are just the same", I didn't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:33 PM

Bobert I think you are seeing this in conquering terms - that Saddam is "their" man. The US position is that he is not anyone's   legitimate representative, that he was an oppressor. I say this not to justify breaches of the Convention, if any, but to say that first you have to see Americans as conquerors of Arabs and/or Iraqis before you can accept that treating him with less than full respect is an insult to the Arab or Iraqi communities. Maybe you do see it that way (conquering) but the distinction is relevant to what you say is the result. -wordy guest

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:35 PM

I agree at least that it could have been handled with more discretion. But remember that we were giving him a medical check, for cry-i. If Bush had been captured by Sadaam's forces, he would have been being drawn and quartered by that time, or having his orifices explored with electric light cable running 110 V AC.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:14 PM

Thanks, GUEST. Food for thought. I gotta let that one simmer in the old brain-erator fir a while...

Just a sidebar, the Washington Post reporst in it's "Names and Faces" feature in the "Style" section today that "Herobuilders.com" has allready come up witha captured Saddam doll. $29.95 and just in time for Christmas in case anyone is looking for a gifg for someone who has everything... If it comes with the beard and bewildered look on his face then I rest my case...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: DougR
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:18 PM

Not surprising to anyone I'm sure, but I think it was a perfectly legitimate to use those photos. How on earth any of you can be concerned about the feelings of such a butcher is beyond me. Why not ask those who suffered at the hands of Saddam what they think? Who gives a damn what the Baathist think? They are probably the only Iraqis that are going to be offended. I hope to hell he did feel humiliated.

Those pictures showed the Iraqis that Saddam is just a human like anyone else. Nothing "special" about him at all. He lived like a rat and the pictures show him just as he was.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:20 PM

"If Bush had been captured by Sadaam's forces, he would have been being drawn and quartered by that time, or having his orifices explored with electric light cable running 110 V AC."

I think it is far more likely that he'd have been treated like royalty, coupled with a demand that the Americans withdrew their forces and grounded their aircraft. Of course if they didn't do that, Plan B might have come into force, as outlined by Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:24 PM

carefull Bobert, you might overload your already overburdened brain cell.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 07:30 PM

That of course, way my ugly brother, snide guest. He ain't got any in over two years. -wordy guest

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 08:24 PM

Ahhhh, GUEST bros.... You almost had me worried there fir a second but after consulting the Wes Ginny Slide Rule we figgure that I got enough brain cells to carry me well into '04...

Yo, Dougie. I was worried about ya' an' was gonna give you another half an hour before fillin' in fir ya. Yep I woulda writin' the same thing... Not too sure about the "lived like a rat" part but, hey, it's vintage Doug....

But Doug, how would you feel if say, Bill Clinton, who you hate, had been taken prisoner by Saddam's guys and they were showing picture 24/7 of Iraqi's shovin' a flash light in his mouth and lookin' thru his hair fir bugs. Think about it before answerin'..,

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:21 AM

Kevin,

Grounds please for thinking, "...it is far more likely that he'd have been treated like royalty, coupled with a demand that the Americans withdrew their forces and grounded their aircraft."

If memory serves me correctly, Saddam's last high profile guests from the West, were kidnapped from Kuwait at the start of Desert Storm, used as human shields and shown on TV throughout the world. Remember the shots of Saddam and that obviously terrified little boy (4 years old at the time I think).

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:48 AM

I agree with Amos and Doug that there was nothing inappropriate about this. This is not some soldier of the line captured while following the orders of his superior officers; it's Saddam himself, the self-declared great hero of the Islamic world and the Iraqi people. By any reasonable measure, he is a vicious international criminal who should be held accountable for his deeds. Moreover, he represents an inspiration and rallying point for many of the suicide bombers and others who continue to bring death and misery to their country, in the hope of restoring his regime to power and continuing to oppress the Iraqi people and others. It was vitally important to show the world that he had been captured, and how he was captured, and demonstrate unambiguously that he will never again be in a position to hold power.

There's plenty of room for disagreement about many of the decisions the American and British governments have made along the way. While I think that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do, I understand and respect those who feel differently about it. But this is really a trivial issue, and not worth getting worked up about.

I'm sure Saddam didn't dig his own hole, but he chose to crawl into it and lie down with all the other vermin. The Americans didn't humiliate him; he humiliated himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 09:13 AM

Do they really not know how badly it plays around the world when they reduce themselves to the level of a regime they fought a war to depose?

