# Is Saddam A POW? (Geneva Question) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 14, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947 "2003-12-14T14:38:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Matchka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Matchka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Matchka)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/21 "2003-12-14T19:01:11Z")
You can’t fool me, those are retouched alien autopsy photos! ---
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/22 "2003-12-14T19:47:25Z")
I see no reason that occupying coalition forces would not treat Hussein as a POW, much as Manuel Noriega was after the Panama invasion, until such time as he is transferred to the custody of appropriate domestic officials. Being a POW does not protect you from trial for crimes against humanity, but neither does being subject to such a trial eliminate most of those rights. I think the video of Hussein was technically a violation, but released for the same reason as that of Uday and Qusay - in the hope that it would help quell the resistance. I don’t think this is something they took lightly; I’m sure their rationale is carefully documented so that the officials responsible for the decision will have a proper defense in the far-fetched instance that they would ever be prosecuted for this violation. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/23 "2003-12-14T20:23:40Z")
[quote] \*originally posted by \ ***CheekyMonkey613** (Quote From Hotlink In OP) ## quote: Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. * * * Wouldn’t he fit into that category?[/quote\*\* I don’t think so. He’s not a member of the military, nor a member of a militia or volunteer corps. ---
**Author:** ![brachyrhynchos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brachyrhynchos/32/376_2.png) [@brachyrhynchos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brachyrhynchos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/24 "2003-12-14T21:18:45Z")
From Article 5 (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. > > Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, _such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal_. So, it would seem to me that, regardless of what he is considered later on, he should be treated as a POW now. My interpretation could be wrong, though. [Crimes of War website](http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-saddam.html) has an interesting take on trying Saddam, written in November 2002. This analysis suggests that the US would seek to try Saddam in Iraq under a special tribunal. I don’t know how objective that site is, but it does seem to have a wealth of information. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/25 "2003-12-14T21:23:27Z")
Just bring in Grissom and the rest of the CSIs from the night shift. They’ll sort it out. ---
**Author:** ![Sinungaling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Sinungaling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinungaling)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/26 "2003-12-14T22:38:03Z")
So heads of state can be prisoners of war? Or is he just a war criminal, like Milosevic? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/27 "2003-12-15T02:39:46Z")
Re: Article 5, “Should there be any doubt” as to the status of persons At least in my reading, I don’t doubt for a single second that Saddam is not protected by the Geneva Convention on POWs. I just don’t see any category of POW, as defined in that treaty, under which he would fit. He deserves humane treatment in accordance with his status as a criminal. (And I’m no anti-treaty whacko. I think the folks down in Gitmo are being treated in an illegal and unconstitutional manner.) ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/28 "2003-12-15T04:07:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CheekyMonkey613 \* > \*\* > If memory serves me right, the US was REAL pissed off about their POWs being filmed and shown on national television. It was against the [GENEVA Convention.](http://www.aiipowmia.com/legis/geneva1950.html) > > What’s the difference? 😕 \*\* The difference is _how_ POW’s are shown. In short, POW’s are not meant to be hostages and they are not meant to be humilated. For example, video of Saddam parading around in poka-dot boxers is a violation, a short video of him being examined by a physician isn’t. In contrast, think of the videos from the Iran Hostage situation, where POW’s were tied to posts and humilated; that was a violation. As mentioned above, and mentioned when his sons were killed, the US has to show video as proof. (_just like those WMD…_) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/29 "2003-12-15T04:31:42Z")
Rumsfeld mentioned on _60 Minutes_ tonight that Saddam was being treated as a POW in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, but did not actually classify him as a POW. So there ya go. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/30 "2003-12-15T05:09:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think so. He’s not a member of the military, nor a member of a militia or volunteer corps. Hussein actually holds the rank of Field Marshall in the Iraqi army, so he’s a member of the military. ---
**Author:** ![SeekingTruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/34f0e0/32.png) [@SeekingTruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeekingTruth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/31 "2003-12-15T05:51:13Z")
Hate to mention reality, but Saddam will face a public trial under an Iraqi court. According to Islamic law, capital punishment is well allowed. Just think of the bodies being, handcuffed, thrown from a 3rd floor to the street. (Ask for a cite, you want to deny this?) My hope is he is found guilty and hung from the highest tree in Baghdad, to show everyone he’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/32 "2003-12-15T06:25:20Z")
