U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?

Jim Dixon jdd at dixons.org
Tue Dec 16 15:18:45 PST 2003


On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the
> U.S. has done nothing questionable here?

No one seems to question certain facts:

*  Saddam had hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured and killed
*  he used chemical weapons casually, wiping out at least one Kurdish
   village of several thousand people
*  he deliberately destroyed the swamp Arabs and the environment that
   they lived in
*  his regime treated POWs brutally; few people in Britain will forget
   the pilot who was badly beaten during the first Gulf War and then
   displayed on TV; few Americans will forget the wounded POWs
   interrogated on TV in the second

The people on this list are less likely to remember that Saddam's coming
to power was marked by the public humiliation and hanging of Americans
unfortunate enough to be in Baghdad at the time.

>                                          You don't feel that treating
> a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that
> person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to
> the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention?

You mean, do I think that it is somehow immoral to have examined him for
head lice and then checked his teeth?  Well, no.  Do I think that the
Geneva convention is there to protect bandits, thugs, and tyrants?  Well,
no. If you read it, the focus is on protecting civilians and captured
soldiers from the sort of abuse that Saddam considered normal.

>                                                         You feel this
> was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or
> European leader being treated the same way?

Hitler, you mean?  Or did you have Milosevic in mind?

You should try to remember how the US Civil War ended.  The armed forces
of the South surrendered.  Lee handed his sword to Grant.  I believe that
Grant returned it - and allowed each Southern soldier to keep a rifle and
a mule.  Lee and the other leaders of the South lived out their lives in
peace.  There were of course acts of terror on both sides, but on the
whole the combatants behaved decently. There was considerable mutual
respect, because both sides recognized that the other had behaved
honourably.  The same cannot be said of Saddam Hussain.

The people of the South did not walk in terror of Robert E Lee and
Jefferson Davis. The people of the North were not murdered, raped, and
tortured by Grant and Lincoln.

> I think we do have to take into consideration too that a lot of people
> (I'm not saying it's the majority or anything but still a lot of
> people) in some arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi
> Arabia do have some sympathy with Saddam. This has nothing to do with
> supporting his crimes like the chemical warfare but more general the
> fact that he was a leader in the region who stood up against U.S. and
> Israel. Also the Palestinians received a lot of finansial help from
> Saddam.

Yeah, you're right.  I forgot that Saddam paid $25,000 or so to the family
of each Palestinian 'soldier' who blew himself up, slaughtering innocent
civilians in the sort of attack that the Geneva conventions were designed
to prevent.  The Palestinian suicide bombers wear no uniforms, they
conceal their weapons, they deliberately target civilians.

This has nothing to do with the justice for the Palestinians or whether
the Israelis are right or wrong.  The Geneva conventions, which you seem
to be advocating, were established to set limits on the behaviour of
combatants in war, to encourage the sort of peaceful resolution that
marked the end of the American Civil War.  What Saddam wanted was just the
opposite. He advertised and paid for routine violations of the Geneva
conventions in Israel.  He wanted hatred and endless violence.

> I don't know, but I have this feeling that just maybe this wasn't the
> most appropriate way to behave all things considered. This is a tense
> and volatile region as it is. I think we all should exercise caution
> and careful considerations and try to not humiliate the pride of the
> people in this region. Remember that in many cases this is almost all
> they have left.

The US plan appears to intend to stall until the Iraqis have regained
sovereignty and then turn Saddam over to the new government, which will
probably follow local practice and execute him.  This will please tens of
millions of Iraqis.  The UK government, which has a long tradition of
ignoring the wishes of the British people in regard to capital punishment,
will tut-tut.  The ex-governor of Texas will doubtless say again that he
does not intend to express any personal opinions in the matter -- and
smile.

I spent several years travelling in that part of the world.  From my
experience, I think that the people of the region, who are rightfully
proud of their heritage, of their traditions and beliefs, will respect the
US and the UK more for having shown obviously superior strength, and for
having then given way to the wishes of the Iraqi people.

--
Jim Dixon  jdd at dixons.org   tel +44 117 982 0786  mobile +44 797 373 7881
http://xlattice.sourceforge.net         p2p communications infrastructure





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list