Saddam arrested?

[pritchke]

Originally posted by sultan: Sir T, nobody is saying that. first, there was no evidence that capturing saddam would end all violence, nor has it, so put away the ridiculous hypotheticals. second, i dont think anyone disagrees that a picture was necessary. however, picking through him like a wild gorilla, looking for lice and such is disrespectful. yes, the medical care needs to be done, and checking for weapons and suicide capsules too. but those arent the pictures that need to be shown. give him a shower, give him some clean clothes, show the man with dignity. because whether he deserves it or not, we are better than that. or, at least, i thought we were. here's an article that says it well, and raises the legitimate questions about what it says about us.

Good article Sultan besides the probing I also found Rumsfeld's comments about Saddam being a coward for hiding in a hole a little unwarranted and tacky as well as insulting. While it is good that Saddam as been captured a simple picture of him in a cell would have been enough as proof that he was captured why the probing? As for Rumsfeld's comments I found it a slap in the face because if I had thousands of troops scouring the country side for me with possible intent to kill me, I would probably hide in a hole until danger has passed as well. Not because I am a coward but because I have some smarts. Ever see the movie Red Dawn? were those kids cowards for hiding in the woods, or ambushing Russians from under the earth? Of course not. Rumsfield basically called every intelligent person a coward. Then I pictured how Rumsfield would fair under the same situation as Saddam and saw him for what he truly is. Sure he talks big behind that podium but so did Saddam.

Saddam may be a coward but it is for different reasons than hiding in a hole from thousands of troops. More like how he killed a tortured people who were politically against him for these reasons he is a coward.

[ 12-17-2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Donut - I think you (and the others) are overlooking a few fundamental differences between the clips of American POW's and Saddam Hussein. First of all, the American soldiers were Prisoners of War. Saddam Hussein is not. He is a man wanted for crimes against humanity. Big Difference!!! He is a simply a captured criminal. And showing a video of his capture is no different than showing video of any other well-known criminal that had been captured after a long manhunt. "

Not so Cerek - Rumsfield has said: "that captured former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) will be treated as a prisoner of war in accordance with the Geneva conventions." Link

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As for your charges of hypocrisy against Bush, I would just point out that Bush was NOT the one who claimed the video clips of the American POW's violated the G.C. to begin with. That was Rumsfeld (as you pointed out). Secondly, do you REALLY believe President Bush could have prevented the media from airing the clips of Saddam Hussein. If he had tried to prevent the broadcast of the clip, the networks would be SCREAMING that their First Amendment Rights were being violated. So Bush couldn't have prevented the clip from being shown even if he had wanted to.

Could the US military or officials present could easily have stopped the filming taking place in the first place ? That is the point where the GC code was broken.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I am equally dimayed that one of the most evil men to live in our lifetime has finally been captured and will stand trial for his crimes,

I've never known you to be sarcatic Cerek so I'm hoping this is a typo, I hope that you aren't suggesting that I'm 'dismayed' that Saddam has been captured. My view is that there could be no conclusion to the situatiuon in Iraq until he was captured. In the short term there will be an increase in the attacks on the coalition. More foreign terrorists will go to Iraq. The resistance will increase because people who previously were not part of it because they would not support Hussein will now join a 'nationalist' resistance. Arabs who already hate the US/UK will be further outreaged by the treatment of Saddam.

Bush and Rumsfeld will use the form of words that will allow them to take whatever actions they like. They will interpret the GC (and any other international treaties) to suit themselves. They will still expect their enemies to respect the GC.

Hypocrites!

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Donut: My comments aren't about Saddam, Iraq or the Iraqi people - they are about the hypocrisy of Bush and Rumsfeld. If it's against the GC to put captives on TV then it applies to ALL captives. And if you don't think he was being paraded as a trophy of war then you must have watched a different clip. Of course, as a by product it hasn't done Bush's re-election campaign any harm has it?

Donut - I think you (and the others) are overlooking a few fundamental differences between the clips of American POW's and Saddam Hussein.

First of all, the American soldiers were Prisoners of War. Saddam Hussein is not. He is a man wanted for crimes against humanity. Big Difference!!! He is a simply a captured criminal. And showing a video of his capture is no different than showing video of any other well-known criminal that had been captured after a long manhunt.

