Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Showing humiliating pictures...

Dec 14, 2003 1:15PM PST

Does the fact that the US has shown rather humiliating pictures of Saddam, violate the Geneva Convention? I know it was a big deal when the Iraqis showed pictures of captured Americans in Al Jazeera, but how about the pictures shown of Saddam?
I just want somebody to explain the difference between the Iraqis action when they had captured Americans and this last case and as a matter of fact, the sons of Saddam too! Those pictures were also spread all over the world. Anyone knows what the convention says about these cases?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Found it!
Dec 14, 2003 1:29PM PST

Article 13 in this document says it clearly! Wasn't it Rumsfield BTW who was so upset over the pictures of the Americans in Iraq nd kept talking about the Geneva Convention?

- Collapse -
I am really surprised at you charlie
Dec 14, 2003 2:03PM PST

How about breaking the Geneva rules by Saddam when he butchered and murdered men, women and children and buried them in mass graves.
How do you think the victims relatives thought when they saw the rotting corpses of their loved ones?
You think showing a dirty filthy wicked man having his mouth swabbed comes any where near that horror?

- Collapse -
Absolutely not...
Dec 14, 2003 2:18PM PST

but I thought we were better than them when it comes to respecting the International Laws and the rules set up by the World Community. Apart from that, I am only asking what the difference is between Al-Jazeerah TV showing Americans that have been captured and when CNN/NBC/BBC/SVT/NRK/DW or whatever channel it is, shows a captured Saddam Hussein. Don't forget Steve, that both in your and in what still is considered my homeland, the equality before the law prevails...

This doesn't mean that I have ever sympathized with Saddam's regime - that was the US who did that and who fed him with WMD and Rumsfield was there shaking hands with him - but I do believe in respecting international laws and being an example for the rest of the world.

- Collapse -
Quite a different matter showing the butchered bodies of american troops
Dec 14, 2003 2:33PM PST

in contrast to showing someone having his mouth swabbed.
The rules may have been broken in both instances, but the extent of those unfortunate troops was far worse.
Anybody trying to wave the laws about in favour of Saddam are going to get a very rough ride. I.M.O
Other people on this forum may think differently to me, but we will have to see.
Happy Xmas to you Charlie and your family.
Have a few beers on me.

- Collapse -
Re:Quite a different matter showing the butchered bodies of american troops
Dec 14, 2003 4:00PM PST
"The rules may have been broken in both instances, but the extent of those unfortunate troops was far worse." - Steve Gargini

I agree, but as you say, the violation is the same and that's why I wanted to bring it up to discussion. I think it can get interesting to see how the international laws will be applied in this case.

Now, how to apply the laws to Saddam can also get very interesting. Don't forget that we had a man named Augusto Pinochet who was responsible for thousands of people's death and for torturing them and for disappearances. All I know is that he's back in Chile and is still immune against the law since he is a self-chosen senator for life in his country. I don't have the exact updates on him, but I am speaking strictly about the application of the law!

BTW, wasn't UK involved in the Pinochet case??? I know it was the Spanish judge Baltazar Garz
- Collapse -
No "rules" were broken here with Saddam...
Dec 15, 2003 12:05AM PST

and you will not see anyone other than yourself even suggesting it Charlie.

That is because the assertion is false and even the most ultra liberal media won't intentionally make such foolish statements that "remove all doubt"--they try to retain a tiny bit of credibility.

- Collapse -
Pinochet was another butcher by all accounts
Dec 15, 2003 8:27AM PST
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/the_pinochet_file/198306.stm

and we had a problem extraditing him because of ill health. We didn't like the man for what he did but were left with a difficult situation.

I am just pleased that Saddam didn't make his way to Britain, the law is such an *** these days that he probably would have got a short jail sentence.
He will get what he deserves in Iraq, so I hope they leave him there.
- Collapse -
Re:Pinochet was another butcher by all accounts
Dec 15, 2003 11:21AM PST

But then, why wasn't the Pinochet a big deal all over the world as Saddam is now???

- Collapse -
i think it should the world we were treating him fairly
Dec 14, 2003 9:03PM PST

giving medical attention, more than he should get.

if i would have found him he would have resisted and id shot him dead no hesitation.
and before you jump on me thats to friggan bad.
hes a dead man walking

- Collapse -
Re:i think it should the world we were treating him fairly
Dec 15, 2003 4:20AM PST

Doesn't it turn your stomach bro,when people show concern for this scared,punk Coward?

- Collapse -
you know what they say bro birds of a feather flock together
Dec 15, 2003 4:23AM PST

i think it shows charlies true self

- Collapse -
Hang on, Steve...
Dec 14, 2003 2:52PM PST

Hang on, Steve, can Article 18 be far behind?
"Sums of money carried by prisoners of war may not be taken away from them except by order of an officer, and after the amount and particulars of the owner have been recorded in a special register and an itemized receipt has been given, legibly inscribed with the name, rank and unit of the person issuing the said receipt. Sums in the currency of the Detaining Power, or which are changed into such currency at the prisoner's request, shall be placed to the credit of the prisoner's account as provided in Article 64."
Actually, don't expect that, there may be a bit of a problem with the applying POW status and the Geneva Convention when the enemy army is no longer in organized existance and the situation of the captor is now occupying power.