Its not that they don't know- they simply don't give a shit. International law is for "others"- not the Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave.

God Help America-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 09:22 AM

Wrong Doug. What those pictures showed, as though we needed reminding, is that some Americans sometimes don't know how to behave, just like those morons who raised the US flag in Baghdad (their colleagues quickly hauled it down again). I repeat, it is only a few months since the US administration whinged and whined about five US airmen being put on TV. No humiliating medical examination - they were just put on TV. Those who can't see the need to respect values we expect others to respect are the worst kind of bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:00 AM

Fionn: I certainly respect your right to be wrong.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:16 AM

Putting out those shots of teh meducal examination - lice hunt and all - was a mistake. Like when Bush called the war a "Crusade". No point in defending it, so why defend it?

Not the worst mistake in the world, but one that will probably have its effects. If it results in one extra person being killed, or one captive soldier being treated worse, will it have been worth it? And for what?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:43 AM

McGrath: Oh thou predicter of gloom and doom. You, too, have every right to be wrong. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:52 AM

Not to mention that they shaved him - isn't that a horrible insult to a moslem?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: BanjoRay
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 12:02 PM

If even Saddam Hussein the arch-villain is being treated according to the Geneva Convention (more or less - give or take the odd TV pictures) what are those other, probably less guilty, guys doing in Guantanamo Bay?
Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 12:10 PM

Guest Whistle Stop has got this right.

Why was live footage of him shown as soon as possible after his capture was confirmed in public? For the following reasons

1. To show him in his "as captured" state - Even if he had six doubles it would have taken quite a bit of effort to ensure that all looked exactly alike at any given time over the past few months, and I believe they've had more important things to think about. So those, still at large, who have been helping him (the real Saddam) would immediately recognise him. Kills any that's not him stories.

2. The lice/DNA swab thing, that backed up what the coalition were saying about establishing who he was by DNA - the punting world saw the swabs being taken. Kills any that's not him stories.

3. Disillusionment:
- This was the "hero" who was often heard to boast that he favoured death before dishonour;
- This was the prat who encouraged thousands to sacrifice themselves in his defence;
- This was the prat who paid poor Palestinian families to provide a son or a daughter to take on the role of a suicide bomber, not for glory, not for any cause, but for cash.

Yet when it comes to himself, Saddam the mighty, self-styled leader of the Pan-Arab world, saviour and protector of the sacred Palestinian Cause, scourge of Israel and baiter of the Great Satan (USA). What does HE do, what great pronouncement comes from his lips before he hurls himself, sword drawn, at his reviled and hated enemies. I'll tell you what he did, crawled out of the ground with his hands above his head saying, "I am Saddam Hussein, I want to negotiate."

Those pictures registered, and the pictures I am talking about are the idealistic ones burned into the minds of all those who looked up to this man for whatever reason, and the reality they saw, and have since seen, in the newspapers and on the television since his capture. As one Arabic commentator said, it won't matter what they say in public, in private and in their heart of hearts they now know this man and his regime for what it actually was.

Hopefully, some Palestinian kids looking at all this will make the connection - their current leader is not that much better himself.

As Whistle stop said - "The Americans didn't humiliate him; he humiliated himself."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 12:42 PM

"predicter of gloom and doom", Doug? I think you'd have to be pretty optimistic to think that the kind of consequences I touched on aren't going to result.

I would imagine that, if they were thinking in terms of consequences, the people who decided to send out those pictures might have been balancing these against the kind of things Teribus listed in his last post.

I don't go along with his analysis there, because I think that the objects could have been achieved in a different way, and that the damage done was more severe than he thinks, but I think the principle of balancing good and bad predicted consequences of an action is the right way to go about it.

I also have a worry that other factors might have been involved, such as PR considerations back home, and I think that would have been totally unacceptable morally, when balanced against risk to human life.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 12:55 PM

This thread makes me furious and I'm glad I didn't post yesterday. It makes me furious for it is such a nonevent blown up completely out of proportion. A passing mention and a short discussion in another thread (and it has been mentioned) was more than enough. All this here is in the colourful language of my home region a mosquito fart.

An extra thread about Saddam and the Geneva convention. My god, how many times could we have threads about Saddam Hussein and human rights with a good (or better: bad) reason but we hadn't. And now a nonevent gets an extra thread.