I swear I heard either Bush, or Rumsfeld say he would be treated as a PoW. I actually had no problem of the video of "his capture" only the examination and probing by doctors after the capture. When they captured Milsovic I saw no probing examination and this man, was as evil if not more so than Saddam. That part of the video was not needed to be shown as it could cause outrage in Muslims which is what we should be trying prevent. Hearts and Minds, Hearts and Minds!

The purpose in showing the clip of Saddam Hussein is not so much to "show him off as a trophy" as it is to show documented proof that a wanted criminal had been captured and brought to justice. The inclusion of the medical exam was done (as far as I could tell) to show that he was being treated in a humane manner and was being given medical attention. I personally saw nothing "undignified" about the video, but I'm not an Iraqi..so I will concede that they may have taken exception to it (though I doubt the veracity of that claim. I don't think many Iraqi's would be upset in seeing Hussein treated in an undignified manner. Again, that is just my opinion).


Again I was OK with showing the capture, medical exams should be somewhat private although neceassary not for the whole world to see without consent. Then we would watch them on a scientific channel like PBS. Not sure how you define dignity but having a Doctor probe my holes in front of the whole world is not my definition of dignity actually I am usually pretty embarrased just one on one. I think Muslims who love him or hate him will be somewhat upset. I think they would have been much happier if you treated him like an old dog by taking him to a secluded spot and putting a bullet to the back of his head. That as more dignity than probing him in fronnt of the world.

Since we are no longer actively "at war" with Iraq - and since Saddam Hussein is not a Prisoner of War - I would imagine that is the distinction Rumsfeld was making regarding the Geneva Convention. I admit I don't know enough about the G.C. myself to know if one clip is right and the other wrong, or if both are right or both wrong, but since the G.C. deals specifically with wartime activities and the treatment of POW's, I can't imagine it would apply to Saddam Hussein.

I have no problem with not treating him as a POW. But if the administration says they are to treat him as a POW than they should follow the rules of POW's.

As for your charges of hypocrisy against Bush, I would just point out that Bush was NOT the one who claimed the video clips of the American POW's violated the G.C. to begin with. That was Rumsfeld (as you pointed out). Secondly, do you REALLY believe President Bush could have prevented the media from airing the clips of Saddam Hussein. If he had tried to prevent the broadcast of the clip, the networks would be SCREAMING that their First Amendment Rights were being violated. So Bush couldn't have prevented the clip from being shown even if he had wanted to.

They could have came to the agreement with the media that certain parts should be edited for the viewing public.

You say that you cannot abide hypocrisy. Fair enough. I am equally dimayed that one of the most evil men to live in our lifetime has finally been captured and will stand trial for his crimes, yet the only "good thing" some members can see in this situation is that it affords them another chance to criticize President Bush on general principle.

I agree and I am not criticizing Bush. But certain things that are being done that I don't agree with. Bush is actually doing a much better job lately and if he get rid of Rumsfeld and a few others he would make a fine president, but you know about having a few bad apples in a barrel.

Of course, I shouldn't be too surprised by that. Saddam Hussein has committed innumerable atrocities and crimes against humanity during his reign in Iraq. Political opponents were dragged out of the building and shot in the street while Saddam sat at the podium and smiled. Political prisoners endured all manners of torture, beatings, and maimings. The Khurds were attacked with biological weapons in an attempt at genocide and even the professional athletes of Iraq were beaten and/or tortured if they failed to perform adequately in competition. Yet President Bush was the one labeled "a modern day Adolf Hitler" before the war with Iraq began. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

I agree with you but we acted after the fact not during the killing. With Milsovicth (sp) we at least acted during the killing although it could have been done much quicker. In this case we waited until after Saddam killed everyone he possibly could of relevance. Then provided reasons for war with no solid proof. He should have been taken out a long time ago, this however is not Bush's fault. Actually Saddam is more like Hitler but Bush was behaving badly on the drive for war but probably did not deserve that label however.

If members can't see the absurd fallacy of that comparison, then there really isn't anything else to discuss.

