Saddam, Breach of Human Rights?

ken90

The Americans have already said that Saddam will be treated as a prisoner of war.

It is a Breach of The Geneva Convention to show humiliation pictures of captured POW's.

With the "High Moral Ground" of the Americans and British its a bit Quare for them to be doing something like this.
It's about time somebody called them on it.

I detest Saddam, by the way, thats not the point!

It's about Hypocrisy, Large measures of Double Standards and the Stupidity of good ol'
Chicken Georgie.

Victor

The still photos of him with / without beard I think are OK, the medical exam is another matter.

Whether he is a true PoW is another matter, him being (former) head of state. Although he was renowned for his uniform wearing.

PS my heart bleeds for him :not:

SkepticOne

Yes, under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war are not supposed to be paraded in this way. He could still be regarded as a POW as the war is still ongoing although at a low intensity.

Do you need to be an active participant to be considered a POW?

ken90

Is it a breach of The Geneva Convention A La RTE
to broadcast these pictures?

Prime Time to investigate?

DiscoStu

anyone else find it a bit sickening that oul saddam is going to get a nice open trial under "international law" and due process, yet the prisoners in guantanamo bay are being held indefinetly and any trials that might occur will be held in secret and with no outside verificaton of their fairness or imparciality? a mass murderer and all round genocidal manic get a nice cosy cell while lowley grunts that no one is even sure a guilty or not are treated like animals.

Victor

Originally posted by ken90
Is it a breach of The Geneva Convention A La RTE to broadcast these pictures?

No it is the occupying power (the Americans) that are committing the offence.

Originally posted by DiscoStu
anyone else find it a bit sickening that oul saddam is going to get a nice open trial under "international law" and due process, yet the prisoners in guantanamo bay are being held indefinetly and any trials that might occur will be held in secret and with no outside verificaton of their fairness or imparciality? a mass murderer and all round genocidal manic get a nice cosy cell while lowley grunts that no one is even sure a guilty or not are treated like animals.

Such is life. You never, ever endanger the prosecution of the kingpin.

There is a difference insofar as Saddam wasn't involved in fighting. There is a marginal case, that I am not conviced of, that they were "illegal combatants", neither in a regular army, nor a militia, nor a volunteer corp.

SCULLY

America have decreed that Saddam is a 'prisoner of war' and therefore , under the convention, his picture's should not have been shown; The video of him getting his medical should not have been shown and his interrigation should not take place. It is yet again another example how Bush and co yet again flaunt accepted rules when they seem fit. When an 'Allied/occupying' soldier is next captured in iraq, they can have no cause of complaint if/when he is paraded in front of the press.

BTW, I'm glad Saddam will be sent to trial but I'd like to see the whole process done correctly. Bush came out yesterday saying he'd like the death penalty for Saddam - wow george, didn't see that coming.

bonkey

Originally posted by SCULLY
It is yet again another example how Bush and co yet again flaunt accepted rules when they seem fit.

I don't think thats entirely accurate. To me, its just another example of how the attitude of "winner's don't break rules" still pervades.

As a matter of (somewhat related) interest, does anyone know if anyone from the victorious side in a war ever been charged with war-crimes?

jc

Bard

My reading of the situation is that Saddam is a captured despotic dictator, a man who had to be removed from a position of power, but that his treatment will be in-line with that of a prisoner of war, while not in-fact being one. They never declared war on Iraq, they declared a 'war on terror' and pledged to have Saddam removed... which they've done.

Originally posted by SCULLY
America have decreed that Saddam is a 'prisoner of war' and therefore , under the convention, his picture's should not have been shown;

No they didn't decree that, they announced that they would TREAT him in the same way as they would treat a POW. i.e.: They're promising that he won't be tortured or mistreated.

Believe them?

mr_angry

Its not exactly a massive surprise to see the Americans flout international law, is it? They've virtually lowered their military standards to that of terrorism, albeit with bigger guns. I assume that the "trial" wont be in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but instead a US-run trial in Iraq. And the only reason ol' George is pushing that one is because he knows the Iraqis will give him the death penalty.

