Full Version: What to do with Saddam
Apparently, Saddam fears the "great satan" US less than he does the idea of being turned over to the Iraqi people. It seems he's afraid they might torture him. 
I wonder where he got that idea.
From this article we get the following.....
Lots to talk about here I think, particularly in light of the Abu Ghraib scandal, so I'd like to focus on what we should do with Saddam. At the moment at least, my understanding is that under the Geneva Convention, the US is responsible for Saddam because there is no official government in Iraq. However, on 30June when Iraq regains sovereignty, the US is required under the Conventions to turn Saddam over to Iraqi authorities if they request it. I think we can all agree that they're going to request that. I suppose that we (the US) could delay that transfer for awhile "making arrangements for the transfer", etc., but eventually that's probably going to happen.
There has been a lot of discussion here about the practice of "rendering" people to other nations where they will get tortured and it is in this context I'd like to discuss the transfer of Saddam to the Iraqi authorities, whomever they might be. So, the questions to consider are.....
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
I wonder where he got that idea.From this article we get the following.....
QUOTE
CIA interrogators have seized on an admission by Saddam Hussein that he fears torture at the hands of his Iraqi enemies, and are threatening him with a quick handover to the new government in a renewed effort to break his silence.
They are also trying to exploit a new-found obsession of the former dictator with hygiene and careful food preparation to persuade him to begin giving information after five frustrating months of questioning.
They are also trying to exploit a new-found obsession of the former dictator with hygiene and careful food preparation to persuade him to begin giving information after five frustrating months of questioning.
Lots to talk about here I think, particularly in light of the Abu Ghraib scandal, so I'd like to focus on what we should do with Saddam. At the moment at least, my understanding is that under the Geneva Convention, the US is responsible for Saddam because there is no official government in Iraq. However, on 30June when Iraq regains sovereignty, the US is required under the Conventions to turn Saddam over to Iraqi authorities if they request it. I think we can all agree that they're going to request that. I suppose that we (the US) could delay that transfer for awhile "making arrangements for the transfer", etc., but eventually that's probably going to happen.
There has been a lot of discussion here about the practice of "rendering" people to other nations where they will get tortured and it is in this context I'd like to discuss the transfer of Saddam to the Iraqi authorities, whomever they might be. So, the questions to consider are.....
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 17 2004, 01:32 PM)
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
1)I'm sure there are plenty of Iraqi's that would love to get their hands on saddam and do everything he did and more. I would hope that they could show themselves to be better then saddam by not doing what he did.
2)If we had every reason to believe that saddam would be tortured, we should not hand him over to the Iraqi's. we claim to be better then using torture (which we obviously are not) if we REALLY want to do something to put the torture scandel behind us, one step would be not turning people over to people that are very likely going to torture the former person.
3)no. it's kind of like the local police threatening you with more serious charges or turning you over to the feds. the purpose is to get you to spill the beans willingly by making that seem like the better alternative.it isn't humiliating or degrading, and he isn't really harmed by it.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 17 2004, 02:32 PM)
Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
I wouldn't put it past them. He has done so much to so many and there will be people who would pay their life savings to get 5 minutes alone with Saddam in hopes of gaining some satisfaction, knowing he is now weak and helpless
QUOTE
Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
It could be seen as mental torture. Of course, we will have hand saddam over to the Iraqis some time
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
I'm not sure about "likely", but it's certainly "possible". Personally I would prefer that he wasn't tortured - just because he's a murderous barbarian doesn't mean we have to behave like murderous barbarians.
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
We can be conditional about the transfer. I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect the Iraqi authorities to want to execute him, but if they do, we should insist on a sensible and "fair" trial (to the extent anyone as obviously guilty can get a fair trial). I do think it would be unreasonable to torture him for two reasons. First, and most importantly, what does it say about us and/or the torturers. And secondly - can anyone name the last time that an act of torture revealed valuable information that absolutely could not have been recovered by regular interrogation?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
No, I don't think the threat of torture itself constitutes torture any more than the threat of violence is itself violent or the threat of imprisonment is itself a loss of liberty.