The Iraqi war-crimes tribunal is not set up under Islamic law. It will be based on other tribunals such as those at the Hague. ---
**Author:** ![SeekingTruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/34f0e0/32.png) [@SeekingTruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeekingTruth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/33 "2003-12-15T06:52:29Z")
Nope, hate to hijack the thread. Hussein will be tried before an Iraqi tribunal. The Hague will have nothing to do with it ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/34 "2003-12-15T07:00:36Z")
From the London \*[Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/15/wtry15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/15/ixportaltop.html) \*: > [@](#): > > The death penalty in Iraq was suspended by the coalition forces following Saddam’s overthrow, after strong pressure from the British Government. > > However, the Coalition Provisional Authority has promised to hand power back to the Iraqis in little more than six months’ time, and Iraq would then be free to resume executions. Capital punishment is not excluded by the court’s statute. . . > > There is no prospect of Saddam being tried before the new International Criminal Court in The Hague. That tribunal has no jurisdiction over war crimes committed before July 2002, which would exclude most of the charges Saddam is expected to face. ---
**Author:** ![KenGr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@KenGr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KenGr)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2003, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/35 "2003-12-15T12:03:13Z")
From the news reports it sounds like he is being treated as a POW in the near term. I would guess this is for PR purposes and to facilitate the initial interrogation and is based on his position as head of the Iraqi military. However, if it is established that he directed any of the terrorist activities by irregular forces, he will lose the POW protections. Of course, they can always go back to the war crimes all the way back. So he’s fair game no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/36 "2003-12-16T14:49:52Z")
From the [BBC](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324631.stm) > [@](#): > > A senior US official has defended the decision to show the pictures. > > The official said the broadcast of Saddam Hussein undergoing a medical examination was allowed under the Geneva Conventions in order to maintain peace and security. Sorry, don’t have time right now to track down the US official’s statement. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/37 "2003-12-16T15:10:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SeekingTruth \* > \*\*Nope, hate to hijack the thread. Hussein will be tried before an Iraqi tribunal. The Hague will have nothing to do with it \*\* I never said The Hague will have anything to do with it. I said the Iraqi tribunal will be based on tribunals such as those at The Hague. ---
**Author:** ![CheekyMonkey613](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e480ec/32.png) [@CheekyMonkey613](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheekyMonkey613)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/38 "2003-12-16T15:12:33Z")
From the [BBC](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324631.stm), also > [@](#): > > A senior US official has defended the decision to show the pictures. The official said the broadcast of Saddam Hussein undergoing a medical examination was allowed under the Geneva Conventions in order to maintain peace and security. There was no attempt to humiliate the prisoner, the official said. ~ “In order to maintain peace”? Like that worked! Those Iraqis who were thankful for the troops’ presence were dancing in the streets. But they weren’t troublemakers the day before. And those around Saddam’s hometown who were not happy about the capture haven’t changed their minds, taken their ball and gone home. If anything, I expect MORE unrest. ~ If the reason was to GENUINELY maintain peace, then why did they have to show the medical exam? Why couldn’t they just show the pic or a video of him AFTER he was cleaned up and shaven? What was the reason to shave him in the first place? It was so people could RECOGNIZE that it was him. So if they thought people MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE him during the medical exam, then WHAT is the point of SHOWING IT? See my point? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/39 "2003-12-16T15:28:45Z")
The point of showing the medical exam was to prove that he was in custody and that he was being humanely treated. Showing him getting a medical checkup proves both simultaneously. ---
**Author:** ![lilabet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b38774/32.png) [@lilabet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lilabet)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947/40 "2003-12-16T16:08:13Z")
He CANNOT be tried under Iraqi law, under the current Iraqi ruling body - I cite from the Geneva Convention : \*\*GPW art. 12, states: Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody. \*\* And we cannot turn Saddam over to an entity that would violate his rights, ie the current regime in Iraq which is an unelected body with no independent Judiciary process, and no sign of these until next summer. He could perhaps be tried in Iraq ONLY if the procedures are guaranteed under the Geneva conventions and human rights law. Lil [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-saddam-a-pow-geneva-question/218947.md?page=3)