60 minutes, Saddam, Rumsfeld and the Geneva convention
 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in588518.shtml

What are your thoughts on this matter?

This was posted in a blog (http://jogin.com/weblog/archives/000477/ ) and what follows is a pretty interesting discussion on the subject...

Comment #31 was especially interesting.

Comment 31 referred to the Arab sense of honor...Bull Sh#$ !!
Where is the honor in trhowing people off of buildings? Wrapping bomb vests on your children? Setting up childrens prisons? Honor killings of raped women, by their parents? Flying planes into buildings?
Honor should be conveyed to those who deserve it. I say be polite, see that they are well attended to, then Kill them!

The video of Saddam's medical examination is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention's prohibition against putting prisoners on public display, humiliating them, using them as a tool for morale or propaganda, etc.

Whatever lip service Rummy's paying to the Geneva Convention is definitely NOT being reflected in how Saddam is actually being treated.

Yeah right....

We all know Iraq has been clearly following the Genevia conventions.

Anyways the purpose of that video was not to humiliate but instead to inform the Iraqi people that he was captured so he could live in peace. You know if we wouldn't have put up a video no one would have believed it.

The Childrens prisons, were inaccurate reporting. They were just orphanages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/we...3ccecb&ei=5070

humiliate or inform it does not matter. the US was up in arms when the Iraqi's showed video of American POW's, yet it is fine for them. just another example of how this administration likes to use the rules as they apply to thier situation.

there is a very large difference between a PoW and a leader. Solobidon Milosivic has been shown on TV over and over and I don't hear you complaining about that.

As for more Genevia Conventions, apparently Iraqi insurgants are now dressing up like press members.... If that isn't a gross violation of the Genevia Convention then I don't know what is

Ah, the impressive "Well they did it too!!" argument.


SLM3

Oh boo F-ing who. They showed 3 seconds of Saddam getting an oral exam (it wasn't a dental exam, I think they were checking for anything hidden) bfd.

Anyone whining about this was against the war from the start and it looking for ANYTHING no matter how trival to bitch about.

Now if they showed the cavity search on the other end you might have a point, but get over it.

I find it funny people with complain about Saddam being shown for 3 seconds as a violation against the Geneva convention but then won't say a thing about the huge number of Geneva convention violations commited by Saddam and his armys in the past.

Stop being hypocritical

Just because others violate the Geneva convention doesn't give us the ok to do the same. Seems more hypocritical to say this behavior is ok rather tham condem it.

keep crying, mabye sooner or later you will find something real to cry about.

It's amazing how quickly the victor in a war can rationalize such actions. It must be ok cause we did it, right? What's the big deal?


SLM3

Someone posted under the wrong name :lol:

Since it wasn't a big deal, get over it.

Does it matter if it's a big deal to you, or to the Iraqi's?


SLM3 (Still posting under the wrong name)

I don't think it mattered at all to the Iraq's. It mattered to the arab men outside Iraq who now feel even less well endowed then before, but thats a good thing.

Let's see, if they didn't show Hussein on tv they would have been called liars and when they do show him, they're called hyocrites. There's no winning for this administration in the eyes of their constant detractors.

You guys completely missed my point. First my point was not that if they break the convention it is ok for us to do it. In fact i don't think that showing Saddam was a violation of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva convention is there give POWs humane treatment. In no way did the few seconds of video that the US showed inhumane. The US was not interigating him on TV, they are not displaying him on the gallows in Time Square. These are the types of things the convention is trying to stop.

Back to my point. My point is you anti-Americans are quick to critisize the US for displaying Saddam on TV for a few minutes but yet say nothing about Iraqi troops feigning surrender and then shooting or dressing up as press members. You say nothing about the execution of thousands of Kuaties at Saddams orders, no mention of pregnet women being stabbed through their stomachs in order to kill both the child and the mother.

