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

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 02:02 PM

Toronto Star

here's the link

Subject: Bush: Lies, Lies, Lies
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 01:54 PM

The Toronto Star has now found one of Bush's advisors who has told them that removing Hussein was a priority for bush 7 months before 9/11.

Is there anyone on this list that doesn't think that Bush took advantage of a horrific event to further his own agenda?


I'm honestly listenning, this is not just rhetorical.


bo

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 01:30 PM

"...after a war was finished" - of course that isn't a simple thing either. So far as I know there has never been a formal surrender in Iraq, unlike in 1945.

I suppose one thing they could organise, now that Saddam is captured, would be get him to sign a surrender to tidy things up. Maybe this POW status thing has something to do with getting that organised.

But of course, in the old days they had countries actually declaring war, even before starting hostilities, and that doesn't seem to have happened this time either.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Jan 04 - 12:58 PM

Ebbie,

in Germany, at least all those I found described in some detail (some reports about camps in France were not detailed). By the way, all reports about bad treatment in (Western Allies) camps come from very shortly after the war (summer to fall '45).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 02:24 PM

Wolfgang, in what location were these supposed prisoners? In Europe or in America? A great many POWs were brought to America during the war, and lodged all over the country, I imagine.

I remember them from when I was a child in Oregon- German POWs worked in commercial bean picking operations there. And in the '70s, a man I dated for a few years had been a German POW held first in Georgia and then in Alabama, working in orchards. He said that until FDR died, they had wonderful food and he gained 30 pounds. After Truman took over, their diet became quite bland and routine. In 1956 he emigrated to this country from Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 02:14 PM

i think you've missed my point there mcg. but cest la vie. i spent ten years working with three UN conventions (refugees, ICCPR and CAT)and they are written in many shades of grey.

fred

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 12:35 PM

The treatment of German prisoners by (Western) Allied Forces seems to be only of interest for right wing nuts, but one bit of information (if I trust a source on this detail I otherwise wouldn't trust) could be of interest for those wanting to do a search:

I have found the information that Eisenhower has changed after the war was finished the status of German prisoners from 'prisoner of war' to DEF-Status (Disarmed Enemy Forces) in order to avoid some complications with the Red Cross etc.

The idea at that time perhaps was that after a war was finished there was no need for a prisoner of war status.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 12:33 PM

Being a Prisoner of War would not rule out passing a captive over to a properly constituted international tribunal. What would rule that out would be, if the US Government did not wish this to be done. Which appears to be the case.

The main charges which such a tribunal would be dealing with would be those involving the use of chemical weapons in the aggression against Iran, and indeed, that whole war. Even if the current US Government was not apparently uncomfortable with the whole notion of international tribunals, that is not an aspect of Saddam's behaviour which it would want given too much attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 11:13 AM

Wolfgang, do you happen to know what formal status was accorded to the German fascists tried at Nuremburg for war crimes? (Peter K)

Difficult, very difficult. For a very good reason (Geneva Convention only came after WWII) the official status of prisoners in WWII did vary more than today. For instance, one of the crimes of some of the Nuremberg defendants was that Germany explicitely for some prisoners (for instace, political commisars of the Red Army) denied the status of war prisoner and had them shot immediately. Some sources written long after 1945 use the words 'prisoner of war' but that may only be with hindsight.

For some Nuremberg defendants (Jodl, Keitel,..) there are questionnaires filled out by them available calling them explicitely prisoners of war. But then these two were generals. I have not found (except as a claim in sources like the one below) if any German civilian accused in Nuremberg was officially declared prisoner of war.

What I have found (in German) is this (I wouldn't trust such a source for several reasons, but there it is):
(my summary) The Americans have severely mistreated the prisoners in 1945, the conditions of the cells were at least as bad as in Guantanamo, their rights have been violated and their conditions of living have been made deliberately bad. Some have been executed in a way ensuring extreme long pain. There is an unbroken chain of Americans violating rights of war prisoners from 1945 to today. (end of summary)

The name of the site has 'Donaufront' in it and whenever we see the word 'front' in part of a name we suspect right radicals or Neonazis with good reasons. Neonazis are over here among those most radically opposing present and former American (and Israel) politics.

