Defense Secretary Rumsfeld today announced that Saddam Hussein will not be treated as a prisoner of war. The plan, apparently, is to have him tried by the Iraqi provisional government. This afternoon, on the left-leaning Pacifica Network News, I heard an interview with a legal scholar (forget his name) who opined that, as Hussein was the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi forces, there is no basis for denying him POW status under the Third Geneva Convention. Furthermore, the Iraqi provisional government now in place is considered a “puppet government” of the occupying powers, which is allowed under the rules of war but is not considered competent to try officials of the former regime.
It’s hard to have any sympathy for Hussein. Nevertheless, this is a very important question because, since the action in Afghanistan started, the Bush administration has been incredibly brazen in inventing a new category of “enemy combatant” who enjoys neither the protections of a POW under international law nor the protections of an accused criminal under the U.S. Constitution. And now they want a U.S.-controlled puppet government to try Iraq’s former president – meaning the “court” won’t dare to reach any verdict or sentence Bush doesn’t like, yet Bush can still appear to have clean hands. Even the Nazis tried at Nuremberg had better legal protections than that! If it becomes supported by precedent that the U.S. government can get away with this – can withold or recognize a captured combatant’s POW status at its own sole discretion, or do anything else it wants to with its captives – where will it end? Will the Geneva Convention mean anything any more? And how can we expect U.S. soldiers to be treated when they get captured?
I think we already blew this argument away with Noriega, so I don’t see the situation with Saddam being any worse-- if anything, it’s a bit better. The sorts of countries the US has had combat with in the modern era are not ones that typically adhere to the Geneva Convention, so I’m not too worried about this having any effect on how are soldiers are treated in the future.
As to whether or not Saddam should be a POW, I’ll leave that to the legal experts. I’m sure there are arguments to be made on both sides. But here’s a thought: Since the UN recognizes the US governing authority in Iraq as the legitimate government, couldn’t one argue that the “war” is over and that those fighting the current government are criminals and not soldiers? At what point do you consider this change to take place? Do former armed forces get special status indefinitely?
Have you by chance wondered if Saddam himself does not wish to be a POW , that may actually have him tried before a military tribunal , rather than a civillian trial.
Am I mistaken? I thought Noriega was actually charged and tried by a US court. The action we took in Panama was simply to apprehend him. Did I forget something?
No , Tony Noriega was indicted by a court in Miami , on Drug charges.
He was given a choice by the elder bush, to get out of panama and be able to keep everything. When his special vigilante groups started to kill americans , the elder bush invaded and reclaimed panama.
The Miami indictment, turned out to be a good excuse on how to deal with him , I think he gets released in a couple of years.
Hussein yes or no a “POW”?
Hussein didn’t declare war to the USA.
So the question should be:
What sort of behaviour else then completely lunatical abnormal is there to expect from criminal murdering invaders under the lead of an incompetent lunatic who is falsely painted “elected” president of the USA?
Hhmmm… to be fair Saddam must be treated as a PoW for now. Since there is no legitimate Iraqi Goverment of sorts.
When and if there is a “legal” Iraqi government then the US should hand him over to regular Iraqi justice… but then we start into a new dilemma: What is a legitimate Iraqi Govt. ? Is it the puppet in “power” now ? Is it after Iraq has fair elections… are fair elections possible ? Can pro-Saddam party be a candidate or part of government ?
The US has no basis to send Saddam to trial… while the International Tribunal and the Iraqi people do. Still how things end up will reflect upon the USA… especially if things seem dodgy.
The war ended on april 28th. So i’d say he is not a POW. In order for him not become a martyr giving him the status of a POW still might be a good idea. As would a fair trial.
Can PoW’s be executed ? I understand that they can’t. If he is not a PoW then he is a political prisoner… hardly something the US wants labeled on him.
Until he is handed to some competent court… he is a PoW.
I do think that the leaders who send people to war should get a different status than the poor schmuck forced at gunpoint and/or drafted into the glorious People’s Army of Wherever, but I don’t know how this works exactly. The court that plans to try Saddam was beginning set up the week BEFORE he was caught, so while there’s obviously going to be a lot of improvising it’s not like they’ll have no idea what they’re doing. And I don’t know if appointed by the US=puppets, nor what the composition of the actual people sitting on judgement on the guy in eight months will be, and neither does the OP, so I’m willing to hold off on the criticism until we have a few more details before we assume that there’ll just be a set of marionettes attached to the Presiden’ts fingers.
So you agree finally that GW Bush is a criminal that has send people to war and forced the president of a sovereign nation to order his army to fight the criminal invaders?
As a matter of fact, the legal scholar who discussed Hussein’s POW status (on the Pacifica broadcast I mentioned in the OP) also mentioned that when Noriega was tried in Miami, a federal court ruled Noriega did have POW status – but, for reasons the scholar did not make clear, the court went ahead and tried him on the criminal charges anyway, and he was convicted and is now in a federal prison. But Noriega was charged with smuggling drugs into the United States – a crime over which a U.S. court had jurisdiction even if Noriega was not on U.S. soil when he committed the overt acts. Hussein, so far as I know, has not been charged with any crime over which a U.S. court would have jurisdiction, and apparently he will not be.
Posted by electrozion:
I’m not familiar with the relevant clauses of the Geneva Convention, but I would guess that a POW can still be considered a POW even if captured after the declared end of hostilities.
I don’t agree with a word that person says.