Sorry, but that is the left wing counterpart to the yellow press reports about royalty: A dog of the Queen of ... has broken its leg. Mayn dogs get their legs broken each day and why should we know about it or even discuss it just because it was a queen's dog. In Germany, a prince (we don't have them any more since 1918 officially, but they and the yellow press do as if) has been photographed while taking a piss at a local fair at a place which wasn't meant for pissing. The picture was published and he sued for his human rights violated and the press said it was freedom of reporting. And because he was a prince it was all over the yellow press for months.

My God, one single man has been filmed during a not very intimate medical test. Each day, in Iraq alone, about 5 people are killed and other 10 maimed and this not particular nice man is the main theme for a long thread. Lowest yellow press style.

"Guantanamo Bay" pdc has posted above. Difficult to know what was meant, but I made sense of it this way and I applaud pdc: Each day at Guantanamo Bay hundreds (or is thousands?) of prisoners are treated worse (perhaps not in a physical sense, but in another) than this high rank prisoner in Iraq. They suffer, for instance, from not knowing when and if they will have a trial, they cannot appeal now and they mostly don't have a lawyer. Even the captors know that not all of them are guilty. That could be a case for an international court of human rights, but not this mosquito fart of Saddam being filmed.

I don't mind you saying it was wrong (though I have another opinion here, but perhaps you are right and it was), but the amount of outrage, complaints and posts here stands in no healthy relation to that minor violation (if it was one).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: PeteBoom
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 01:13 PM

I don't have a problem with making the film of the swabbing and oral exam - I'm not sure if showing the whole thing was correct and proper. Shoot it for documentation of the process - and make sure that part of the process is checking for cyanide capsules, etc.,

One wants to make sure that your star prisoner lives long enough to receive a fair trial so he can be executed. The Brits, Yanks and Soviets learned the hard way about senior military and political prisoners who had no intention of cooperating to that extent with the German collapse in 1945.

There are plenty of ways to break the "will to combat" of pro-Saddam resistance fighters. Showing their hero as a prisoner is certainly one of them. One must not damage ones own dignity when doing so, however.

Regards -

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 01:24 PM

I think I agree with Wolfgang, the incident has been totally over-played, but those who must, had to have something to find fault and complain about.

By the bye, Kevin, since his capture, how many, "That's not him", rumours and stories have been circulated? Compare that to the immediate aftermath of his sons demise.

It was done, and knowingly done, for good effect and reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 01:41 PM

The issue over Saddam ISN'T a matter of people being worried about an offence against the personal rights of this poor lamb, it's about what feels like a direct and gratuitous challenge to the standards that all our Governments have pledged to uphold, by one of those Governments.

But agreed, it's nothing compared to the breaches of the Geneva Convention and to internationally agreed standards represented by what is happening in Guantanamo Bay. (Here's what one of the leading English Judges recently had to say about that, as reported in the right-wing newspaper The Daily Telegraph "Monstrous US justice" attacked by law lord.)

And Teribus - what stopped the "That's not him", rumours and stories was that they had the man alive, rather than a shot-up dead body. The fact that the film showing him was the one made during that meducal examination, rather than after it, was neither here nore there for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 01:41 PM

Well, beyond the circus that the film has become there is a part of this story that I have not heard addressed by those who are either supportive of the 24/7 showing ot reshowing of the film or those who think it is a non event. Einstein said that a problem cannot be solved with the same consciencuosness from which it was created. With that in mind, if the Bush administartion is serious about winning the "war aginst terrorism" it is going to have to figure out ways to slow down the recruitment drives by the other side. The way to do this is to educate yourselves on other folks cultures and try see the way teh US looks to them. This is paramount if this war is to succeed.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to not have any interset in taking these steps. Case in point. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the opponents asked repeatedly for Bush to outline a post invasion plan for Iraq. They were sandbagged bu Bush and Co, because it is apparent that Bush and Co. didn't have a plan. Why? Because they didn't make any effort to understand Iraq from the eyes of the Iraqis. Remember the horror during the first few days of the invasion when we discovered that the Iraqi'a were fighting back and not running into the streets cheering the invaders? That's what I mean...

So, yeah, I'll agree that the filming. though used as a big PR deal for Bush, wasn't a major mis-step but when taken with the multitude of other mis-steps, is one that did not make the world, or our soldiers in Iraq, any safer. I would just like to see Bush stop campaigning and using PR ploys at the expense of the safety of people's lives and get down to fighting an *intellegent* war on terrorism... This isn't about *him*!!!!....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 04:25 PM

This is slightly off-topic, and maybe there's a more appropriate thread but I've not been reading them all....