There you are.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 07:57 AM

Re "He could have been classified as a war criminal, rather than a prisoner of war."

as I understand it, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and their protocols, set forth the "laws of war" which oblige any country which is a signatory to the Conventions to put to trial those suspected of grave human rights breaches such as genocide (war criminals). The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary that accompanies these Conventions states that the suspected war criminal can be handed over to an international criminal tribunal.

If Saddam were to be treated as a suspected war criminal, he would be taken out of the control of the US government and put through an internationally accepted legal procedure. He would be tried in an international court, similar to those courts set up by the UN for Bosnian and Rwandan war criminals.

AI and Human Rights Watch called for the speedy ratification of a treaty which would allow the International Criminal Court to begin operations. To date, 83 countries have signed the court's treaty and four have ratified it. The United States has objected to the treaty, however, and vowed not to support it unless changes are made which would allow it to block any prosecutions of Americans accused of war crimes. Until the treaty is ratified, the UN will continue to set up individual, specific war tribunals for particular wars, crimes and countries, such as the ones it set up in the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The US is twitchy about allowing Saddam or anyone to be classified as a war criminal. Technically, by showing pictures of him having his dental examination internationally, The US itself violated the stipulation in Article 13 of the third convention that POWs must be protected against "insults and public curiosity". Political leaders of governments who do so risk being tried as war criminals themselves at the International Criminal Court.

The third convention is the "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949." This Convention details obligations for the physical care of POWs—requiring, in essence, that POWs receive food, clothing, housing, sanitation, medical care, and so on, to the same standard as the armed forces of the country that is holding them. It also states that POWs are exempt from forced labor.

George Bush's recent order creating the US' own separate military tribunals for the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay directly contradicts provisions of Convention (III). It reserves final judgment on the verdict for the American president. It denies the defendants the right to an appeal. It prevents them from choosing their own lawyers. And it allows the death penalty to be imposed without a unanimous jury. All these provisions violate the 1949 conventions.

Thus, by classifying Saddam as a POW rather than a war criminal, George Bush has prevented his trial in an international tribunal, and has given him legal protection that has been denied the people held without charge in Guantanamo Bay.
If the people in Guantanamo Bay were given the same classification as Saddam, (that of POW) they would have the continuing right to be visited by outsiders, including agents of the International Red Cross and the representatives of a neutral country designated to act as a "Protecting Power." This means that several independant parties would be appointed to certify that the prisoners are properly treated. They would not be able to be interrogated, even politely, except to the extent of being obliged to give their name and rank. And of course, most critically, POWs must be allowed to go home when the conflict in which they are captured ends.

A war criminal may or may not be designated a POW. The Geneva convention only affords protection to convicted war criminals if they are also designated as POWs.

freda

Subject: We are all prisoners of wars
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 06:49 AM

We are all prisoners of war in one way or another.
Some of is are enablers of power drunk corporate maniacs.
Some of us accept the normilization propoganda to accept more war.
Many of us have become willing participants in a fascist regieme.
A very small minority have not.

In "The Banality of Evil," Edward S. Herman wrote, "Doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on 'normalization'... There is usually a division of labor in doing and rationalizing the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals... others working on improving technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive Napalm, bomb fragments that penetrate flesh in hard-to-trace patterns). It is the function of the experts, and the mainstream media, to normalize the unthinkable for the general public."

Current "normalizing" is expressed succinctly by Kettle: "As 2003 draws to its close, it is surely al-Qaeda, rather than the repercussions of Iraq, that casts a darker shadow over Britain's future." How does he know this? The "mass of intelligence flowing across the Prime Minister's desk," of course! He calls this "cold-eyed realism," omitting to mention that the only credible intelligence "flowing across the Prime Minister's desk" was the common sense that an Anglo-American attack on Iraq would increase the threat from al-Qaeda.

What the normalizers don't want you to know is the nature and scale of the "coalition" crime in Iraq - which Kettle calls a "misjudgment" - and the true source of the worldwide threat. Outside the work of a few outstanding journalists prepared to go beyond the official compounds in Iraq, the extent of the human carnage and material devastation is barely acknowledged. For example, the effect of uranium weapons used by American and British forces is suppressed. Iraqi and foreign doctors report that radiation illnesses are common throughout Iraq, and troops have been warned not to approach contaminated sites. Readings taken from destroyed Iraqi tanks in British-controlled Basra are so high that a British army survey team wore white, full-body radiation suits, face masks and gloves. With nothing to warn them, Iraqi children play on and around the tanks.