In a link thought, I heard an Amnesty International spokesman say they see nothing wrong with lying and otherwise deceiving people in custody to get info out of them. If even Amnesty think this, I'd see the threat of torture as within these kinds of boundaries, if a little less clear cut.
I'm not sure about "likely", but it's certainly "possible". Personally I would prefer that he wasn't tortured - just because he's a murderous barbarian doesn't mean we have to behave like murderous barbarians.
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
We can be conditional about the transfer. I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect the Iraqi authorities to want to execute him, but if they do, we should insist on a sensible and "fair" trial (to the extent anyone as obviously guilty can get a fair trial). I do think it would be unreasonable to torture him for two reasons. First, and most importantly, what does it say about us and/or the torturers. And secondly - can anyone name the last time that an act of torture revealed valuable information that absolutely could not have been recovered by regular interrogation?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
No, I don't think the threat of torture itself constitutes torture any more than the threat of violence is itself violent or the threat of imprisonment is itself a loss of liberty.
In a link thought, I heard an Amnesty International spokesman say they see nothing wrong with lying and otherwise deceiving people in custody to get info out of them. If even Amnesty think this, I'd see the threat of torture as within these kinds of boundaries, if a little less clear cut.
Death is too quick for the likes of Saddam Hussein. Life in solitary confinement where he can reflect on his miserable existence is much more suiting.
QUOTE(cultureofgreed @ May 24 2004, 12:20 AM)
Death is too quick for the likes of Saddam Hussein. Life in solitary confinement where he can reflect on his miserable existence is much more suiting.
cultureofgreed - please don't post one-liners. Our Rules require constructive debate.
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
QUOTE(Jaime @ May 24 2004, 08:25 AM)
QUOTE(cultureofgreed @ May 24 2004, 12:20 AM)
Death is too quick for the likes of Saddam Hussein. Life in solitary confinement where he can reflect on his miserable existence is much more suiting.
cultureofgreed - please don't post one-liners. Our Rules require constructive debate.
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
*Edited to remove unconstructive question of mod action*
Let Sadamm Hussein rot in a Iraqi prison in solitary confinement for the rest of his miserable life. I doubt Iraqis will torture him, I think the Iraqi people have had a belly full of torture. The Iraqi people themselves have no track record of torture, unlike Sadaam and the US military.
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
I guess that depends on the mindset of the people who will be in charge. At this time, we don't know who will be in charge. But if the government is made up of a lot of Kurds and Shiites, it might not look so good for the old dictator.
But if they want to score points with the Red Crescent, they will leave him somewhat intact until his eventual fate. Saddam can probably feel confident that his punishment will be no more severe than he would experience in Florida or Texas.
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
This is a curious term. I always thought of rendering as "what you do unto Caesar" (Sunday School
) or as a cooking term (as in "cook down").
Perhaps meaning 5 is the closest to what we're talking about. That is assuming that we don't want to give him over. I don't know why we'd want to keep him, really.
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
Maybe in the sense of Mom saying "Just wait 'til your father gets home."
He's got to know that he will be turned over to the Iraqis; he's just being reminded of that eventuality.
No, it's not torture.
(Edited to say: Thank you for the explanation, Aquilla. To those of us who oppose the death penalty, it could be seen as wrong. But it cannot be denied that Saddam Hussein should be turned over to his own people to decide his fate--they were the parties wronged by him.)
I guess that depends on the mindset of the people who will be in charge. At this time, we don't know who will be in charge. But if the government is made up of a lot of Kurds and Shiites, it might not look so good for the old dictator.
But if they want to score points with the Red Crescent, they will leave him somewhat intact until his eventual fate. Saddam can probably feel confident that his punishment will be no more severe than he would experience in Florida or Texas.
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
This is a curious term. I always thought of rendering as "what you do unto Caesar" (Sunday School
) or as a cooking term (as in "cook down").QUOTE(I omitted the clearly irrelevant meanings)
VERB: Inflected forms: ren·dered, ren·der·ing, ren·ders
1. To submit or present, as for consideration, approval, or payment: render a bill.
2. To give or make available; provide: render assistance.
3. To give what is due or owed: render thanks; rendered homage.
4. To give in return or retribution: He had to render an apology for his rudeness.
5. To surrender or relinquish; yield.
1. To submit or present, as for consideration, approval, or payment: render a bill.
2. To give or make available; provide: render assistance.
3. To give what is due or owed: render thanks; rendered homage.
4. To give in return or retribution: He had to render an apology for his rudeness.
5. To surrender or relinquish; yield.
Perhaps meaning 5 is the closest to what we're talking about. That is assuming that we don't want to give him over. I don't know why we'd want to keep him, really.
