Comments

1. Oh, you ain't seen nothin' yet! This is going to be very interesting.

   Comment by jh at 12:46, 15 Dec, 2003 #

2. Whats 'humiliating & degrading' about a little medical exam? Its certainly embarrassing for Saddam and anybody who supported him, but 'humiliating & degrading' is a stretch. And technically, though Rumsfeld said otherwise, the US doesn't have to give Saddam Geneva protections because he violated them himself during the war.

   Comment by Bret at 18:17, 15 Dec, 2003 #

3. Bret: Nothing about a medical exam is humiliating. Just like taking a shit isn't humiliating either, but spreading footage thereof, is. It's sad I had to explain this.

   Comment by Tomas at 18:33, 15 Dec, 2003 #

4. Wow! Let's see...We capture Saddam, but wait we still need to crap on Bush. Let's find a way.

   Comment by Richard at 02:47, 16 Dec, 2003 #

5. Leslie Stahl has more concern for Saddam than for all of his victims combined...each of whom were afforded no Geneva Convention dignities.

   Rumsfeld should not say anything more than he is saying. Leslie Stahl should ask some better questions.

   Comment by jackson at 07:32, 16 Dec, 2003 #

6. Jackson; what Hussein, or any other criminal, has done is irrelevant. If you treat him the same way he has treated others in the past, you allow yourself to sink to his level, making you a criminal as well. Two wrongs can never make a right. Hussein's American captors ought to treat him with dignity and make sure he gets a fair trial, because only that way can they prove to the rest of the world that they're better than him.

   Comment by Pat at 09:34, 16 Dec, 2003 #

7. Pat, all well said and I trust he will get the treatment he deserves, under all existing conventions and all. Still, I cannot help to wonder what would your approach be should all your family (kids, parents, nephews, everyone) and some friends had being murdered by the government Mr. Hussein represented and/or Mr. Hussein himself.

   I think that those who did not agreed to Mr. Hussein removal and refused to help on this war should have no word on this matter, nor should they have any concessions to future business with the Iraq there is now, which is far different from the one it was before. Unless the Iraqi people chooses to forgive. I am sure they'll never forget. I wouldn't.

   Comment by David Collantes at 19:13, 16 Dec, 2003 #

8. David: The official reason for the war was the presence of WMD in Iraq and the immediate and direct threat thereof. Regardless of why you think the war was justified, that was the reason for the war.

   You're saying that those who didn't just trust Bush's word of honesty on that (which there is still no proof of) but instead wanted evidence of the fact, should have no opinion or say regarding the treatment of Saddam Hussein? They should not care about silly things like human rights, they should not care about silly things like international law and they should not give a flying fuck about the Geneva Convention?

   Is that what you really mean? If so, have you thought long and hard about it?

   Comment by Tomas at 19:29, 16 Dec, 2003 #

9. Where they giving a fuck about the Geneva Convention when humans rights were violated on Iraq and still they insisted "we should not interfere"?

   On a separate topic, what did ever happened to the guy who killed that sweedish politics woman? Was he ever caught?

   Comment by David Collantes at 19:35, 16 Dec, 2003 #

10. David: Of course, why of course "they" did. That's exactly why it is important to care about the Geneva Convention now!

    Because, if we don't care about human rights, if we don't care about international law, if we don't care about the Geneva Convention, why the hell should Saddam be punished to begin with? If the laws he broke are irrelevant, why should he be punished?

    The guy who shot stabbed Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh to death was caught. The trial is due in January, unless I'm mistaking.

    Comment by Tomas at 19:38, 16 Dec, 2003 #

11. Hmm, all conventions aside, Saddam should be punished for the very wrong, bad things he did. And for those certain _very bad_ things (like the one's he did) I believe on "an eye for an eye". (.)

    Comment by David Collantes at 19:56, 16 Dec, 2003 #

12. David: "An eye for an eye" is the kind of justice that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam.

    Conventions and rights exist because they cannot be arbitrarily "set aside", if they are, their existance is worthless.

    Comment by Tomas at 20:05, 16 Dec, 2003 #

13. "'An eye for an eye' is the kind of justice that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam."

    I respectfully disagree.

    Comment by David Collantes at 20:51, 16 Dec, 2003 #

14. I agree with everything Tomas has already said. Some additional thoughts though: People talking about "an eye for an eye" never seem to realise that this way of thinking results in endless violence, since there will always be somebody there to avenge the one killed before. Look at Israel and Palestine. One avenges the other, over and over again. Before you complain about the past crimes of Saddam Hussein, don't forget that he committed most of them as an ally of the U.S. against Iran.

    I was against the war, yes, but that's not the same thing as saying we shouldn't interfere. Bush and his allies did not interfere with Husseins oppression of his people, they didn't care until they got the idea that he had some WMD and was bin Laden's buddy. What I would have wanted was an uprising from within, like what happened in Serbia a couple of years ago. Clinton's bombs didn't help in 1999, but the people's uprising did. The Iraqis could have done the same thing with some help from the rest of the world. But no, Bush had to drop bombs over them.

    As for your question regarding what if my family had been butchered by Hussein. Well, many my friends were butchered by Serbs during the 1990s. Do I wish their (i.e. Milosevic and his generals) painful deaths? No I don't. I don't believe in "physical" punishment. As long as the history books of the future tell the truth about what they did, that's punishment enough.

    And oh by the way Tomas, just to avoid confusion among your foreign readers, I believe Anna Lindh was stabbed, not shot... :)

    Comment by Pat at 21:26, 16 Dec, 2003 #

15. Pat: Jesus Christ. What was I thinking? You're right. She was stabbed. (I have no excuse.)

    Comment by Tomas at 22:30, 16 Dec, 2003 #

16. I can't believe how many people are defending Saddam's rights, a guy who starved his people and killed hundreds of thousands through any means possible. It's unbelievable how you think you know a situation when you haven't ever seen or been involved with anything remotely related.

    Seriously, go back to your granola and berry eating utopia world. When you risk dealth for what you say your whole life you'll understand why Saddam should have no rights.

    Unrelated, I love how bashing Bush has become so vogue with the under 30 crowd. Like these generations understand anything about duty and honor. They say they want what's best for their country and this world but really all they care about is themselves, why not just let hundreds of thousands of people die, it doesn't concern my little world?

    Comment by Keith at 06:43, 17 Dec, 2003 #

17. Keith: You're missing the point, they're not Saddam's rights, they're everybody's rights. Nobody is excluded from them, that's the whole fucking point of the rights.

    By your reasoning, you'd only want freedom of speech for those who say nice things. Those who say mean things should be thrown into a dirty cell deep underground and never see the light of day again.

    What the fuck is the point of having rights if you can arbitrarily just ignore them? That's what Saddam did you know, he ignored these rights and conventions, that's why we're punishing him in the first place, remember? That's the reason for the war; Saddam broke international law, the Geneva Convention and several UN resolutions. They seem important enough to bomb a country for, don't they?

    It would seem that I care more about the people Saddam killed than you do, since you obviously seem to think that the actions he did and the laws he broke aren't that important anyway.

    Fuck those laws, that's what you're saying, and that's what Saddam was saying, too.

    Comment by Tomas at 09:33, 17 Dec, 2003 #

18. There is reason for the war, and while I'm not an expert and only really hear what the media feeds me ... lol yeh, anyway in one perspective life inprisonment could be worse than death. Think of it, death its clean, all over. Life inprisonment, put him in a cell and feed him occasionally - slow and painful.

    That said, I'm still 'fine' with capital punishment. There are crimes which deserve it. On the news tonight there was the story of a man who killed a woman and child and was going to be let out of jail after 3 years. Now, I'm not saying he deserves capital punishment but 3 years IMO isn't long enough for the expiration of two lives.

    I've forgotten the point of this comment so I'll just continue to mumble. Tomas, you have some nice points but is the whole irony part where you complain about it but post the picture yourself? I laugh.

    Enough said. =]

    Comment by cyberhill at 11:55, 17 Dec, 2003 #

19. cyberhill: I guess that, too, is kind of ironic. Although, I don't blame the media or independent publishers for publishing the pictures and the footage.

    The fault of that is, of course, the administration's, for releasing the footage, and only that footage. George W. Bush thought the transgression of this specific article of the Geneva Convention was a big deal when it affected US soldiers, by the way. Then again, double standards is a firmly rooted ideal in the US.

    Comment by Tomas at 12:10, 17 Dec, 2003 #

20. to quote Gandhi:

    "An eye for an eye and the whole world will go blind."

    Comment by Maria at 12:28, 17 Dec, 2003 #

21. We pillage, we plunder, we rifle and loot, drink up me 'arties, yo ho!

    Comment by Gerardo Betancourt at 16:50, 17 Dec, 2003 #

22. 6. Then we'll kill him.

    Comment by b at 17:38, 17 Dec, 2003 #

23. Saddam should be killed outright. He has killed thousands of people already, and murder requires the punishment of death. I'm very much for the death penalty when it is deserved by the criminal.
    