Of the 10,000 Americans evacuated sick from Iraq, many have "mystery illnesses" not unlike those suffered by veterans of the first Gulf war. By mid-April last year, the US air force had deployed more than 19,000 guided weapons and 311,000 rounds of uranium A10 shells. According to a November 2003 study by the Uranium Medical Research Center, witnesses living next to Baghdad airport reported a huge death toll following one morning's attack from aerial bursts of thermobaric and fuel air bombs. Since then, a vast area has been "landscaped" by US earth movers, and fenced. Jo Wilding, a British human rights observer in Baghdad, has documented a catalogue of miscarriages, hair loss, and horrific eye, skin and respiratory problems among people living near the area. Yet the US and Britain steadfastly refuse to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct systematic monitoring tests for uranium contamination in Iraq. The Ministry of Defense, which has admitted that British tanks fired depleted uranium in and around Basra, says that British troops "will have access to biological monitoring." Iraqis have no such access and receive no specialist medical help.

According to the non-governmental organization Medact, between 21,700 and 55,000 Iraqis died between 20 March and 20 October last year. This includes up to 9,600 civilians. Deaths and injury of young children from unexploded cluster bombs are put at 1,000 a month. These are conservative estimates; the ripples of trauma throughout the society cannot be imagined. Neither the US nor Britain counts its Iraqi victims, whose epic suffering is "not relevant," according to a US State Department official - just as the slaughter of more than 200,000 Iraqis during and immediately after the 1991 Gulf war, calculated in a Medical Education Trust study, was "not relevant" and not news.


Amnesty USA reports that the Bush administration is harboring thousands of foreign torturers, including several mass murderers. By a simple mathematical comparison of American and al-Qaeda terror, the latter is a lethal flea. In the past 50 years, the US has supported and trained state terrorists in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The toll of their victims is in the millions. Again, the documentation is in Amnesty's files. The dictator Suharto's seizure of power in Indonesia was responsible for "one of the greatest mass murders of the 20th century," according to the CIA. The US supplied arms, logistics, intelligence and assassination lists. Britain supplied warships and black propaganda to cover the trail of blood. Scholars now put Suharto's victims in 1965-66 at almost a million; in East Timor, he oversaw the death of one-third of the population: 200,000 men, women and children.

Today, the mass murderer lives in sumptuous retirement in Jakarta, his billions safe in foreign banks. Unlike Saddam Hussein, an amateur by comparison, there will be no show trial for Suharto, who remained obediently within the US terror network. (One of Suharto's most outspoken protectors and apologists in the State Department during the 1980s was Paul Wolfowitz, the current "brains" behind Bush's aggression.)

In the sublime days before 11 September 2001, when the powerful were routinely attacking and terrorizing the weak, and those dying were black or brown-skinned non-people living in faraway places such as Zaire and Guatemala, there was no terrorism. When the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on 9/11, there was terrorism.

This is not to say the threat from al-Qaeda and other fanatical groups is not real; what the normalizers don't want you to know is that the most pervasive danger is posed by "our" governments, whose subordinates in journalism and scholarship cast always as benign: capable of misjudgment and blunder, never of high crime. Fueled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and rampant corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian Anatol Lieven calls "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism," inspired by fear of lethal threats. Bush's America, he warns, "has become a menace to itself and to mankind."

The father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, understood this. "Modern fascism," he said, "should be properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state, military and corporate power."

Bush, Blair and the normalizers now speak, almost with relish, of opening mass graves in Iraq. What they do not want you to know is that the largest mass graves are the result of a popular uprising that followed the 1991 Gulf war, in direct response to a call by President George Bush Sr. to "take matters into your own hands and force Saddam to step aside." So successful were the rebels initially that within days Saddam's rule had collapsed across the south. A new start for the people of Iraq seemed close at hand.

Then Washington, the tyrant's old paramour who had supplied him with $5bn worth of conventional arms, chemical and biological weapons and industrial technology, intervened just in time. The rebels suddenly found themselves confronted with the United States helping Saddam against them. US forces prevented them from reaching Iraqi arms depots. They denied them shelter, and gave Saddam's Republican Guard safe passage through US lines in order to attack the rebels. US helicopters circled overhead, observing, taking photographs, while Saddam's forces crushed the uprising. In the north, the same happened to the Kurdish insurrection. "The Americans did everything for Saddam," said the writer on the Middle East Said Aburish, "except join the fight on his side." Bush Sr. did not want a divided Iraq, certainly not a democratic Iraq. The New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman, a guard dog of US foreign policy, was more to the point. What Washington wanted was a successful coup by an "iron-fisted junta": Saddam without Saddam.