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
Maybe in the sense of Mom saying "Just wait 'til your father gets home."
He's got to know that he will be turned over to the Iraqis; he's just being reminded of that eventuality.No, it's not torture.
(Edited to say: Thank you for the explanation, Aquilla. To those of us who oppose the death penalty, it could be seen as wrong. But it cannot be denied that Saddam Hussein should be turned over to his own people to decide his fate--they were the parties wronged by him.)
I think if turned over to Iraqis they will draw and quarter him and then burn the body parts and drag them through the streets. Although possibly fitting, this would not be a good start in a free and democratic Iraq and brutal on the part of the US.
I believe that due process is an uneasy thing when it comes to Leaders of Nations. Leaders are not exactly common criminals to be judged on past decisions by the population at large.
Leaving hatred emotions aside about S.H. ,and thinking in terms of sovereign leaders of countries:
As Leaders/Presidents/Dictators go, there are many reasons why (allegedly) wars are justified, innocent killing is justified, torture is justified, heavy handedness is justifiable etc... or not, as we can clearly see by our own governments actions and the recent reprocussions of them. These are subtle and tenuous even in the most supportive circumnstances, again, viewed in retrospect our own recent problems in Iraq not to mention other conflicts.
Leaders in the world make decisions based on internal pressures, committments, foreign arming and treaty, and being allied to others. Saddam Hussein was a US ally until 1991. Many of the decisions he made were due to our involvement and committments to him, and thereafter due to our disengagement, Gulf War I and subsequent isolation.
A nation leader should likely be tried by a jury of their peers, which would mean an International Tribunal, not the Iraqi Coalition or Iraqis themselves. Leaders of Nations should/would try Saddam with minimal but due respect which would correspond to his position in the world having run Iraq for about 34 years, not all of them bad years either and not much different from his counterparts in the region, (who we are still very friendly with). Unbiased, Saddam did little that all other leaders, especially in the Mid-east have not done, and with our help to boot.
Its easy to forget such incriminating facts and see Saddam as a 'unique' individual, working alone? Hardly. I am always amazed by this short term memory and ongoing denial that our 'friends' in the Mid-East are real terrorist supporters and cruel dictators who abhor human rights as a given.
Saddam Hussein was not unique, we supported him and still support many more like him. However, he led a secular Iraq and heavy handedly held down fundamantalist/terrorist factions , not to say it wasnt cruel. He led, at a time before sanctions- a highly equal rights, freely educated and prosperous Iraq, on penalty of death for getting out of line. Appropriate and progressive for the Mid-east at the time, much less oppressive than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, and others. By heavy hand, much like Ataturk in Turkey, he was against Islamic fundamentalism.
Saddam as a nation leader should be given a respectful trial by an International Court or Tribunal.
I do wonder which they will convict him on in the end, since after the gassing of the Kurds we were still allied with him, we 'won' the war against him on Kuwaiit and kept sanctions over Iraq for 12 years, and after the UN resolutions of 2003 he declared his WMD, and no others have been found as yet.
The remaining charges are crimes against humanity, which may well serve as punishable, hopefully provable. If not, as world leaders go, there is no leg to stand on in incriminating him, unless its something after 1991.
(not that I dont believe it, just looking at it in realtime perspective.)
I suppose Im asking to look beyond emotion of hatred for S.H in what you have heard to the reality of the matter in politics as a nation leader in the Mid-East. Ok , think Israel and Sharon.
I believe that due process is an uneasy thing when it comes to Leaders of Nations. Leaders are not exactly common criminals to be judged on past decisions by the population at large.