    Comment by Swami Prem at 00:24, 18 Dec, 2003 #

24. Swami; And just who should decide who deserves to die? If I think Bush is a murderer and deserves to die, do I have the right to have him executed? If not, then neither does anyone else have the right to decide that Hussein deserves similar treatment. They're both killers, you know. You might think there's a difference between murder and murder, but there isn't. Not really. Every life is dear to someone, and the loss of that life (a brother, spouse, daughter...) isn't any less painful because it was taken by a judge instead of a ruthless criminal. At least not to me.

    Comment by Pat at 01:10, 18 Dec, 2003 #

25. Pat - I would say the rest of the world don't have much to prove.

    Comment by Artaud at 01:30, 18 Dec, 2003 #

26. Pat: What name do you give to the utopia you live (or try to live) on?

    I can forgive and, sometimes, even forget. But in certain extremes, I am so pro dead penalty! A guy is a vicious rapist: cut his balls off! Someone kills somebody (not in self defense), you are gone dude!

    Comment by David Collantes at 01:47, 18 Dec, 2003 #

27. David: We call it "Sweden".

    Comment by Tomas at 11:10, 18 Dec, 2003 #

28. David; I suppose the difference between us in this matter is that you seem to think people commit crimes because they're "evil". I don't believe there is such a thing. There is something wrong with these people, something that was caused by something at some point (or through their entire lives). Punishing them for what they have become by growing up in this hostile and hysteric world won't solve anything. But helping them might. I understand the natural reaction of wanting the one who made you a victim to suffer, but acting out this feeling only continues the cycle. You can write me off as a naive fool, but there is a clear connection between the social climate in a country and the crimes committed in it. Anyway, now I'm so far off topic that I better leave this discussion for another time and place.

    Comment by Pat at 20:10, 18 Dec, 2003 #

29. No, I am writting leaving religion behind. Whatever reasons drive criminals to commit crimes, they are still committing crimes and hence are criminals. If a mental retardation, for example, drives that person to commit crimes (terrible ones), then I would rather put that person to "rest", for the sake of everyone around.

    I guess the bottom line is that I believe in the capital punishment while you, as many sweds (and other people around the world), don't.

    Comment by David Collantes at 22:16, 18 Dec, 2003 #

30. I don't think there is ever anything good coming out from vengeance. Sure, it might feel good for a little while, but in the long run it doesn't help anyone. On the other hand, I wonder what an appropriate punishment would be. I mean, considering what Saddam has done to his people, is there any chance that this man will ever go free again? By go free I mean go free legally, not breaking out of jail. I think the chance is about next to nothing of that ever happening. So if he's going away to prison for a long long long time (ie, till he's dead), why not execute him directly?

    To me it seems as if putting him away in a box till he dies is pretty much like executing him on the spot, except the latter is a whole lot faster. Don't get me wrong though, I don't like death penalties. As someone already said, two wrongs doesn't make a right. But no matter how I twist and turn it I can't seem to make anything right out of it. What is a proper punishment for someone like Saddam or Milosevic?

    Comment by Marcus Stade at 05:57, 19 Dec, 2003 #

31. In addition to the excellent ethical points raised here, I'd also like to point out some practical dangers of the public humiliation tactics of the Bush Administration here. First of all, not just Saddam but average-Joe Iraqi POW's were regularly shown in the media being hog-tied by GI's, their faces on the ground, bloodied, and so on during the "hot war" phase of March-April as well as the "smoldering war" phase that's succeeded it. Without doubt, this kind of action has tremendously fueled the guerrilla insurgency in Iraq and probably inspired many foreign fighters to stream into the country. No group of people ever likes to feel humiliated, but this is especially true in the Middle East, where affronts to a person's honor and dignity can lead to killing on a dime.

    Many Iraqis and other Arabs regularly see themselves as being humiliated by the US as troops barge into homes at night and point AK-47's at the men in front of terrified women and children, while some drunk-with-power official gloats about how many "guerrillas" were rounded up (the majority of whom probably had nothing to do with the resistance). This resentment is exacerbated further when the people's images in such a subdued state are broadcast on the airwaves or appear in the newspapers.

    This sense of disrespect and pique is likely near the top of the list among Iraqi grievances right now, and the ferocious bitterness that it sows has undoubtedly been swelling the ranks of the insurgents (who, the CIA estimates, are at close to 50,000 now, at least). Even though the Arab region has little love lost for Saddam, he's an Arab and, despite the repugnance of his crimes, he's also a resister of a foreign invading force, and his parading around on the screen like that is reminiscent of Romans' parading conquered peoples thru the streets of Rome. This was monumentally stupid on the part of whichever Coalition official decided to release the images.

