I’d just like to say that the idea that Saddam might actually be serious about his little stunt is positively hilarious. For a hunger strike to succeed, the striker has to convince people that he’s willing to die for his beliefs. But a dictator like Saddam is profoundly narcissistic - he has to be - and does not believe there is anything greater than himself. In his worldview, other people should die for him, and not the other way around.
Sorry, ‘merely’ should have had quotes- it was my intention to imply that that was the view of the apologists for the US forces behaviour at Gitmo. I thought that you reply was a little quizzical and was trying to make sense of it.
The argument that I was having with MH was about the possibility of different views of morality in different jurisdictions. He seemed to have some problem coming to terms with the fact that what is current practice in US prisons and ethical in US Society is seen as tantamount to torture in UK prisons and as unethical in UK Society.
I don’t think you have exhausted the potential motivations that might lead saddam to a hunger strike, and you underestimate the resources he would bring to that enterprise if he undertook it.