Here we go again...
 

I'm no fan of Hussein, but this quote from a BBC news story caught my eye...

If Saddam is anything, he's a POW.

Full story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3321983.stm

Mr Mephisto

Well as a "head of state" he's a "non-combatant"
and therefore not defined as a POW.
That's the way it's worded.

What exactly is the definition of "non-combatant"? (honest question)

Take the president of the US, for example (not trying to compare him to Saddam or anything, just go with me). While the president is the "head of state", he is also the "commander in chief" and has control over the armed forces of the country. I imagine Saddam had similar powers. Does that still fit under the definition of "non-combatant"?

ART may have a good point.

However, I hope we don't end up with any of that nonesense like Gutamano Bay [sp?]


Mr Mephisto

If anything a head of state must be handled with even more decorum and closer protections of rights than an ordinary POW.

I agree. Look at what happened to Milosovic. Something similiar should happen to saddam, not one of those secret tribunal bs.

I have a feeling this one will be VERY public.

I think some of the reservations deal with the term of art "declaration of war". Since we have not formally declared war on Iraq in Congress, we may not be able to treat him as a POW. We haven't declared war since WWII. I think there are some Geneva Convention rules, and stuff about our obligations as an occupying power that we do not want to breach.

Unless he is proven to have been in charge of the stuff that has gone on since hostilities officially were deemed to have ended - if this is proven then he loses most, if not all of the rights - even those of a POW.

If we turn Saddam over to the Iraqi governing council, and he suffers a fate similar to the one Nicolae Ceaucescu did in 1989, there will be those who condemn us for reckless and irresponsible behavior.

If we turn Saddam over to an international court, there will be those who condemn US for denying the Iraqi people the opportunity to pursue their own sovereign justice.

Meanwhile, there are those who prefer simply to bicker about the applicability of rules concerning the treatment of regular POWs, which, quite obviously, Saddam Hussein is not.

And your point is what apechild?

That certain people will actually criticise the US?

Oh the temerity!

Mr Mephisto

Is it true that Iraq was never a member of the International Court and therefore Saddam cannot be tried there?




SLM3

Examples of non-combatants: chaplains, medical personnel, civilians.

If being the head of the armed forces of Iraq isn't enough to convince folks he is a combatant, he was armed when he was taken into custody.

i also thought u werent supposed to publicize tapes of captured pows?

the geneva convention (for whavever it is worth now) says pows should be protected "against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

it also prohibits "humiliation" of prisoners.

also, i sure hope that the pentagon is allowing red cross access to saddam cuz they've said "The Iraqi regime must allow the International Red Cross to see the prisoners."

Yes.

Just like Americans.

And, for the record, it is planned that Hussein be tried in Iraq, by an Iraqi court.


Mr Mephisto

yes, but an iraqi court cannot be established until an iraqi government is installed. not to sound too pessimistic, but i dont see it happening in the near future (maybe around the '04 elections ;)).

The way it was expressed today by one of the head Iraqis was that the new govt. takes over at the end of June and they'll be ready to execute him on July 1. I don't remember the exact words but you get the idea.

To the best of my knowledge, to be a POW, one must satisfy four conditions.

1) They must be part of a chain of command, so the leaders can be prosecuted.
2) They must wear a visible, recognizable emblem that sets them apart from civilians.
3) They must carry arms openly.
4) They must respect the laws of war.

They also must be part of an army of a state that has ratified the Geneva Convention. If not, they must register with the Swiss Government and agree to the terms of the Geneva Convention.

Iraq ratified the Geneva Convention in 1956.

I am not certain how these rules apply to heads of state. Either way, I would guess that Saddam Hussein, defined as POW or not, is going to be treated quite nicely, as everyone in the media is keeping quite a close eye on him.

-- Alvin

Actually Iraq still does have a judicial system which is actually considered one of the best in the Middle East - it was/is the only country with a judicial system w/o a Muslim based one and it was in fact based on the western model.

Of course, the greatest irony of all: to create the court that may soon call for your beheading.