    As noted in a recent article in a Lebanese newspaper, the humiliation factor has enraged many in the region who couldn't care less for the Iraqi thug:

    [begin cite]
    Furthermore, analysts agreed that the humiliating images of Saddam Hussein’s capture also risked increasing Arab support for Iraqis fighting the occupation and sharpening their appetite for revenge.
    “I felt extremely humiliated,” said Egyptian writer Sayed Nassar, who interviewed Saddam three weeks before the US-led invasion of Iraq on March 20. “I felt it was not only a humiliation of Arabs but of all humanity.
    “By shaving his beard, a symbol of virility in Iraq and in the Arab world, the US committed an act that symbolizes humiliation in our region, where getting shaved by one’s enemy means robbing him of his will,” he said.
    “It’s also a humiliation for all Arab leaders and a message telling them that he who does not enter the poultry yard of the US will experience the same fate,” he said.
    [end quote]

    It's not the affront to Saddam that the Arabs care about; rather, it's the pattern of behavior shown by the invaders and occupiers, the propensity to publicly demean and denigrate those perceived as their enemies-- the poor conscript in the underfed Iraqi army as much as the crook-in-chief himself. This blunder reminds me of the fiasco surrounding the killing of Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay. Here, too, few in Iraq cared much for Saddam’s gratuitously cruel and sadistic offspring. But they did feel humiliated when Uday’s and Qusay’s dead bodies were displayed like trophies on international television (a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions FWIW). Insult was added further to the injury when Mustafa Hussein (Qusay’s son), a 14-year old boy, was killed under still-questionable circumstances; Mustafa’s now become a sort of resistance icon, sorta like a Joan of Arc for Iraq. Back then, just like now, the punditocracy predicted that the sons’ deaths would “break” the resistance and send the guerrillas back to their foxholes. Instead, the insurgency was aggravated and became more ferocious; just as it will probably do now, as well.

    The importance of Saddam's capture was vastly overrated in the first place; it's blindingly obvious that he wasn't running a guerrilla war sending messages by pigeon from a spider hole in the ground. The guerrillas are Iraqi nationalists, Islamists, and Baathists who've blended in with the others; Saddam had little to do with it in the first place, and if anything the guerrilla resistance will now likely intensify now that insurgents don't have to worry about being mixed in with Saddam proponents. Humiliating him publicly like that will only draw even more Iraqis and foreign Arabs into the guerrilla fold, if only to avenge the insult on principle in many cases.

    Bush is also treading on some perilous ground with this Clanton-McCoyish feud he’s had with Saddam. He’s had a Captain Ahab-like obsession with Saddam from the get-go, and he’s dragged his country into what may well become a defeat even more humiliating than Vietnam. Moreover, by so directly attacking a national leader like this who never attacked the U.S. even indirectly (it’s become pretty damn conclusive that Saddam was not amassing WMD’s and had nothing to do with al-Qaeda—which was opposed to his secularism), Bush opens up a dangerous slippery slope. There are lots of people in Europe and the Middle East who believe that Bush, Blair, Howard, Aznar, and Berlusconi are responsible for recklessly killing thousands of people in Iraq. What if these people, seeing the relentless targeting of Saddam, Uday, and Qusay (purportedly on account of crimes they committed against their own people), decided that they were similarly entitled to take the law into their own hands against the leaders of the U.S., Britain, Australia, Spain, and Italy? This is a hazardous precedent to set and such ideas have to be discouraged at the start; otherwise, the mental barrier against assassination is broken down in many people’s minds, especially those with more fanatical tendencies. That’s why it’s never a good idea to pursue a John Wayne-style, hang-em-high, bring ‘em on, round ‘em up philosophy against the Iraqis like this; you simply start to legitimize the often-extrajudicial targeting of opposing figures for arbitrary reasons. In fact, it’s a terrible idea in general to revel in war and all its awful manifestations in any manner; if war has to be waged, then it must be done soberly, not with gloating and certainly not with celebration. The attitude on display here by many US officials is exactly what precipitated the fiasco in Vietnam, and we could have an even greater one in store for us in Iraq if we’re not much more careful.

    Going Certified Humane for farm animals

    A more detailed look at the Spanish Armada battle and effects

    Comment by Wes Ulm at 09:36, 19 Dec, 2003 #

32. You bleeding heart liberals are a disgrace to this country! Educate yourselves and see what Saddam Hussein did to hundreds of thousands of people. Get out of your fantasy "love, peace and hugs" world. This guy was a brutal killer of people. He deserves to be treated in the exact same manner in which he treated his own people. But because we are not like him, he will not be treated like that.