For once why don't you critize someone other than the US for actions much worse than what the US is doing. That is why you are hypocrites.

seems like the typical they did it so can we in this thread but to all you people who feel fine with this violation, were you crying when it was americans who were being showcased on arab tv. most probably were appalled but hey this is the same country who keeps people in Cuba for two years with no charges.

I criticize every country that breaks the Geneva convention.

They could have shown any regular picture, the pictures of the medical exam was not necessery.

But I get what you're saying, rights are only for people who you aree should have them....

i kinda understand your point, but on the surrender and dressing up as press, these are thing Israelis have been dealing with for a while, and the americans always tell them to stay calm. In vietnam the VC used to dress up like american soldiers to kill americans. On the battlefield there are no rules what seem shady is actually a smart tactic for people fighting gureilla wars. the two are not the same and not related topics.

Somehow this is all Bush's fault.


Somehow.

/kidding

And what exactly are you basing this on? What's funny is Iraq's governing council, appointed by the US, is made up of arab men outside the country.


SLM3

Based on reading the English versions of the Arab press. I only wish I could read the Arabic versions, I'm sure they are even better. All these whines about America ruling the world, and how could they (the Arabs) have been so deceived. Maybe if they didn't only have government censored press, with government controlled schools, and a government censored internet, they might have a clue.

Most but not all of Iraq's ruling council are Iraqi exiles. Of course they lost one 'non-exile' when she was shot by 'freedom fighters'.

When Saddams 'in prison' pictures showed up on Iraqi newspapers, the papers sold out and were selling at double the normal price. Everyone wanted the giant blown up picture of Saddam in jail talking to Dr. Chalabi. Now, why do you think that is?

I don't know really.. AFAIK, Survivor-crap, celebrity-shit and all that also sells. Weird question. Unelss you ask the people why they buy the newspaper (maybe to read it? :P) you're justa ssuming, and it's easier to assume they bought it for the reason you want.

So your saying since others have been violating it in the past it is ok now?

I couple of things that have yet to be addressed are is Saddam a PoW? And is the released footage public curiosity?


If you say Saddam is a PoW you are saying that he cannot be charged with any war crimes. Do you think he should be exempt from all war crimes?

i never said it was ok now i simply said that it is a smart gureilla tactic. morally i know it is wrong to do this, but part of me say's you gotta do what you gotta do, the iraqis know they can't beat the US conventially and they are trying anything to hold onto thier country. they shot down a chopper and then went to the crash site after the US thought it was secure, and attacked them
smart tactics for a minimum number of troops it took the iraqis

so show me where i stated that because it was done before it is ok now. That seems to be the attitude of the people who feel fine showing saddam on tv.

Ok so they are gurrillas? Gurrilas are not protected under the Genevia Convention. One of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions mentions clearly identifying yourself as a soldier (ie wearing a uniform). The men that surrenedered early on in the war are definatly PoWs (most have been released by now). But the men fighting now definatly are not PoWs. As for Saddam which is what is at hand I would be very careful on qualifying him as a PoW because of the large implications that it would have. He would not be able to be held responsible for his war crimes.

The spirit of the Geneva convention dealing with PoWs is to give PoWs humane treatment. Show me where Saddam has been mistreated. If we were interigating him on public TV then you guys would have a very valid point. If we were parading him through time square you would have a very valid point. But showing a few seconds of film to prove that we have him captured is in no way inhumane to him.

If you really have a problem with those 3 seconds then lobby your governments to bring charges against the US and see if they agree with you.

I know if a foreign country invaded my country and we were vastly outgunned we'd resort to any tactic to kill the enemy, it's just human nature. While the US thinks of it's self as liberators, you have to face the facts that not everyone agrees with you and will try to kill as many servicemen as possible with whatever means possible. I know Americans would do the same if the roles were reversed.

Of course, That's a natural reaction. However... by doing *anything* to kill the enemy, you're breaking the rules of the "game". You really shouldn't expect to be treated according to the Geneva convention if you go around breaking it yourself; that's one of the clauses of that very same convention. People complaining about the US' treatment of terrorists/guerilla fighters are missing the point about this - these prisoners could be shot as spies, according to international law...