Bush and Blair have undermined the very international law upon which real disarmament is based. On 8 December, the UN General Assembly voted on a range of resolutions on disarmament. The United States opposed all the most important ones, including those dealing with nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has contingency plans, spelt out in the Pentagon's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, Syria, Iran and China. Following suit, the UK Defense Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, announced that for the first time, Britain would attack non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons "if necessary."

This is as it was 50 years ago when, according to declassified files, the British government collaborated with American plans to wage "preventive" atomic war against the Soviet Union. No public discussion was permitted; the unthinkable was normalized. Today, history is our warning that, once again, the true threat is close to home.

http://www.johnpilger.com

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 06:14 AM

"He could have been classified as a war criminal, rather than a prisoner of war."

Those are completely different issues. That's like saying that someone "could have been classified as a war criminal, rather than a soldier".

A prisoner of war can be charged with war crimes, and if found guilty, that means they are correctly referred to as war criminals. But that is in addition to being a prisoner of war, not instead of.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 02:28 AM

"Saddam Hussein The Politics of Revenge" by Said K Aburish; paperback version published 2001 in UK by Clays Ltd.

This biography of Saddam details the Iraqi govts dealings with western powers. From page 136 it describes negotiations between the iraqi government and the US government in which the US "knowingly helped Iraq obtain the technology to build its first chemical warfare plant. This took place after the Iraqis had made an open request to buy such a plant from the USSR, a request which the Russians turned down".

The book goes into a lot of detail of this, giving information about negotiations with the Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York in late 1974, who provided the iraqis with the required blueprints and specifications. At this point the state dept objected. page 139 details how the iraqis then built the plant in sections from italy, west germany and east germany. the author, a former member of the iraqi govt living in exile in london, quotes a huge number of sources in this and other examples of western complicity in Saddams regime's pursuit of weapons of war. it goes on and on...

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 12 Jan 04 - 12:22 AM

DougR: I commend the soldiers for not being trigger happy. They may have won their supreme commander the next election.

I think its a wierd political war because a great deal of moral, decent American soldiers are capturing an oil producing dictatorship at the command of a Presidential oil baron and his Vice President, an oil baron. Dubya succeeds where his father, an Enron executive, failed. Now this oil rich state has gasoline shortages -- even its production to the United states is down from 70,000 barrels a day to 50,000 barrels (according to some estimates).

Soldiers & civilians die, America gives the UN and its own reputation a black eye, but by God & Country somebody is making a lot of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 11:32 PM

Peter K.: What a ridiculous assumption! No more comment.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 11:15 PM

It would also implicate the US in Saddam's *crimes* against humanity. Hmmmm? Like who was it that was president during those times? Oh, silly me, it was Dubya's daddy?!?!?!?!?..........

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 10:08 PM

He could have been classified as a war criminal, rather than a prisoner of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 06:45 PM

Hmmm ! - I think "Shot whilst attempting to escape" has worn a little thin. Still they hung Jodel and Keitel in 1946. (SP if neccessary)

The problem is that there are idiots who will not acept, possibly be cause it does not fit thier prejudices, that the Iraqui people are capable of producing a trial. - Within the cultural framework.

Tho I must admit that I would like to see a proper documented trial, after all it would not just embarrase the Republican Party in the US of A. It might also give some documented evidence into how much the "Peace at anybody elses cost / Stop the War etc" movement encouraged him. I think we should learn just how many dead and tortured were as a result of this.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 05:02 PM

So there are some people in the US military who are not trigger-happy, Doug? Any other army, and I suppose you'd take it for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jan 04 - 04:57 PM

Sigurd: Saddam "owes his life" to the fact that he surrendered to a soldier who was not trigger happy.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM

The Bush folks have figured out that the POW tag is the only way that Amercan voters are not going to see Saddam executed by firing squad just before the '04 election. Bush needs a live Saddam at least until then. After the election, Bush will turn Saddam over to *whomever* and then he will be shot, 'er beheaded, 'er...

