saddam?

[bishop]

this article reminded me about ol' saddam...

what do you think has been going on with him since he was captured?

[PatrickHenry]

Mint juleps at the Crawford Ranch?

[bishop]

deep anal probing?


you'd have thought that they would've tricked saddam into making a deal - where he'd spill the beans. then bush would grab the wmd and vindicate himself. the silence is deafening imo..

[dotcoma]

How do we know they didn't make a deal? Would they tell us if they did? They paid off Republican Guard Generals. That doesn't get talked about...

[bishop]

i'm not about to go into conspiracy theory, but the situation is definitely fishy.

hell.. information on this bogus was has been fishy since the getgo - including before the invasion. tell you one thing, though, i doubt that they just have saddam chillin in a cell, waiting for his trial date to come.

I didnt think Sean cared what we think, only what we can prove?

[bishop]

yeah? prove it.

http://www.volconvo.com/etiquette.htm

[hanger4]

The ICRC is more interested in scoring cheap political points with Eurotwits than in the pursuit of justice.

1.) Saddam Hussein is not DEFINED as a prisoner of war. He is not a uniformed member of the opposing nation's military. The United States granted him PoW status to ensure that he would be humanely treated. But he is not ENTITLED to such status, is not wholly in that status, and what PoW status he does have can be revoked at any time.

2.) There is nothing in international law that says PoWs have to be released "at the end of an occupation." The ICRC needs to study up on the Geneva Conventions. According to Article 118 of the Geneva Convention Relative to The Treatment of Prisoners of War, PoWs are released "at the cessation of active hostilities."

And it's pretty clear that hostilities are pretty active, and they ain't cessated yet.

3.) Saddam Hussein could easily be held without charges as a material witness to innumerable crimes against humanity. There is no reason to rush to the charges. US law grants a 7-year statute of limitations. But there is not statute of limitations against his many murders. Charges can be filed in due course, in consultation with the new Iraqi government.

[bishop]

#1.. how, exactly is saddam not a prisoner of war? i suppose that by your standard, all those who were captured during the invasion also can't be categorized as pow's?

#2.. after june 30, the cpa will be dissolved, and therefore, it will be technically illegal for us to continue detaining iraqis.

#3.. if he's held under crimes against humanity, then he falls under the u.n.'s jurisdiction - as crimes against humanity are defined under international law. and, again, after june 30, the cpa will legally cease to exist.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by bishop, deep anal probing? you'd have thought that they would've tricked saddam into making a deal - where he'd spill the beans. then bush would grab the wmd and vindicate himself. the silence is deafening imo..

Keep it clean please. Unless you can show that's what they're doing to him.

[bishop]

if i can show it, would you mind if i posted it?

[hanger4]

"#1.. how, exactly is saddam not a prisoner of war? i suppose that by your standard, all those who were captured during the invasion also can't be categorized as pow's?"

He is not a uniformed member of the opposing nation's military. The United States granted him PoW status to ensure that he would be humanely treated.

"#2.. after june 30, the cpa will be dissolved, and therefore, it will be technically illegal for us to continue detaining iraqis."

According to Article 118 of the Geneva Convention Relative to The Treatment of Prisoners of War, PoWs are released "at the cessation of active hostilities."
And it's pretty clear that hostilities are pretty active, and they ain't cessated yet.

"#3.. if he's held under crimes against humanity, then he falls under the u.n.'s jurisdiction - as crimes against humanity are defined under international law. and, again, after june 30, the cpa will legally cease to exist"
Saddam Hussein could easily be held without charges as a material witness to innumerable crimes against humanity.

[bishop]

i'm not sure what you mean by "opposing nation", but you are severaly twisting the truth.. when we invaded, he was the legal ruler of iraq. he was entitled to pow status under the geneva convention. even our own military says so:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/200404...mmittSenor.html

Before I give the operational briefing, a brief announcement. Today a visit between Saddam Hussein and authorized members of the International Committee for the Red Cross occurred at an undisclosed location. The visit occurred upon request of the ICRC under the Geneva Convention's rule of visitation with enemy prisoners of war. A visit between Saddam Hussein and authorized members of the ICRC last occurred on February 21st. Coalition forces welcome the crucial role of the ICRC in the advocacy of enemy prisoner-of-war rights. The coalition will continue to work with the ICRC in order to uphold our obligations under international law to include provisions for ICRC visitation with enemy prisoners of war.

so, where are you coming up with these incorrect conclusions?

also - you completely skipped over the fact that the cpa will not exist after june 30. talking about material witness is fine and all, but it's legally moot as far as the united states detaining saddam is concerned. after june 30, our legal cover as the occupying power disappears.

[Comrade]

Firstly, if we ever consider Saddam and his like legitimate rulers, it's over.

Secondly, just because that's what the military says they think doesn't mean that is how we are operating.

[Sonart]

He (Saddam)is not a uniformed member of the opposing nation's military. The United States granted him PoW status to ensure that he would be humanely treated.

He's NOT??? You mean the fact that he was the supreme commander of his military and all those videos of him parading around in his uniform and conducting meetings of his military chiefs were... what?... faked?

[Scribbler1]

[quote=hanger4
"#2.. after june 30, the cpa will be dissolved, and therefore, it will be technically illegal for us to continue detaining iraqis."

According to Article 118 of the Geneva Convention Relative to The Treatment of Prisoners of War, PoWs are released "at the cessation of active hostilities."
And it's pretty clear that hostilities are pretty active, and they ain't cessated yet.
[/QUOTE]

I believe the "active hostilities" part refers to a declaration of the official end to the war. If we remain in a country after declaring a war over (and if we put a new government in, this will end the occupation and therfore the war) and still get shot at, it's our lookout. I think technically, they will HAVE to release him. I believe this is supposed to be the way it is planned, and Saddam will be released into Iraqi custody. At least that's what the US government is telling us...today.

[bugsbunny04]

Originally posted by bishop, this article reminded me about ol' saddam... what do you think has been going on with him since he was captured?

Hopefully electric shock thearapy. Believe me, it is a shocking experience.

[Sonart]

And it's pretty clear that hostilities are pretty active, and they ain't cessated yet.

What?!?! You mean Mission's Not Accomplished?

I think technically, they will HAVE to release him. I believe this is supposed to be the way it is planned, and Saddam will be released into Iraqi custody.

That would make sense, I suppose. Have you actually heard this? I figured there'd be a seat reserved for Saddam at the Hague for his war crimes trial.

[dotcoma]

The Hague won't execute him. Chances are he'll die of cancer. I've seen a few article saying he's "dying".

[Sonart]

Chances are he'll die of cancer.

Slowly, alone, in prison. Works for me.