Lilabet, (hope it’s shagging, not sleeping, btw ;))
Your point is well-taken, but brings me back to my OP!
Is Saddam a POW? If not, GPW art. 12, doesn’t apply.
I personally thing he is. First time in time immemorial, that I agree with the Vatican.
Oh look! Pigs are flying and it’s a cold day in hell! lol 
Lilabet, if your quote is accurate, your conclusion is wrong in 2 situations. First, the US could permissilby transfer him to Iraq if either 1. Iraq signs the Convention, etc., and 2. if Hussen is not a POW. I think both are likely. In fact, members of the Iraqi governing council have made statements to teh effect that a Saddam trial would not begin until Iraq is given soveignty in the Spring. Also, just because the US accords Saddam the rights of a POW does not mean he actually is a POW or entitled to these rights. He is also a common criminal and I don’t think anyone would interpret the Geneva convention from preventing a Detaining Power from handing over a common criminal to local authorities. Its a little bit different if you pluck a soldier off the battlefield and give him to the locals to be tried for murder.
And as to the first point, if Iraq has not signed the convention its only because of Hussein himself.
The POW question has 2 ramifications. First, what sort of treatment is Hussein entitled? and Second, did the US have the authority to capture him in the first place? I think the answer to the latter question is that he was arrested as a war criminal, not as a combatant.
I don’t think he is a POW. If he is, then Dubbyah would be a POW too if he were ever captured, as he has the title “commander in chief of US armed forces.” And I don’t see that as a military position, despite its ties to the military. Dubbyah is a civilian who acts as a check on military prowess. When it comes down to it, I see Dubbyah and So-damn-insane as being the same person, in terms of political-military power.
The President isn’t a check on the military. This implies that they are able to act without any other authority and the president steps in sometimes and tells them to stop. The President is in a unique position he is a civilian but he is also the Commander in Chief. He is in the chain of command with the power to order those beneath him in the chain just like any other officer. Saddam was also the commander of the military and directly ordered the actions of his forces. However, EPW status does not give you immunity from prosecution for crimes while you were in the military nor does it keep you from being executed for those crimes (Tojo, Goering, etc)
If you still don’t think of Saddam as part of the military I believe there are other precedents. Albert Speer was a civilian but was treated as a POW then sent to prison for war crimes (I know he sometimes wore a uniform but he was a civilain engineer. It was Nazi Germany, his mother probably wore a uniform)
Completely unrelated: an old Army buddy of mine dreamed of one day becoming President. His first act would be to form up the entire military in the California desert and then drop everyone for fifty push-ups. Halfway through basic he was able to describe the scene with great detail.
“Armed Forces! …half-left face!”
Right here in BBC News.
This all gets me back to my original question. Why was it that the American POWs’ broadcast on International TV was such a crime, as far as the Geneva Convention goes, and Saddam being medically examined, proked and prodded doesn’t? Not to mention him being shaven and then showed for purposes of recognition.
Furthermore, wouldn’t the pics of the moments of his capture, on the military site, which ended up on international news, violate the Geneva Convention?
Sorry, but I think so.
That military.com site that you refer to is a privately owned website, not a government site (note the .com, not .gov), and the picture was not released with the government’s permission. The U.S. government, in fact, asked that the picture be removed, but the site’s owner refused.
Walloon, you’re right about that site. Good point.