None of this has anything to do with anything other than the '04 election. Bush is running out the clock on so many screw-ups that one would need an sea of hands of fingers to keep count. They figure that if they can steal one more than they can minipulate enough redistricking to eliminate the opposition. Sound familiar? Try Germany in the mid to late 30's...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 09:36 PM

Meantime in Guantanamo Bay a random bunch of people arbitrarily described as "illegal combatants" are banged up in conditions that are far worse than anything Saddam is getting, or than any civilised country would even try to get away with in a POW camp, with no prospect of a fair trial, or even a trial likely enough...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 09:28 PM

I have every respect and consideration for the Men and Women put in harms way by the war. May the leadership of the United States and Iraq live up to their commitment and sacrifice.

More shame to any, of any party, who wrap themselves in war rhetoric and profiteer from the oil, the sympathy or the chest thumping while people die.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 09:17 PM

It's an interesting point, all the same.

Wolfgang, do you happen to know what formal status was accorded to the German fascists tried at Nuremburg for war crimes? I've got Lord Russell's book "The Scourge of the Swastika" and some others, so if the answer is not readily forthcoming, I'll do some hunting.

My instinctive reaction in Saddam's case is to go with McGrath. Unlike (say) Eichmann, Saddam was captured in consequence of a war, and he had been a military leader. What if a British PM behaved as badly as Saddam (allegedly) has done? Would he/she be given PoW status even though a non-combatant? The queen, as head of the armed services, would presumably qualify, as would any US president.

The problem for those who say Let the Iraqis deal with Saddam, is simply that Iraq has had nothing remotely resembling an independent judiciary for 30 years or more. Even post-apartheid South Africa was in a better position to build a credible system of justice than Iraq is now. This is a serious difficulty, given the importance of Saddam's trial being seen by the world to be fair and impartial.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 09:04 PM

Well, it would probably be a lot easier to improve the lot of the country if the residents didn't keep on shooting at us!! **bg***

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 08:57 PM

So much of this illustrates the sorrow of not having UN sanction for this invasion. I think its a good thing that Hussein's position is defined "prisoners of war" fit into a legal framework.

"Deposed leader where we didn't like your government and we'er taking your country and administerring its wealth" is such a vague title. Under the circumstance I think that Hussein is very lucky to have any protection at all.

For the record I do believe he was an evil tyrrant, but I believe that the USA bears a huge burden of making sure they actually improve the lot of the country they attacked. I further believe that a President making war without declaring war is a bad thing for the USA and the World. In the very least it creates a unilateral moral burden with a huge price tag for the country in dollars and reputation.

The pictures, even the embarrassment, were tacticaly necessary. Aside from them enhancing Bush's image, Hussein built a myth around himself and his leadership, lying, censoring and manipulating the Iraqi people with their own wealth. The leader of secret police, terror squads, and opression must be held powerless before the people he terrorized -- that is necessary to their confidence and recovery.

Hussein is lucky he was not linched like Mussolini. He owes his life (if its still that valuable) to the weird political nature of the war.

My expectation however is that he will never be handed over to a world court that might ask him questions that would embarrass the US. He will be used to generate timely news for the United states. (The day of his capture was announced the US passed new sweeping investigative rights for the FBI when they knew the media would look elsewhere.) He will be made to look like a coward for not killing himself or dying in combat. Eventually he will be given as a prize to the new US supported government of Iraq to execute with a minimum of embarrassing questions. This will show that the new regime has power over the old, keep the American hands clean in the history books, and demonstrate Iraqi solidarity with their new American investors.

I'd love to be proved wrong.

Sigurd

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 04:51 PM

Clearly he is a prisoner of war of the Americans. A captured member of an army in a war (including the supreme commander) has the status of Prisoner of War, it's as simple as that.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal proceedings, either way. Just because you are in the army doesn't make you a criminal, but nor does it mean that you might not be guilty of criminal acts. The only legal way to prove criminality is through a trial, and the only legal basis for any kind of punishment is a finding of guilt in such a trial.

When there is a democratic government in Iraq, and a properly functioning legal situation, the possibility of trying him on criminal charges would exist, as it would for any other Iraq citizen.

