It the ol’ “enemy combatant” dodge all over again.
Sorry, can’t leave it out.
It is quite difficult - fortunately - to order the media not to cover a story in a certain way, at least in the US. You will probably get a better understanding of the US if you keep that fact in mind.
The US can order the media not to endanger the troops by publicizing their position, and otherwise invoke national security to defend their interests, but the government can’t order CNN to stop showing Saddam getting his tonsils examined.
The purpose of the video was to show
[ul][li]That it was really Saddam we had in custody[/li][li]That he was alive, unharmed and un-tortured[/li][li]That he was receiving decent treatment, including medical treatment[/ul] [/li]
If we wanted to humiliate him, we would have frog-marched his sorry self down the streets of Baghdad with a big “Kiss me - I’m Arab” sign taped to his ass.
But, we didn’t. All heart, that’s the good old USA.
Regards,
Shodan
The purpose of the video, or the reason for showing it, was to sell advertising.
Unfortunately, showing the pictures is the only way many Iraqis are going to believe it’s him and is, unlike when our soldiers were captured, getting proper medical treatment and is not being tortured and beaten. I hope that he is scared out of his mind, though.
Otherwise, I guess the Iraqi Governing Council could march his butt, without the media and cameras, up and down the streets of the Iraqi cities to prove it was him. Problem with that is someone that had his/her child, wife/husband, father, mother, sister or brother or all 6 tortured, raped and killed and buried in one of the 270 mass graves shoot his ass before his trial.
Objection your honor! Irrelevant. False dilemma. Being against vigilateism and in favor of law and order in no way is an endorsement of the criminal activity the vigilantes are trying to prevent.
It may very well be the case that the U.S. acts hypocritical by flaunting images of SH.
What would be really hypocritical is if the U.S. paraded captured Iraqi regular and irregulars around. Now that’d be hypocritical.
Comparing Hussein’s images to Private GI Anybody is a joke. We all know the way things should be by the letter of the law, and we all know the way they really are.
It’s not hypocrisy because the U.S is obligated to object to any breach of rule/law because they are coming to the aide of their soldiers. It’s just a by the book approach.
And in a calculated risk, you ask yourself, “Slight breach by displaying Hussein or tuck him away and have months of specualtion?” Yeah, you take the hit and make a slight breach in by the book policy. That’s called smart.
That’s called using your brain. And the Iraqi military used their brains by parading POWs because it was their only worthwhile weapon. And we opposed it, because we are supposed to, NOT because anyone is a hypocrit. But surely one understands the risk and benefits of a breach.
I can’t recall a time in history when “colonizers” wanted to give the reins right back to the colonizee so fast. It’ not even over yet and we’re trying to give Iraq back. It sounds as though you’re unhappy it’s not Saddam it’s being returned to.
Up to a point, lord Cooper. Only up to a point. The USA is trying hard to give the appearance of returning control to the Iraqis while retaining de facto control of the country militarily and ensuring access to the oil on favorable terms. The main reason it is eager to implement some semblance of Iraqi autodetermination is the pressure of the international community. It is not like this was the original idea of the USA.
Regarding the OP I have to say showing SH on TV is rather low on my list of wrongs committed by the USA in this fiasco. If Saddam is shown without any intention or effect of humiliation to him or to the Iraqi people and it is done merely with the purpose of proving his capture then, though it may be technically a breach of the GC, I would say it is a minor one and may be justified. If it is done in a demeaning or insulting way to him or to the Iraqi people with propaganda purposes, then it is unacceptable and a shameful thing to do.
I also have serious trouble with the way the information which lead to his capture was obtained and I would like to know more. I read no reward would be paid out because the information was obtained from prisoners and (here the word used escapes me now but it sounded like an euphemism for torture). The torture of prisoners should be totally off limits to any civilized nation and I sincerely hope it did not happen.
I just remembered: the information which lead to the capture of SH was obtained from prisoners “under duress”. Sounds too much like an euphemism for “torture”. I hope I am mistan.
Abe if you have nothing more useful to contribute than to speak on behalf of someone else why don’t you save yourself the embarrassment? Alderbaran is a big boy and can defend himself. He was far less abrasive in the past and I expect the same level of decorum now. I will continue to shovel it back to him until he lightens up.
His entire viewpoint has been one of “Muslims vs the World”. Nobody on the board has forwarded a similarly opposite view so his anger lacks a nemesis. I do not understand his need to defend a tyrant who (shot his way into power) as if he was a religious leader under attack. The closest thing Saddam has come to religion is his persecution of Shiite Muslims.
But he’s a war criminal according to whom? Who’s the judge who issued the warrant? On the basis of which law or treaty? Who’s the prosecutor in charge? Which court is competent to try him? According to which law?
IMO, his status is “special” “undetermined” and it doesn’t really bother me.