As for Saddam: are political leaders POWs when captured? Has this ever happened before???

Also, even if you're a POW, you can still be tried for war crimes - the POW status does not give you immunity from previous bad behaviour.

they showed him on tv and that my friend breaks the rules of the Geneva Convention. they don't have to smack him around to break it (although the CIA will be doing this)

the Geneva Convention that deals with with PoW footage is mentioned in 2 words only; "Public Curiosity". Now what that means is open to interpritation, it has already been established that the Geneva Convention does not cover video shot in the form of documenting. Public Curoisity does not mean under no circumstances can footage be taken, in addition you first have to prove that Saddam should get PoW status and the protections of the Geneva Convention.

According to Mr. Rumsfeld in the initial interview posted on this thread, "He is being accorded the protections of a prisoner of war and his treatment will be governed by the Geneva Convention."

So, that means apparently YES he is considered a PoW for now.

Also, it disheartens me when people use the "they did it first" excuse to justify their actions. The point at which we give up our moral highground is the point we become no better than they are. Possibly even worse, because it *was* preemptive.


MB

Rumsfeld's stated that we are giving him protections in accord of the Geneva convetions but are not considering him a PoW.

how can he be regarded under the geneva convention and not be classified as aprisoner of war if in order to be treated in accordance with the geneva convention you need to be a prisoner of war?

think the AK's and RPG gave it away they are soldiers.


How is it he can be treated in accordance with the geneva convention and he is not considered a POW.

easy they are volentaraly giving him protections but are in no way required to do so.

so there using the situation to thier advantage again. hey here's an idea why not send saddam to guantanimo and not charge him with anything for like two years, call him an unlawful combatant and he'll be like every other prisoner oops my mistake "unlawful combatant" from this god damned war.

Um the people in guantanimo are TALIBAN, not Iraqis. The Taliban was never a legitimate government, and as such can not be covered as POW or by the geneva convention. Iraqi soldiers can be called POWs.

Hold on,

What makes a government "legitimate"? They seemed to perform the functions of a government in Afghanistan. We contacted them when we wanted to ask the rulers of Afghanistan to turn over OBL.

You beat me to it lordjebus, i too am curious to see ehat endymon32 considers a legit government. we're all waiting

In addition the people in Guatonimo did not dress as soldiers to clearly identify themselfs thus voiding the protections that the Geneva Convention would have provided by disqualiffying their PoW status.

For one, they are recognised by the governed. Second the UN recognises them. I dont think either happened. If you think that the Taliban were the legitimate government of Afganistan, then I dont know what to tell you.

How do you think CIA operatives who are caputred should be treated? I seriously doubt they carry out their missions in full military attire. I think there's a point where the spirit of the Convention is being ignored and details are being used to justify actions which contradict what the Convention tried to establish.


SLM3

chances are if someone is pointing an AK at you there soldiers or guriellas(same thing). i too know that the CIA does not wear military attire unless it is clandestine

Bringing up the CIA is a good point because its one of those cases where the line gets crossed on both sides at once...

They ain't wearing fatigues but they're from a recognized country.. how would they get treated?

And the answer to that would answer many other questions.

As always, they *could* be executed as spies. Whether they *will* be shot is another matter, up to the people that captured them.

not too well probably killed on the spot. for some reason countries don't like other countries spying on them.

Endymon32 the Taliban was recognized by some of those who governed.

Silent Jay,

Yes, by other Taliban, not the other 99% of the people.

i'm talking other countries not afghani's.

here check this out here's your government recognising the Taliban although not all of them.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/17/18351.html

the Taliban was recognised by three countries Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Two of these countries are supposed to be allies of the US in the war on terror.

Yes, and they form the world opinion....

UM this says no such thing. First of all its talking about the government in the future. IT says that some moderates in the former taliban, MAY be included in the furture government. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a thorough reading may help your argument.

none the less they were still a recognized government.you only said by those that govern there was no mention of how many. How about the good ole allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia not exactly the attitude of a friend.