Leaving hatred emotions aside about S.H. ,and thinking in terms of sovereign leaders of countries:
As Leaders/Presidents/Dictators go, there are many reasons why (allegedly) wars are justified, innocent killing is justified, torture is justified, heavy handedness is justifiable etc... or not, as we can clearly see by our own governments actions and the recent reprocussions of them. These are subtle and tenuous even in the most supportive circumnstances, again, viewed in retrospect our own recent problems in Iraq not to mention other conflicts.
Leaders in the world make decisions based on internal pressures, committments, foreign arming and treaty, and being allied to others. Saddam Hussein was a US ally until 1991. Many of the decisions he made were due to our involvement and committments to him, and thereafter due to our disengagement, Gulf War I and subsequent isolation.
A nation leader should likely be tried by a jury of their peers, which would mean an International Tribunal, not the Iraqi Coalition or Iraqis themselves. Leaders of Nations should/would try Saddam with minimal but due respect which would correspond to his position in the world having run Iraq for about 34 years, not all of them bad years either and not much different from his counterparts in the region, (who we are still very friendly with). Unbiased, Saddam did little that all other leaders, especially in the Mid-east have not done, and with our help to boot.
Its easy to forget such incriminating facts and see Saddam as a 'unique' individual, working alone? Hardly. I am always amazed by this short term memory and ongoing denial that our 'friends' in the Mid-East are real terrorist supporters and cruel dictators who abhor human rights as a given.
Saddam Hussein was not unique, we supported him and still support many more like him. However, he led a secular Iraq and heavy handedly held down fundamantalist/terrorist factions , not to say it wasnt cruel. He led, at a time before sanctions- a highly equal rights, freely educated and prosperous Iraq, on penalty of death for getting out of line. Appropriate and progressive for the Mid-east at the time, much less oppressive than Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, and others. By heavy hand, much like Ataturk in Turkey, he was against Islamic fundamentalism.
Saddam as a nation leader should be given a respectful trial by an International Court or Tribunal.
I do wonder which they will convict him on in the end, since after the gassing of the Kurds we were still allied with him, we 'won' the war against him on Kuwaiit and kept sanctions over Iraq for 12 years, and after the UN resolutions of 2003 he declared his WMD, and no others have been found as yet.
The remaining charges are crimes against humanity, which may well serve as punishable, hopefully provable. If not, as world leaders go, there is no leg to stand on in incriminating him, unless its something after 1991.
(not that I dont believe it, just looking at it in realtime perspective.)
I suppose Im asking to look beyond emotion of hatred for S.H in what you have heard to the reality of the matter in politics as a nation leader in the Mid-East. Ok , think Israel and Sharon.
1. Is it likely that once the Iraqis gain custody of Saddam they will torture him?
Don't know--don't care. What happens to Saddam, particularly if he were delivered into Iraqi hands, is of absolutely no concern to me. If they feel they should torture him, well, he's certainly earned it. If they choose to be lenient, well, then, that's fine too. It's their lives he affected, therefore what to do with him should be up to them.
As for whether we would/should torture him--I don't see the point. I don't think there is much he would/could add to our knowledge of anything, especially since his regime is already in shambles.
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
No--it constitutes transfer of custody.
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
Hmmmm....does telling someone what is likely to happen, and in fact should and probably will happen, constitute torture? I don't think so. Actually, this would be more carrot than stick--telling him that if he can provide us with useful information, we can keep him from the hands of his rightful caretakers, thereby avoiding torture.
Don't know--don't care. What happens to Saddam, particularly if he were delivered into Iraqi hands, is of absolutely no concern to me. If they feel they should torture him, well, he's certainly earned it. If they choose to be lenient, well, then, that's fine too. It's their lives he affected, therefore what to do with him should be up to them.
As for whether we would/should torture him--I don't see the point. I don't think there is much he would/could add to our knowledge of anything, especially since his regime is already in shambles.
2. If so, then does our transfer of Saddam to Iraq constitute "rendering"?
No--it constitutes transfer of custody.
3. Does the practice of the CIA using the threat of turning over Saddam to Iraq constitute "torture"?
Hmmmm....does telling someone what is likely to happen, and in fact should and probably will happen, constitute torture? I don't think so. Actually, this would be more carrot than stick--telling him that if he can provide us with useful information, we can keep him from the hands of his rightful caretakers, thereby avoiding torture.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.