As for the OP, I definitely think the pictures showed were humiliating. And deliberately so (in order to make sure the Irakis could identify him, they only needed to show him after he’s been washed, shaved, etc…actually, he was much more easy to identify then). However, honestly, I couldn’t care less about Saddam Hussein being humiliated. Yes, it was pure propaganda. Fine with me, if it may have some positive results.
Concerning the fact that a war prisonner should be protected from public curiosity (assuming that we indeed consider Saddam is a prisonner of war) , that’s fine and well, as long as it aplies to ordinary soldiers, officers, etc… But honestly, I couldn’t care less about this article not being applied to a head of state, since anyway he’s already the major public figure. Me thinks there’s a little too much legalism in complaining about Saddam Hussein being shown detained.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
**The purpose of the video was to show
[list][li]That it was really Saddam we had in custody[/li][li]That he was alive, unharmed and un-tortured[/li][li]That he was receiving decent treatment, including medical treatment **[/li][/QUOTE]
Agreed. Plus I don’t think anyone minded showing Iraqis that the murderous dictator who had terrorized the country and was responsible for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of deaths of their countrymen had been reduced to hiding in a hole in the ground with a pocketful of ill-gotten loot.
Many Iraqis seem to have found this liberating, as do lots of people around the world who opposed the war, but can rejoice that this killer will be brought to justice. Aldebaran finds it humiliating. Go figure.
As to the “hypocrisy”, Saddam is not an ordinary soldier who was doing his job, but a ruler who courted the limelight. He and his apologists can hardly make a claim for privacy now.
Actually, I was just trying to highlight my impression that the OP was once again launching a rant rather than a debate. Nor do I think that capturing Saddam in any way wipes the slate clean for Bush and his ‘damn fool war’. In any event, I have since seen the thread opened by the OP (and moved to MPSIMS) in which he stated that he does not support the Ba’athists, so I withdraw the question.
Just in case it’s not clear from my posts, I’ll say again that given the conditions under which Saddam was captured, it would have been difficult to film any video immediately post-capture that would not have an aspect of humiliation to it.
OTOH, would anyone really expect that the US military would dress him up in a nice suit, hand him a glass of brandy and a cigar, and seat him in a comfortable chair before filming him? As for the OP’s suggestion that he be allowed to read a public statement to the Iraqi people, how likely is it that any captor, from any country, in any situation would do that, unless it were to force the captive to read a prepared statement denouncing himself (as, lest we forget, the Iraqis did with captured US troops).
The US position has long been that Saddam was a criminal at large, and I don’t really see all that much in the video that one hasn’t seen on, say, ‘COPS’. I tend to treat the whole episode as yet another example of cross-cultural misunderstandings, with the US using images that would be more or less expected for Americans, without thinking what their interpretation may be for non-Americans. An example would be Aldebaran’s interpretation of the examination footage as treating Saddam like a ‘slave’ or ‘examining a horse before buying it’, whereas it seems to me it was intended, admittedly in a rather ham-fisted way, to show that he was not being mistreated by his captors. Well, not physically at least.
Lastly, of course parading a dissheveled, dazed Saddam before the public is propaganda; that’s simply stating the blindingly obvious. But cynical as this may be, I find it impossible to believe that any other country in the same situation would not do the same thing. I cedrtainly recognize the images for what they are, and I can only hope that the majority of the American people can do the same.
That’s enough from me, I guess. Carry on.
“OTOH, would anyone really expect that the US military would dress him up in a nice suit, hand him a glass of brandy and a cigar, and seat him in a comfortable chair before filming him?”
Had this happened (well, minus the cigar and brandy), with a cleaned-up, well-dressed and close-shaven Saddam presented for view, we would no doubt be hearing from a similar claque, this time sneering about how the U.S. was trying to make a poor, disheveled and dazed Saddam look menacing for the cameras.