    If you spent half as much time researching, reading and educating yourselves about what Hussein's regime did to hundreds of thousands of people,,, as you do whining and making treasonous statements about your own country, you might have half a brain.

    You are the same people who would have gone nuts if we had bombed and taken out the terrorist training camps in afshanistan, prior to 911. (thanks Bill Clinton) Your words would have been..." small terrorist training camps in afghanistan could in no way harm the united states"!! But they proved that wrong on 911 didn't they? In just the same way, you now complain and whine about how Iraq was in no way any threat to the united states. How naive you people are! You live in a false world where Peace, Love and Hugs for all are the way to go. That's always the answer. The world would be a better place if that's the way we all lived. Yep. That works perfect!!!

    ... Just ask the people of Tibet!!!

    Comment by Pat at 20:02, 19 Dec, 2003 #

33. Pat (not the previous Pat):

    1) What "this" country?

    2) Speaking of education; when Saddam killed a lot of those people, he did so as an ally of the US.

    3) You mean Saddam was wrong to break the laws he broke? You mean you can't just arbitrarily ignore laws? You mean he was wrong to think that those laws didn't apply to him? You mean he was wrong to not give a shit about those laws? Gee, I think you're right, and, it seems you have a thing or two in common with him.

    Comment by Tomas at 21:46, 19 Dec, 2003 #

34. Wes Ulm: Very well written. I must also thank you for raising points which I think is very important to consider, as well as (unknowingly) putting some of my thoughs into words infinitly better than I ever could have. Your post was quite informative.

    A small correction though, US troops don't use AK-47's (a.k.a Kalashnikov) afaik. I think that standard issue for ground troops is the AR-15, but I'm not sure. I just know I've seen a lot of "regular" US troops run around with them. But now I'm drifting off topic, sorry =)

    Comment by Marcus Stade at 19:12, 20 Dec, 2003 #

35. You sound like a smart, intelligent, creative, brilliant guy. You design lovely websites. You have a sense of humour. Now... can you explain why on earth you care about the treatment of one of the bloodiest dictators on earth? What prompts your interest for him? And just what do you see that violates that convention? Dear Unkle Saddy having his mouth gently and patiently examined by a doctor.

    Like, gee, I'll call Amnesty next time I have to take a blood test...

    Seriously. Whatever you think of the war, Iraq, Bush, Rumsfeld, America, the world, the universe and Gwyneth Paltrow's wedding, can't you see it is really beyond surreal to be bothered by the dental examination of a dictator?

    Oh, you also seem to have forgotten it's Iraqis who handed him in and are going to try him. So. Is it Is this going to get as ridiculous as the kurds and iraqis accused of violations of human rights against Saddam?? it's all upside down, it is..

    Comment by m at 01:30, 21 Dec, 2003 #

36. After looking at a majority of the comments on this thread, it's easy to asses the power of the corporate news machine. Many of us still dont understand the very basics of Ethics. This is not the stone age people. An "Eye for an Eye" doesn't work anymore. It's amazing that the majority of western civilisation is reacting in such an immature way about this. You can stand on your head and say it, but Saddam Hussein IS a POW. He has ALL the rights of a POW. The Geneva convention applies to him. THE WHOLE OF IT. How dare anyone deny his rights? Don't get me wrong. He is a terrible, terrible man. But he is still a human, and and a POW. He has rights, and no one can deny that.

    Thanks for stating what all of us needed to hear, Tomas. My own comments are here -http://www.pixelhorde.com/index.php?p=28

    Comment by Mahangu at 06:20, 21 Dec, 2003 #

37. m, if this is your view why don't you video your next trip to the dentist and post it on the web for everyone? You'll never get the front page of newspapers unless your some famous guy but how would you feel if it was YOUR picture everywhere??

    Comment by cyberhill at 12:56, 21 Dec, 2003 #

38. The reasons why Saddam is entitled to his rights have been explained several times, I don't see any reason to explain that yet again.

    This discussion has been a good one, and several excellent points has been made, from both sides.

    That's why I'm ending this discussion now, while it's still on top. If anyone has new ideas or arguments that have not been raised already, please email me and I'll gladly start a new post on this issue. It's obviously one that many people care about, one way or another.

    Thanks to all that participated.

    Comment by Tomas at 13:14, 21 Dec, 2003 #