Channel 4 news in the UK tonight ran a lengthy item from a reporter following US troops operating in the Sunni triangle. The item was not, in my view, anti-US, and the point was clearly made that the lives of US troops were obviously at risk. But the behaviour, body-language, and actual language of those troops was recklessly brutal and confrontational even in communities they might have hoped to win over. C4's Baghdad correspondent Lindsey Hilsum made the point that US soldiers were applying Israeli tactics, notwithstanding that Israeli tactics make no provision for winning hearts and minds - they've given up on that,long since - whereas that is still an objective for the US.

A retired Brit officer, Maj Gen Cordingley, who was involved in the earlier Gulf war, noted that American troops had been in action for more than nine months, whereas the Brits had learned (from operations in Belfast and Derry in particular) to rotate troops regularly.

The overall impression was of an operation hopelessly mismatched to its objectives. Two or three times people said the military were at last learning the balue of a more intelligent approach, but it seemed to me that it was way too late. The best resourced and equipped army on earth has dug itself into a hole, and is still digging.

Those in this thread who think Saddam has been the inspiration for continuing insurrection perhaps should think again. My guess is that his capture will affect things not one iota, because the US military is making new enemies every day, out of sheer stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 04:49 PM

Fionn, I agree. I think that American treatment of prisoners of war regardless of the immensity of their crimes is an important factor in how the rest of the world views us. I have no problem with
Hussein being presented as a monster but how we do it on TV
sends a message as to the kind of people we are. The lice picking and the exam didn't have to be televised but I believe there is
a message that needed to be extracted from this. The treatment of
tyrants, dictators and the likes of Hussein can be expected to
be dehumanized by the US and thereby serve as a threat to them that this is what will happen to you if you cross the US.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that suddenly America appears not as a savior but an oppressor. The better model would be for the US to support a dignified trial as the one at Nurenburg
which gave an appropriate solemnity and seriousness to the trial.
Ragging dictators and monsters with humiliating and undignified treatment only serves those who would find fault with our country.
I don't recall Eichman or Noriega being handled this way.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 08:08 PM

Frank and Fionn:

Both thoughtfull posts. It seems to me that Bush is playing to his political base and unfotunately they represent the NASCAR?Budweiser folks that I've mentioned in other posts. The problem with this is three fold:

1. There is a finite number of these folks and most, id not all, will vote for Bush no matter what. That is, if they vote at all and...

2. In politicizing the war, especially with the "Bring it on" stuff, Bush is endangering our service people and...

3. Intentional or not, Bush's inflamatory behavior is helping bin Laden more than we can possibly know.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 05:35 AM

Good post Fionn, I agree with your take on things all but for the part on the effect of Saddam's capture. This I believe will have a two-fold effect:

1. Loss of finance, his inner circle, if they are holding any cash may be tempted to do a runner and live happily ever after, knowing that their ex-employer is not going to be in a position to come after them.

2. It gives next years planned elections the reality of being held without the spectre of a Ba'athist revival hanging over the future of Iraq.

I have always said that the US military have never grasped the complexities of pursuing an effective "hearts and minds" policy. Principle reason for that being that it cannot be applied to anything perceived as a military situation. For "hearts and minds" to work you have to have some form of civilian administration that is recognised by the local population at large, and you must be seen to be acting under their orders to assist them in improving the lot of the civil population in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: ard mhacha
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 12:25 PM

Fionn, I also seen Channel 4 News last night, I looked on in amazement, how did the Moslem people in the UK feel as they watched the brutality of the US forces on the Iraqis.
This was a re-run of what I witnessed here in the north of Ireland, surely they are not out to win over the Iraqi people with this kind of treatment.

Kicking doors in, terrifing women and children as they took a husband out trussed up like a turkey with a bag over his head, and we had the loud-mouthed cigar smoking US Officer brow-beating the Iraqi policeman.

Irrespective of Sadamms capture, peace will continue to be a long way off as the action of the US troops will leave behind a legacy of hatred which will remain in the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Nerd
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 03:15 PM

Anyone who thinks the "that's not him" stories

1) make any difference to Bush and
2) can be stopped by showing Saddam's dental exam on TV

hasn't done that much thinking. We live in an age where filmmakers can convince people that dinosaurs are running around an island, or that Elijah Wood is half as tall as Ian McKellan. Some bad footage of Hussein is no proof that it's him. Nor is a putative DNA test that no member of the general public can ever confirm has actually taken place, even if the possibly faked footage shows a cheek-swab being done.