- Collapse -
Hi J
Dec 14, 2003 3:47PM PST

I don't know what has happened to the $750,000 which was found in his possession. The intelligence forces will do their utmost to link the money to some illegal act, such as illegal drug sales, whatever.
At the moment on this thread we are discussing the rights or wrongs of showing a prisoner on the news reports. I have already made my feelings perfectly clear on that, but they are MY feelings and don't expect anyone else to support me unless they agree.

- Collapse -
i support you, and i agree with you Steve
Dec 14, 2003 8:06PM PST

but unfortunately some will disregard the past and centre on "Sadaams rights" as a "human being"....

- Collapse -
Thanks Jonah - it's nice to know I am not alone
Dec 14, 2003 8:16PM PST

As you say, they treat him as a "human being", I would rather they treated him as a blood thirsty killer which he is, and I cannot believe that there is an once of "humanity" in the guy.

- Collapse -
Re:i support you, and i agree with you Steve
Dec 15, 2003 2:27AM PST

yes we already have the allegation that the death penalty for SH violates International Human Rights or some such drivel in a different thread.

of course as always there is not one shred of proof or link.

but I guess we have all come to expcet that.

david williams

- Collapse -
And you must strongly disagree with Rumsfeld too, huh?
Dec 15, 2003 3:10AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:And you must strongly disagree with Rumsfeld too, huh?
Dec 15, 2003 3:37AM PST

maybe yes, maybe no...

#The Iraqi TV "interview" of the American prisoners appears to have been designed specifically to humiliate and demean?which makes it seem a clear violation of Article 13.#

are you comparing the two incidences? US POWs and Sadaam?

do you see the TV appearance of Sadaam as "designed specifically to humiliate and demean"?

- Collapse -
Nope...
Dec 15, 2003 7:10AM PST

You either read too fast or just don't understand what the words mean.

"were videotaped by an Iraqi TV journalist who asked if their invasion had been greeted by guns or roses."

That portion was humiliation just as parading them or dragging them through the streets would be.

Saddam's treatment is entirely within the constraints of the Conventions.

- Collapse -
Re:And you must strongly disagree with Rumsfeld too, huh?
Dec 15, 2003 7:22AM PST

All Mr. Rumsfield has done is quote the Geneva Convention.
It is a Satute written by greater and better minds.
what you are trying to do in your charectic manner is to read something into the media reports as to how and where he was captured and what his condition was.
I have read clips from American, Australian and Canadian sources and all they do is describe his condition at the time of capture.

there was no attempt at any sort of public humiliation that you infer is occurring.

naturally you have not provided any link or source for your allegation, relying instead of your standard parrot response and your habit of continuously repeating yourself, ad nauseum.

- Collapse -
LINK LINK LINK!!!! LOL
Dec 15, 2003 3:19AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
Re:LINK LINK LINK!!!! LOL
Dec 15, 2003 7:24AM PST

Glenda, a snowball has a better chance of surviving hell, than Charlie of producing a link.

but glad you asked the question.

maybe someday it will penetrate the mist, and he may come to realise that it is easy enough to mouth off, but a little more complex to put his money where his mouth is.

like I said, a snowball has a better chance......

david williams

- Collapse -
Fat chance, I agree! LOL The snowbell already melted!! hehehe NT
Dec 15, 2003 11:15AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
Darn typos!!!!!! SNOWBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL NT
Dec 15, 2003 11:18AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
Re:Fat chance, I agree! LOL .......Lordy, did we go to the
Dec 15, 2003 1:40PM PST
- Collapse -
Re:you Found it? you found jack!!
Dec 14, 2003 2:29PM PST

Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated.
#he wasn't shot or raped#

Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited,

#he was checked by qualified medical personnel#

no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

#are you saying that his mouth being swabbed was an "experiment"?..#

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected,

#he is in "coalition" custody, not an Iraqui jail#

i could go on, but you wouldn't agree anyway, but you get the general idea........

- Collapse -
And you forgot the most important point....
Dec 14, 2003 2:55PM PST

"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." The emphasize is mine.

- Collapse -
Re: And you forgot the most important point....
Dec 14, 2003 10:08PM PST

Hi, Charlie.

I think you're off-base on this one. It's not like he was paraded through the streets of Baghdad with people jeering and throwing things at him, though AIR that happened with some captured fliers in Gulf War I. He's not just an ordinary POW -- he's a symbol of resistance to many loyal followers. Showing that he's indeed been captured is important in trying to decrease the bloodshed, so even if it's a technical violation (and I'm not sure I agree about that) it's a minor one easily outbalanced by the positive effects in shortening the resistance and saving onjuries and lives for Iraqis and Coalition forces alike.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
That's an extremely important point Dave - Thanks NT
Dec 15, 2003 8:42AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
Re:And you forgot the most important point....
Dec 15, 2003 3:37AM PST

what is YOUR brilliant definition of public curiosity?

what we saw in Canada was what was broadcast on American TV.

are you saying that airing his face on TV is a violation of the Geneva Convention?

and how does this relate to public curiosity?

once again you seem to have this continued penchant for nonsensical statements.

I guess some people never learn.

david williams