I'd love to be there on Judgement Day behind George W. Bush in the queue!

uberwolf

It occured to me as wel, particularly in light of the (probably justified) fuss earlier in teh war when allied troops were paraded.

Mr.StRiPe

America has its own rules! but showing the pictures of Saddam could work against them as he looked pretty healthy and sane, so he'll have to look like that the next time we get to see pics of him after they "Interrogate" him! Otherwise there will be more questions! (fow a while anyway )

kano476

This again is the case of America acting as the 'spoilt child' "we can show pictures of your pow's but no you can't show pictures of ours because that's inhumane." But America has such clout and the stones to so this without any opposition whatsoever simply beacuse they are america and they are everything that is great about this world and of course they are always right.
But like almost every other good person in this world I would like nothing more than to see saddam fry. I would like to see a big mob of normal iraqi citizens stone him to death because that is no more than what he desrves.
Although, the Geneva convention has been broken a number of times during this war anyway, so it's not really much of a surprise to see it thrown aside once more.

mike65

...okay then who here is going to start a petition? :rolleyes:

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by kano476
This again is the case of America acting as the 'spoilt child' "we can show pictures of your pow's but no you can't show pictures of ours because that's inhumane."

Thats not fair. The Iraqi's also took the same stance - objecting to what the US showed, and how it apparently treated their people, whilst insisting that everything they did was within the rules.

The guilt is only decided once the loser is known. They, clearly, were the ones who were lying, and the victors, naturally, were doing nothing wrong....

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Bard
They never declared war on Iraq, they declared a 'war on terror' and pledged to have Saddam removed... which they've done.

Invasion is a de facto declaration of war, it being the primary act of war (others being attack, blockade, etc.).

Originally posted by bonkey
As a matter of (somewhat related) interest, does anyone know if anyone from the victorious side in a war ever been charged with war-crimes?

Bad example, but Bosnia. Was there a winning side? There are no doubt individual example of other people being punished for war crimes by their own side, but usually as part of military discipline, not as an independant tribunal.

SCULLY

Originally posted by Bard

No they didn't decree that, they announced that they would TREAT him in the same way as they would treat a POW. i.e.: They're promising that he won't be tortured or mistreated.

But the point is that by showing pictures, and questioning him, means they are not treating him as a pow, regardless of what lip service they are giving.

The Corinthian

Rumsfeld also denied that the release of video footage of Saddam being medically examined contravened the Geneva Convention.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13735559_method=full_siteid=89488_headline=-SADDAM-SHOWN-TORTURE-VIDEOS-name_page.html

"The Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war," Rumsfeld said.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/

Of course I don’t think he actually explained how this case was different, not that it actually matters, of course - History is written by the victors, after all.

Victor

http://www.thepost.ie/web/Home/Document%20View%20Business/did-106934039-pageUrl--2FBusiness-2FNews-Features.asp

Trial and error
21/12/03 00:00
By Kieron Wood

Next year's trial of former Iraqi d i ct ator Saddam Hussein is likely to be one of the most high-profile showtrials since the end of World War II.

Whether justice will be seen to be done is another matter.

After Saddam was captured last week in an underground bunker near his home town of Tikrit,the US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, told a hastily-assembled news conference: "The determination about how and when Saddam will face justice - and he will face justice - is a question that still remains before us."

In Washington, President George W Bush - describing Saddam as a "disgusting tyrant", "torturer" and "murderer" - said that Saddam should face "the ultimate penalty".

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the former commanderin-chief of Iraq's armed forces - held at a secret location - was being "accorded the privileges of being a prisoner-ofwar under the Geneva Convention". Already, however, Saddam's rights under the convention appear to have been breached.

Article 13 of the international agreement, to which the US is a signatory, says that prisoners of war must be protected at all times, particularly against "insults and public curiosity."

But photographs of Saddam's medical examination in custody - not unlike pictures of POWs in Iraqi hands, which were condemned byAllied leaders - seemed designed solely to titillate, and bode ill for Saddam's future treatment.