I hasten to say that I DO believe it's him, but if people want to believe it isn't then this wanton disregard of the Geneva Convention will not convince them otherwise. In the meantime it is another (small, as Wolfgang would point out) addition to the numerous violations of law perpetrated by the American government.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 05:55 PM

Mirzy - re shaving him & isn't that a horrible insult to a moslem?

saddam led a secular state & was not regarded as much of a Muslim by most Muslims. and he normally shaved, the beard was part of his new disguise. shaving him would have been done so that people could recognise him by seeing him as they actually knew him.

many muslims in nearby countries regarded saddam as being an infidel & a maniac.

he claimed religion as part of building up his myth. while he had a family tree redrawn to be descended from Mohammed, he was brought up without knowing who his father was, and this was widely known in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:13 PM

"It gives next year's planned elections the reality of being held without the spectre of a Ba'athist revival hanging over the future of Iraq.

Strictly speaking not so - a Ba'athist revival could actually be helped by the removal of Saddam, in the same way that once Stalin's death made it possible for Communists to think in term of a de-Stalinised Communist Party.

With Saddam out of the picture the prospect for building a popularly supported "Liberation Front" must be greatly improved. If the occupation regime can act intelligently, and can enable this opposition to use the political process as its route to power, that could provide a way out.

However that would depend on being willing to accept whatever system the Iraqis wish to have, and not just one that falls in line with what Bush and Co would like to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:38 PM

Well, danged, T-Bird! We are in complete agreement that the US military and Bush's policies weren't thought out into solveing post invasion problems...

All the more reason for a Department of Peace which could step in with the types of expertise needed to deal with a multitude of non military post conflict issues. Halliburton apparently is not such...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 03:23 PM

Reported on BBC TV today,Another blunder by the US troops , three Iraqi policemen shot and killed and two others wounded,the police had been manning a checkpoint 55 miles south of Kirkuk, when they came under fire. Can anyone be in the least surprised, this will continue until the US does the wise thing and get out. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 08:27 PM

Works fine with me, Ard Mhacha. Hey, all the reasons, both pre and post-invasion, have melted way! So why is the US/UK tag team still there? Saddam is gone! No WMD! Nn nukes! No nutyhin! Get out. It is Iraq. Not a danged puupy dog to be rescued off the side of the road!

Get the hak out!

Oh? THe US/UK doesn't want to? Why? Whats' the latest reason for occupying Iraq? Unlsee it's, ahhh, oil? Hmmmmm? Do you think Bush, an oilman would do that? Nah... Probably just a coincident...

And it was just a coincident that John Kennedy just happened to get in the way opf a stray bullet fired from a sportsman out on a hunt.

Hey, give me a break..........

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 09:14 PM

I think the rationale is to establish a working democracy and enough local police to prevent chaos from throwing the nation back into murderous tribalism. The Large Picture is that if Iraq can successfully be converted from an authoritarian dictatorial regime to a workable democracyin spite of its tribal and religous subcultures, then there is hope for the whole of the middle East to grow more humane. Great concept, but I have to see it happen.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 09:49 PM

Democracy? We ain't got one here so why would we expect Iraq to come up with one, Amos?... Yeah, I'm with you on the "waitin' to see it happen" part... Gonna be a long wait...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 10:07 PM

I didn't say it was true, obert -- just that it was the Line. :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 04:45 PM

Fionn---your first posting kind of set my teeth on edge. Does the wording mean that you too have joined the gullible multitudes which have been belatedly convinced by lying propaganda that the war wasn't about WMD after all, but really to get rid of Saddam for the sake of the poor downtrodden Iraqis? I t is good that he is [perhaps---] gone, but never forget the trumpeted justification---weapons of mass destruction. And just a wee comment on the stuff about his "humiliation". Yes---he was a baddie, and caused some misery, and was in consequence deserving of being caught and dealt with at least. But I wonder why all the pictures of g.i. squaddies kneeling or standing on the heads of Iraqi p.o.w.s haven't had a comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Dec 03 - 04:54 PM

Mebbe I misunderstand, but...
Don't the Geneva Conventions regulate conduct of a war? What war? Who did we declare ware on?

Seems to me that Geneva Convention references are irrelevant.