I thought only Pakistan had 'recognized' them.

"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were the only three countries that recognized Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan after the militia captured Kabul in 1996."

"Although Saudi Arabia and the UAE broke their ties with the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks, they have maintained their links with Taliban leaders."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/204400.shtml

here's where i found this information. disregard the article it is old but the information who 'recognized' the Taliban is still relevant.

Three countries does not a UN make...

Three countries does not a legitimate government make...

Isn't the discussion about the taliban being recognized as a legimate government by three outside countries a bit unnessesary. I thought you where discussing the "unlawful combatants" and that's a status only recogized by the Bush administration.

that's because bush didn't know what to do when he captured these people. all these prisoners should be treated as POW's plain and simple, does this mean that all insurgents in Iraq are going to be classified as unlawful combatants at some point. they are all POW's they were caught in a war zone fighting a war Iraq Afghanistan both wars they are POW's.

you never said how many had to recognize them only that they had to be recognized, and by apparant allies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...ions_of_Taiwan

I guess it's time to attack Taiwan as the United States does not officially recognize their right to govern the people of China (Which is what the people we call Taiwanese call their own country) They are obviously terrorists working against their peoples will (their people being citizens of the Peoples Republic of China, at least, according the the Peoples Republic of China)
We should sit idly by as the Peoples Republic of China attacks and incorporates Taiwan into their official governing structure.
Since, you know, there is no official government there.

Taiwan is not a legitimate country because China, and more importantly the United States does not recognize them as such.

(sarcasm drips from this post)

In fact, we label them as a "renegade authority" That sounds pretty terroristic to me.

another term made up by this administration

Another Superbelt, changing the topic moment. Brought to you by Burger King, where the Burger is King. Now back to the topic at hand....

Nah. I'm just showing how faulty your logic is when you say that certain nations aren't "valid"

Because why? Only 3 nations recognize it? Because the US has to recognize it? The UN?

The UN recognized Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been a constant member of the UN since 1946. Transition to the Taliban never changed that.

exactly first it had to be recognized, now we fin out three countries did in fact recognize it all of a sudden Endymon32 asks they form world opinion. in your opinion does the US have to recognize a government for it to be 'valid'. Endymon32 this last question is for you.



didn't sound like he was changing the topic at all or was the fact he brought up another made up term the issue?

Actually "renegade authority" was coined by the UN in regards to Taiwan.

i did not know that, you do learn something new everyday

did anyone see the trophy photo that was taken of saddam shortly after his capture? i only caught a quick blirb on Global but it showed saddam and an unidentified american soldier. Is this proper under the Geneva Convention or is it the same as the videotape? i say the US is using the Geneva Convention when it suits them and all photo's or videotape should never be shown.

It depends on if the photo was an action by the government or an action by an idividual soldier who took it upon himself. I haven't seen the photo in question which leads me to believe it was not very wiedly publisized. Just because a pows picture shows up on the news does not mean the government violated the geneva convention.... remember there are private orginzations and individuals also. If the media video taped a PoW the US would be hard pressed to stop them from publishing it since the US has a free press. The US would not be violating the convention in an instance like this. The same goes for this picture which sounds like a soldier took it upon himself to do and probably sent it home to his family who put it out for others to see. The government had nothing to do with it but I can be you the soldier is probably getting in trouble for it.

i'm still looking for the link to the photo it was shown on global news in Canada. not sure if it was a soldiers personal photo or not.

When Saddm was committing his most horrible crimes in 1982 and 1988 (mass gassing the Kurds), the west turned a blind eye to his crimes, and even suppoted him. I find it interesting that we are now clambering toward the moral highground about helping humanity. Im over the moon that Saddam has been caught, but lets not get historical amnesia.

exactly the US is trying to distance itself from all saddams war crimes. if he has a public trial can you imagine the secrets that will come out.

still looking for the pic