You said "Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush"

I say "Blind criticism, thy name is too numerous to list here" [/QUOTE]

[ 12-17-2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

If found that Stanley Weintraub article to be pretty useless. I think the message is clear: terrorists and tyrants get no respect and garner no dignity. If they can hit him with shoe soles, we can show him being examined. If they don't like the "insult" then they only need embrace freedom and not be terrorists or tyrants. Then they won't lose any dignity.

Personally, I'd have staked Uday and Qusay outside US headquaters as a fair warning. Some of the old ways need to be brought back IMO.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: Not so Cerek - Rumsfield has said: "that captured former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) will be treated as a prisoner of war in accordance with the Geneva conventions." Link

Then I stand corrected on that assertion

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I am equally dimayed that one of the most evil men to live in our lifetime has finally been captured and will stand trial for his crimes,

I've never known you to be sarcatic Cerek so I'm hoping this is a typo, I hope that you aren't suggesting that I'm 'dismayed' that Saddam has been captured. My view is that there could be no conclusion to the situatiuon in Iraq until he was captured. In the short term there will be an increase in the attacks on the coalition. More foreign terrorists will go to Iraq. The resistance will increase because people who previously were not part of it because they would not support Hussein will now join a 'nationalist' resistance. Arabs who already hate the US/UK will be further outreaged by the treatment of Saddam.[/QUOTE]You're right that I rarely sarcasm in my replies. I try to be as diplomatic as possible in my responses, even when I strongly disagree with a post, but I feel there are times when sarcasm can be a useful tool. However, this was not one of those times.

I was not trying to imply that you were dismayed over the capture of Saddam Hussein. I was responding to your comment that you cannot abide hypocrisy in any form. I was saying that I was just as dismayed that some members would use an event that should be cause for celebration as just another reason to break out the "Bush-whacker" sticks that had finally begun to be put away. While all the members DO agree that the capture of Saddam is a "good thing"...there are some that simply cannot bring themselves to give even a modicum of praise or even mild congratulations to President Bush.
Even Chiraque and Gerhardt(sp?) were able to do THAT much...(and in fact, both showed a great deal of class in their response to the situation IMHO [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] ).

Originally posted by Donut: Bush and Rumsfeld will use the form of words that will allow them to take whatever actions they like. They will interpret the GC (and any other international treaties) to suit themselves. They will still expect their enemies to respect the GC. Hypocrites!

The same claim could be made for ANY world leader. ALL politicians will "use the form of words that will allow them to take whateve actions they like". France, Germany, and Russia opposed U.S. action against Iraq based {supposedly} on moral grounds and on the U.S. defying the U.N. In reality, they opposed the war because all three countries had lucrative business deals with Iraq that violated the sanctions handed down by the U.N. themselves. So they also were defying the U.N. - just in a different manner.

You don't have to look very far to find examples of hypocrisy in ANY world leader when doing so will benefit them and their agenda.

You stand by your claim of hypocrisy by Bush and Rumsfeld. I stand by claim of blind criticism against Bush regardless of what actions he takes.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If found that Stanley Weintraub article to be pretty useless. I think the message is clear: terrorists and tyrants get no respect and garner no dignity. If they can hit him with shoe soles, we can show him being examined. If they don't like the "insult" then they only need embrace freedom and not be terrorists or tyrants. Then they won't lose any dignity. Personally, I'd have staked Uday and Qusay outside US headquaters as a fair warning. Some of the old ways need to be brought back IMO.

please tell me this was sarcasm. or at least a momentary, misguided triumph of passion over reason.

otherwise, let's forget all this "civilised" b/s and just teach our kids: might makes right, and a few dollars will fix everything else.

it reminds me of jordan's conan stories: conan always said he was never so civilised as to give a man his word and not keep it.

indeed, timber, some of the old ways need to be brought back, but i'm think we mean different ones.

[pritchke]

The images of the probing a Good move or bad move? While Saddam is justified being denied dignity this is something I don't think those that wish to watch him suffer and have no dignity understand. The images of him being probed like a cow are also making people feel sorry for the butcher, which he does not deserve. By airing such things thay are aiding the saddam PR campaign.

The Vatican's Cardinal Renato Martino stressed the Roman Catholic Church's longtime opposition to capital punishment.

He said he felt "compassion" for Saddam, despite his crimes, after seeing images of "this destroyed man" being "treated like a cow, having his teeth checked" by an American military medic.

[ 12-17-2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]