The United States has indicated that it would prefer to hand Saddam over to the Iraqis for trial.The president of Iraq's Gover ning Council, Ab del A z i z A l-Hak i m, agreed. He told the BBC that Saddam should be tried by Iraqi judges at a tribunal in Iraq.

Such a tribunal was set up by the governing council before Saddam's capture. It will try allegations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed from July 14,1968 - when the Ba'ath Party came to power - until May 1, 2003, when Bush declared an end to major hostilities.

But Article 102 of the Geneva Convention states: "A prisoner of war can be validly sentenced only if the sentence has been pronounced by the same courts according to the same procedure as in the case of members of the armed forces of the detaining power."

And Article 84 of the convention declares: "In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognised."

The impartiality of any Iraqi court is open to question, particularly in the light of remarks by Amar Al-Hakim, senior me mb er of the Supre me Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. He told reporters: "We want Sadda m Husseintoget what he deserves. I believe he will be sentenced to hundreds of death sentences at a fair trial, because he's responsible for all the massacres and crimes in Iraq."

Mowafaq A l-Rub eie, a member of the governing council, was even more specific, saying that Saddam "might be executed on July 1, one month after the American authority hands over power to an elected government in Baghdad".

The Iraqi tribunal's credentials are further tainted by the suggestion of David Scheffer, former US ambassador-atlarge for war crimes, that Amer ica should consider funding the court.

Last week, Saddam's eldest daughter Raghad told Al Arabiya television that the family did not want Saddam tried by the governing council, which was set up by the US occupation.They wanted "an international, fair and legal trial".

It has been suggested that Saddam could be tried by the new International Criminal Court, which can prosecute anyone accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
However, the court - which is not recognised by the US government - can only deal with crimes committed after July 1, 2002.

Sovereign immunity could pose a further difficulty for the US authorities. International law recognises that a former head of state is generally entitled to immunity from prosecution in another country.

This issue arose when the Span ish gover n me nt attempted to extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pino chet from B r ita i n on charges of torture, kidnapping and murder. Spain argued that the crimes were so horrific that an exception must be made to the principle of state immunity.

The Divisional Court ruled that Pinochet was entitled to state immunity but, on appeal, the House of Lords reversed that decision, saying that he could be extradited on the torture allegations.

The Lords agreed that a head of state or former head of state was entitled to the same immunity as the state itself, and Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said international law recognised that the functions of a head of state might include activities which were illegal.

It was argued that sovereign immunity was not available for torture because the 1984 Convention Against Torture made it an international crime.

But Lord Goff of Chieveley said that, if state immunity were excluded for torture, former heads of state and senior public officials would have to think twice about travelling abroad.

"It is not only in the United States of America that a substantial body of opinion supports the campaign of the IRA to overthrow the democratic government of Northern Ireland," he said.

"It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a state whose government is imbued with this opinion might seek to extradite from a third country, where he or she happens to be, a responsible Minister of the Crown - or even a more humble public official such as a police inspector - on the grounds that he or she has acquiesced in a single act of physical or mental torture in Northern Ireland."

Goff concluded that, if the framers of the torture convention had intended to exclude state immunity, they would have said so, but the majority ruled against him. (Pinochet's extradition was eventually prevented on health grounds.)

Iraq's governing council has said it is determined to resist calls for Saddam to be tried by an international tribunal, such as the war crimes tribunals for Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia.

That is understandable, in the light of recent events in the Hague. Former Nato commander General Wesley Clark complained last week that Slobodan Milosevic had shown "the same flashes of petulance and stubbornness" in court as when he was in power inYugoslavia. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Saddam might do likewise, to the embarrassment of the allies.

The former Iraqi leader might, for example, remind his accusers that Iraq's Mig- 29s, tanks, artillery and Scud missiles were supplied by the Soviet Union. Or he could recall how Jacques Chirac sold Iraq two French nuclear reactors and 133 Mirage jet fighters.

The United States, Britain, Italy and Germany also supplied Iraq with military equipment and expertise, when they knew Iraq had used chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

But Saddam can rely on the Americans observing at least one clause of the Geneva Convention. Article 86 says that no prisoner of war may be punished more than once on the same charge.

If Bush gets his way, that's one promise they'll keep.