I too am sickened by this outright disgrace. I think the US should be ashamed of itself. we are not supposed to be an imperialist oligarchy.I think this thought should be added, actually two thoughts…
A) it is not anti american to express outrage at our governments complete abuse. Only a traitor would meekly defend it with that pathetic “you don’t like America”. On the contrary, only a true American would point out the problems, it is called preventive maintenence and is necessary to survive. America will be dead in 25 years thanks to the traitors who support her blindly without calling for improvements. This is not the America our forefathers wanted. Not by a long shot. Albert Einstein said " He who joyfully marches in rank and file have already earned my contempt.They were given a large brain by mistake, since for him, a spineal cord would suffice" Open your myopic eyes, why do you think the world is turning on us? By the way, mr. ‘you hate america’. You look down your nose at germans fot their role in WWII, yet you are following directly in their footsteps, using my nation or my leader as an excuse. the only real difference between us and germany is that they did not fund poland before mercilessly bombing her into submission ( you ever notice every war we fight is with people we trained?, since WWII every shot fired conflict except Korea was wityh our trainees (see ft. bragg), ever think about that? simple person
B) the real hypocricy is not in airing the p[ics of saddam, but in the fact that we…a nation who has slaughtered over 2 million in the same amount of time that saddam killed 300,000, oh, by the way…notice how those estimates keep going down? strangely just like Bosnia, millions to 187 confirmed mysterious graves. I will bet you right now that this trial will not be public, America could not take the embarresment of the truth coming out
you know, sopeaking of truth, here are two interesting things to look up Colin Powell meeting with Egypt, September 2000 on the dept of state webpage. Oops, justified the last twelve years of steady bombing Iraq and killing her children by starving them out has ‘guaranteed that not only has saddam not achieved or attempted to get WMD, but that his short range weapon inventory is insufficient to even hit Egypt’ ( OOPS!I thought we were going after WMD that we knew did not exist in 2000. The other extremely interesting site can be found by searching ‘new pearl harbor’, this will click you to a site that will take you to an ultra right wing think tank that has articles composed by rumsfeld, wolfowitz and the other hate mongers stating that the only way America could remain a superpower is if certain things were done…blah blah…but these things could NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT A CATASTROPHIC, CATALYZING EVENT, ON THE SCALE OF A NEW PEARL HARBOR… note, this article was also written in 2000, 2000 comes before 2001, as in 9/11. If the government can use the most ridiculous logic to tie saddam in to 9/11 ( uh…,.hey stupid american sheep…, uh, saddam is a human, osama is a human, therefore they were in league 9/11). One might use reverse logic to ask why so few ( yes, I know it was a terrible tragedy,I am not belittling its victims) died…why was the pentagon struck on the side that was conveniently under construction, despite the fact that the aircraft had top divert its flight path to hit this side, why were the towers hit so high?etc…see 500 unanswered questions…all the way down to the biggest questions, i.e. how much did gwb’s brother make off 9/11 through his very lucky transfer of careers, or why is an investigation into 9/11 still being bedraggled every step of the way? every American event has had an inquiry, the second shuttle disasters inquiry was started before its last debris settled. Hell, Mueller even stated that there was no way to verify the attackers ’ as they left absolutely no paper trail whatsoever ( including not being on the manifests…oops) Can anyone say Bay of Pigs fiasco? Certain Masterminds never can plan things out, but then, with a nation of sheep, why bother?
Also…‘shot his way into power’? Uh, who was doing the shooting? that is right, we put him there, we got him oput of Prison, brought him to ft benning, trained him, then put him in place. Does no one remember the glorious Reagan years? 80-88, Iraq was fighting Iran, and the administration could not stop boasting about how ‘our boy’ was showing the iranians for taking our hostages, of course then we found out we were playing both sides of the fence. But by then we were too busy over our new hero, Osama, spending 150 million to train him and his Mujardeen, changing their name to Al Queda…oops…we started them? yes, in fact, Reagan declared March (?) National Afghan day’ to commemorate the afghan struggles and the brave warriors (osama) in their struggles against the soviets.But then, this is the age of duh, so of course say, researching things would just be way too intensive for most people who struggle to remember yesterday, let alone 15 years ago. It is called ’ digging through newspaper archives’, a tiresome task, but everything we see now reflects to the glorious eighties.
No matter how much I dislike the clowns in the White House, that is horse pucky.
Saddam was a heavy for the Bathist party. His first act, according to the liberal sttoges at NPR, was to knife a guy for them.
It’s not hypocrisy, we just changed our mind. If Iraq wants to parade our POW’s around on AJ now, fine with us.
Is it a full moon outside? No? Eh. Anyways.
An excellent point, EK
Adding to that, from what I can gather from news reports from Iraq’s neighbors, there is a fair amount of frustration about Saddam being caught, not because there is any love lost for the madman, but simply because it constitutes another victory for the American bullies.
I bet there’s a hellova lot of people in the Arab world who see a lot of reasons to be anti-American, but not necessarily pro-terrorist or pro-Baathist. Saddam may now be in the clink, but that doesn’t make those folks convert to Yankeeism.
Which makes me worry about whether the occupation is going to continue to be a tough road to hoe.
darren, that has got to be one of the most, er, intereting posts I’ve ever seen here. That stream of consiousness writing style is…interesting.
Your post was chocked full of bullshit, too much to even touch with a ten foot pole, but I’m curious. Who were the 2 million people that the US killed in the same time SH killed 300k? Or, I should say, who do YOU think were the 2 million people the US killed at any rate? And how exactly did we ‘slaughter’ them?
-XT
(ignoring darren because he may be delusional and while IANA psychiatrist and able to properly diagnose him neither am I able to treat his apparent delusions)
Okay, I’ll admit that showing the SH examination videos was probably intended to be humiliating. I’m not sure which was worse, the nit-picking or checking his mouth for poison capsules. I’m not sure if using an American doctor who is taller than SH so he was looking down on him the whole time was purposeful or serendipitous. And showing those clips endlessly? Tacky. I’ve never held any desire to see the inside of his mouth.
But damn, was it fun!