You can’t fool me, those are retouched alien autopsy photos!
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.
[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:
- 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.
From Article 5 (emphasis mine):
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 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.
Just bring in Grissom and the rest of the CSIs from the night shift. They’ll sort it out.
So heads of state can be prisoners of war? Or is he just a war criminal, like Milosevic?
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.)
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…)
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.
Hussein actually holds the rank of Field Marshall in the Iraqi army, so he’s a member of the military.
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.
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.
Nope, hate to hijack the thread. Hussein will be tried before an Iraqi tribunal. The Hague will have nothing to do with it
From the London *Telegraph *:
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.
From the BBC
Sorry, don’t have time right now to track down the US official’s statement.
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.
From the BBC, also
~ “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?
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.
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