On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:

...

The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. Maybe it was just the movies, but I do believe that in the first and second world wars combatants dressed in civilian clothes were routinely shot.

But Saddam isn't a soldier - he's a politician. He may also have been in charge of his country's army, but he was being attacked because of his position as a political leader.

Saddam was apparently quite proud of being a soldier. He routinely wore a uniform bearing insignia of miliary rank. He carried weapons. He was armed when captured and had with him evidence that he was directing military operations. In any case, if you are arguing that he should be treated as a POW, you cannot simultaneously argue that he is not a soldier. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Dave Howe wrote:

...

The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. No, they don't.

The provisions are reasonably clear. You wear a uniform of some sort, or you openly display your weapons: "3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: "(a) During each military engagement, and "(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. "Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c)." (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm) If you don't wear a uniform or display your weapons during an engagement, whether offensive or defensive, then you are engaging in perfidious acts and lose the protection of the Geneva conventions. Note that this says "during each military engagement"; if you drop your weapon and try to melt into the crowd, you have failed to comply, your behaviour is perfidious.

If you are defending though, you are entitled to the protection of the geneva convention (and lawful combatant status) simply by being an "open" hostile (carrying your weaponry openly and obeying all the usual provisions of the geneva convention, which obviously doesn't allow hiding in a crowd of civilians). This is the "take up arms" provision so beloved of the american people - that in the face of invasion, the ordinary citizen would "take up arms" to defend his home and neighbours.

I can find no support for what you say in this paragraph. Attackers are not distinguished from defenders except at the level of individual engagements. That is, if you are a member of an irregular force invading another country and are captured, you are a POW, so long as you comply with the rules: distinguish yourself from the civilian population, and display your weapons openly. Notwithstanding the above, "7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict." Saddam was an officer in a regular, uniformed armed unit. He had worn his uniform conspicuously for many years. He was not an irregular combatant. Therefore he was obliged to continue to wear a uniform while engaged in military action and not doing so could be considered perfidious. The following is also relevant: "Article 46.-Spies "1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy. "2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces." If you gather information or attempt to do so, and are NOT in uniform, you can be considered a spy and so are not eligible for POW status. According to news reports, our friend Saddam had many intelligence reports with him when captured. He was gathering information for military purposes. He was not in uniform. Therefore he forfeited any right to be treated as a captured soldier - specifically because he was not in uniform. It was presumably on one of these grounds that Allied prisoners out of uniform when captured were routinely executed in Europe during the second world war: they were members of uniformed units and not in uniform; or they were considered to be gathering information and not in uniform. There are larger questions here. Irregular forces whose tactics consist largely of murdering random civilians because that's easier than fighting soldiers are not military forces in the sense of the Geneva conventions, especially where they conceal their weapons and hide behind civilians. They are unlawful combatants and need not be treated as POWs if captured. Nor should their leaders be. -- Jim Dixon jdd@dixons.org tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure

On Dec 15, 2003, at 5:36 PM, Anonymous wrote:

I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In either of these interviews were there any discussion on whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't fully appropriate.

The U.S. would have screamed up and down in front of the U.N. and threatened severe reprisals if a U.S. prisoner were to have his (or her) mouth, hair, and medical exam televised by the Iranians, Syrians, Serbians, Iraqis, Panamanians, or any of the other nations we have gone to war with. There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of Saddam taking his first dump while in custody. Saddam is not a good guy. But this went beyond the pale. I hope the next time a U.S. fighter is captured he is shown publically humiliated, with an Iranian or Syrian or French doctor forcing his mouth open and checking his hair for lice. The U.S. would be in no position to complain. (But they would, of course.) But, what can one expect of a country which refers to its own terrorists who blow up commercial Cuban planes as "freedom fighters" and to Palestinians seeking to expel the Zionist Jew invaders as "terrorists"? We are in Wonderland and the Republicrats are the Mad Hatters. --Tim May "We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania." "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia." "We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. "We are at war with France. We have always been at war with France."

Jim Dixon wrote:

The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear uniforms. No, they don't.

Fox news repeats this enough that more than half of america believes it, but then, more than half of america believes Iraq was somehow involved in the Trade Center attacks too.... The rules are considerably more lax for the defenders than the attackers - if you are entering another country, then you must either be part of a uniformed, standing army or be part of a militia (with a rigid authority structure, open carrage of arms and an identifying badge or emblem). You must also respect the rules of war - so at least in theory, even a uniformed "official" combatant is not entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions if he himself breaks those conventions (by e.g. shooting noncombatants) If you are defending though, you are entitled to the protection of the geneva convention (and lawful combatant status) simply by being an "open" hostile (carrying your weaponry openly and obeying all the usual provisions of the geneva convention, which obviously doesn't allow hiding in a crowd of civilians). This is the "take up arms" provision so beloved of the american people - that in the face of invasion, the ordinary citizen would "take up arms" to defend his home and neighbours. There is considerable doubt as to exactly how this applies to sniping - certainly, uniformed combatants are little less likely to decide to dive into cover and "take out" their opponents with aimed fire than random undertrained militia are, and it would be insane for a lone "take up arms" defender to stand out in the open to "duke it out"; the problem is a random sniper is difficult to locate *after* an attack if he is not otherwise identifiable; ok, he isn't permitted to drop his weapon and retain his lawful combatant status, but nor could a uniformed individual (one of several) be expected to volunteer that he was the one who just killed four of the team now pointing weapons at him..... (the "take up arms" provision seems to assume the defender picks up a gun and continues firing until he is killed, captured, or he wins :) "name rank and number" is for the movies.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote:

At 5:21 PM +0000 12/15/03, Dave Howe wrote:

...

Iraq was somehow involved in the Trade Center attacks too....

For those who wondered why Abu Nidal took two in the hat shortly before the daisycutters came to play:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html>

This "report" contains all the earmarks of pure propaganda. It includes "informations" that repeats the Niger yellowcacke canard, the non-existent AlQuaeda "connection", etc. 99 & 44/100ths percent bullshit. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm