U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?

[Roy M. Silvernail]

On Tuesday 16 December 2003 21:01, Freematt357 at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>
> timcmay at got.net writes:
> > 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.
>
> You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on a
> press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific question of
> does
> parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.  His answer was that
> some
> things are more important, that it was necessary to show to the world that
> Saddam was in custody and he wasn't going to be back in power, etc. He
> added that Saddam is being treated humanly, and he takes offense to anyone
> who suggests
> otherwise.

In other words, "yes".  Following in the footsteps of  Richard Perle.

bI think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right 
thing.b  (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

'Scuse me whilst I go vomit.