Nor would the fact that he is a prisoner of war mean that he could not face charges in a properly set up international war crimes court.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 04:48 PM

His punishment should come from the people of Iraq, just as Eichmann's came from the people of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 04 - 04:34 PM

As you can imagine I am mighty curious now:
The American governmant has declared today Saddam Hussein today a prisoner of war (somewhat to my surprise). The Iraqian authorities have protested that move and said he is merely a criminal and not a prisoner of war for whom the Geneva convention is applicable.

Which side are you on now? With the American government or with the Iraqis? I'm with the Iraqis, consistent with my post above.

Wolfgang (expecting for instance Bobert to support his government in this question; don't disappoint me, Bobert; :-))

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 09:48 PM

I believe that we have lost Dougie since none of his catchy PR sound bites don't apply to the current discussion. You can't take him too far out of that little safe circle that Bush has given him before he gets a bad case of the jitters... Man, its a bummer to have to think beyond PR slogans....

Sorry, Doug, I love ya' but you are no longer arguing in yer safe circle...

I mean no dierspect but you're gonna have to think beyond what has been given you (Fox news) to parrot here...

But, Happy New Year.... Put Cindy on the board fir a few days under your handle and things will get quite intersting...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 09:13 PM

"All of this outpouring of grief and concern over the fate of Saddam is truly touching."

I rather doubt that you'll be able to come up with a single example of that from within the Mudcat, Doug.

All the worries that I have seen have been about whether this might this make it worse for other people who don't deserve it, by eroding the fragile protections that have been built up over the years for all captives in war. Including American and British servicemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:47 PM

I fear it's Doug's sort of "thinking" that will prevail in Washington, just as it has done throughout the year, with such desperately tragic consequences for so many. It seems to be a characteristic of the syndrome that people who think like that will go on thinking like that, no matter how many times real outcomes show them to have been wrong.

Meanwhile on the domestic front, the planet-brains at Homeland Security will not rest easy until all planes into and out of all parts of the US have been grounded for ever. It's getting to the point where the terrorists, if there are still any Out There, don't even need to twitch a muscle to spread panic across the strongest nation on earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 07:01 PM

Come on, Doug... The discussion at hand isn't about Saddam or his history of human rights abuses. It about whether ot not to allow Sunni's and Ba athist to be part of a new Iraq or to become the latest population to be ethnically cleansed because they joined the Ba ath Party inorder to secure their job... Now if their job was to hurt people that's a different story but most had absolutely nothing to do with it...

Would you really turn your back on a situation where some 2 or 3 million people would become victims of revenge while standing in at the whipping post of the real culprit? You don't build nations on a foundation of even more human rights violations.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: DougR
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:48 PM

All of this outpouring of grief and concern over the fate of Saddam is truly touching. I would hunch that the relatives of those he tortured and killed during his years of suppression of the Iraqi people would not understand where you are coming from. It's a bit hard for me to understand too. Saddam is not a soldier. He was a tyrant who now is just another prisoner of the coalition. The Iraqi people, NOT, the International Court, nor the UN should decide what happens to him.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 06:38 AM

It's really up to the Iraqis to make these kinds of decisions about what kind of system they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Kiwi guest
Date: 02 Jan 04 - 03:50 AM

And why can't they hold an independent and open war crimes trial that investigates fully how he got into power, who put him into power and why, Who supplied the chemical and biological weapons and why, who supported his attacks on Iran and why. Who supplied weapons to both Iran and Iraq, The legality of the no fly zone, the effects of the sanctions on an estimated half million Iraq children, Who was actually bombing the kurds and why, who was supporting the turkish attacks on the kurds and why, and of course oil just for starters. It seems to me that we could have a very large number of well known people serving the rest of their lives behind bars.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 10:47 PM

there are a lot of Iraqis of different backgrounds who had to leave, when they became targeted by the Ba'ath party. they went to Iran, Jordan, Europe. they have skills and understanding that can be used. And the majority of the people of Iraq are of a different religion and ethnicity to the members of the Baath party. mid level worker bees kept their positions by reporting and dobbing in people above and below. its a sick structure.

iraq is already and has been a major, if not the major, centre for human rights abuse. what does regime change mean if there's no change of regime?

i think the UN should be involved in supervision and hand over of power to a new Iraqi government, and that the Iraqis should control their own resources and reconstruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 10:32 PM

Bringing back the Ba ath Party isn't as much the issue as allowing those who were just mid-level worker bees an opportunity to participate in what will enevitably become Iraq's *new* government. Many of these folks had nothing to do with human rights abuses and tyo deny them any opportunities would send a clear message that all of these folks were evil and, therefore, subject to revenge and reprisals... If that occurs, Iraq is going to look like another major center of human rights abuse...

Not a good scenerio...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 10:18 PM

I think it would be a travesty to bring the Ba ath party back. The Ba ath party was a minority who ruled by human rights abuse. if it is re-instituted, that would be a huge admission of defeat, by propping up the same old rotten structure.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 04:00 PM

So if one side says the war is over, even when it isn't, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply?

But surely the implication of that would be that, by failing to declare war in the first place, it will have been ensured that the Convention wouldn't apply anyway? All sounds a bit strange to me.

Not that it makes a great deal of difference in this case, where the major player appears to have few qualms about flouting both the Convention and the Charter.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:15 PM

The war on Terror was never formally begun, its combatants never identified, nor its real goals named. How could they be? Where is Terror's capitol and general HQ? The notion is absurd.

As for Iraq all that was named over was major operations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:08 PM

The war on Terror was never formally begun, its combatants never identified, nor its real goals named. How could they be? Where is Terror's capitol and general HQ? The notion is absurd.

As for Iraq all that was named over was major operations.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:51 PM

Nerd,
I come much too late for this thought, I know, but: A German professor of international law (not from the right wing faction) has made a convincing point in TV that the Geneva convention does not apply to prisoners taken after Bush has declared this war finished many months ago.

The UN charter of Human rights, however, does apply.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 11:54 PM

Dick, I know you were joking, but for the record...

The Geneva Convention is an international treaty and does not wait for a government to "declare" war before it goes into effect; actually making war is sufficient. If we invade another country with our army and take prisoners, that's good enough for the Geneva Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 06:15 PM

There are some good reasons for bringing Ba'athist back into the mix that are just pragmatic.

First, they know what they are doing. They have been involved in the nuts and bolts operation of the governemnt, like running sewage thratment plants, construction companies, etc.

Secondly, a large percentage are Sunni, and their being excluded sends an unspoken message that its okay to *punish* Sunnis. This could get out of hand and bring about yet another a wave of ethnic cleansing. If this happens you can kiss any chance of nation building goodbye...

Third. most never hurt or killed anyone. They're just foilks who understood the deal that if they were going to get a governemnt job they had better join the Ba'athist Party. Big deal. Same thing goes on in US...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 04:20 PM

An analogy is not the same as an equation, Teribus. If I say a man is as fat as a pig, I am not implying he has a little curly tail.

The death of Stalin made it possible for Communists in many parts of the world, as well as in the Soviet Union "to think in term of a de-Stalinised Communist Party."

It seems to me pretty likely that the capture and discrediting of Saddam will make it easier for Ba'athists, both in Iraq and in Syria (where they are still in power), to try to rehabilitate their party. That doesn't mean this will be successful.

However a de-Saddamised Ba'ath organisation could have at least some chance of building links with people who loathed Saddam and were repressed by him. One which still had him as nominal leader would have had virtually no chance, even in spite of the existence of a shared perceived enemy in the shape of the occupation forces and people associated with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Amos
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 01:42 PM

No, none I can think of, aside from years of experience in manipulating them.

However, you may not have to trust them -- it may be done on a force majeure footing, no matter how ironic it would seem to force self-determination on a people.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 07:21 AM

Boab, you're not the first to have picked up something from my first post that wasn't there. I've read it again to see what may have caused confusion. Perhaps I should explain that "article" referred to Article 13 of the Geneva convention, which Bobert had cited in a preceding post. Thus, if I may paraphrase myself: the US admin were quick to condemn Saddam for flouting the convention in one instance and quick to flout it themselves in another. It was the US/UK axis and not me that thought the regime-change objective good enough for a war.

Amos, is there any reason why we should trust the US to set up a democracy? It had no qualms about knocking one over in Chile - Kissinger's explanation for which was spinechilling in its cynicism, and should have sparked a domestic revolution!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam, the Geneva Convention, etc....
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 06:01 AM

MGOH

"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."

Hardly comparable, Kevin, when Stalin died, the Communist Party remained the only political party in Soviet Russia.

A resurgent Ba'athist Party, even revamped would be as popular and acceptable to the people of Iraq as the proverbial pork chop.

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.