Low-class treatement of Saddamn

[jj]

Ok, I don't like the guy any more than anyone else, but I really, REALLY didn't need to see part of his (*&(*& medical exam.

If we want to look like a CIVILIZED country we'll get him shaved, cleaned up, healed (if need be), fed, etc, and make it incredibly clear that we're being exactly the opposite of him, i.e. HUMANE to our opponents.

Of course, then we send him off HUMANELY to trial, and when that's over, we HUMANELY administer the punishment, or we administer it as humanely as is possible, depending on what the punishment is. (I sincerely hope they don't choose "stoning to death" or something like that. A simple short, sharp shock ought to do it.)

In other words, we should simply outclass the opposition here, it will cost us nothing and gain us quite a bit, I think.

[headscratcher4]

There are a number of good points here...however, I can't but help think that the few minutes (and it wasn't very many) of footage we saw was calculated to a very important purpose. Specifically: breaking the image of Saddam in Iraq. Exposing him in this fashion not only demonstrated that Saddam was alive, but demonstrated that the man who terrorized an entire nation, was himself on-the-run and harried. It deomnstrated clearly that the man who urged the sons of Iraq to die in his name and to kill themselves in his cause, was himself afraid to die fighting -- even as his sons did.

Saddam is like Goering. Clean him up, and he will attend his trial and his brovado will be back. THese pictures are critical because they will always be there to remind Iraqis that Saddam was essentially a "coward" though he will claim on the stand at his trial that he did it all for them, and that he is the victim.

Humiliating it might seem to some, but I keep coming back to the fact that it is critical to break the spell of Saddam, and these actions are an important first step.

[corplinx]

At least we gave him a shave and a haircut so that he didn't look like a San Francisco panhandler.

[American]

http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif
http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif
http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif http://suessims.simshost.com/wsd-samples/pic-violinist.gif

[Tmy]

Well at least they didnt show the footage of his prostate exam! :p

[jj]

Originally posted by American

Have anything to say, "American"?

What do you think, should we be LIKE Saddamn, or should we outclass him completely?

Now, Headscratcher has a point, but did we really need to see his (*&(*& Oral Exam?

I didn't. A picture of him grubby, bearded, and haggard ought to suffice, I'd think.

And to the last correspondent, yes, thank heaven for that indeed! Then again, since most such problems are slow-moving, I doubt he'll actually have time to worry about that kind of problem.

[American]

Originally posted by jj

Have anything to say, "American"?

What do you think, should we be LIKE Saddamn, or should we outclass him completely?

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/roomofcare.jpg

[Larspeart]

Showing him as we did does a great deal.

1. it shows that we are not beating, torturing, or shackling him.

2. he is not shown bound, caged, or gagged.

3. It shows we are giving him humane and appropritate medical care, care that his cronies would never give to a POW/prisoner.

4. IT IS DESIGNED TO SHOW THE FORMER DICTATOR FOR WHAT HE TRUELY IS TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE; A HOLLOW, DEFEATED, FRAZZLED, AND FILTHY SHELL OF A HUMAN WITH NO CONTROL OR POWER ANYMORE . This one is important for the Iraqi people to understand.

5. He will not die as a result of mistreatment, poor hygienic conditions, or not receiving care while under US custody.

6. We are following Geneva conventions, even though as a head of state, he is exempt from a great deal of the conditions (he does not fit the criteria of a Prisoner of War, yet we are treating as one).

7. Without showing him on VIDEO (as opposed to easily doctored and harder to believe still photos), the iraqi people and the world community in general will not accept that he is in custody, and will continue to bleieve that he is at large and still a dangerous threat.



That about sum it up for you, or do you need more?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Showing him as we did does a great deal.


3. It shows we are giving him humane and appropritate medical care, care that his cronies would never give to a POW/prisoner.

\

Well they did put Jessica Lynch in a hospital. And they didnt tourture those other POW's. Was I the only suprised that they werent killed???

Not to defend jerk off Saddam in any way. I just think that Arabs are always painted as these non-compassionate ultraviolent tourturing cut off your hands types.

[jj]

Originally posted by American


http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/roomofcare.jpg

You speak for everyone now, American?

Would you, perhaps, like to apply for the JREF Prize, then, since you can read everyone's mind?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj
In other words, we should simply outclass the opposition here, it will cost us nothing and gain us quite a bit, I think.

We outclassed the opposition when we failed to rape, torture, and then execute Saddam's entire family.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


We outclassed the opposition when we failed to rape, torture, and then execute Saddam's entire family.

Yes, but as you've pointed out repeatedly, two wrongs don't make a right, eh?

[Tmy]

Hey, we did whack his two sons ya know. Im sure Saddam was all broken up about that one.


Is it me, or does Saddam kinda look like Santa after a week long bender.?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj
Ok, I don't like the guy any more than anyone else, but I really, REALLY didn't need to see part of his (*&(*& medical exam.

If we want to look like a CIVILIZED country we'll get him shaved, cleaned up, healed (if need be), fed, etc, and make it incredibly clear that we're being exactly the opposite of him, i.e. HUMANE to our opponents.

Of course, then we send him off HUMANELY to trial, and when that's over, we HUMANELY administer the punishment, or we administer it as humanely as is possible, depending on what the punishment is. (I sincerely hope they don't choose "stoning to death" or something like that. A simple short, sharp shock ought to do it.)

In other words, we should simply outclass the opposition here, it will cost us nothing and gain us quite a bit, I think.

Hey JJ,

Boo f-ing hoo.

How sad you must be that your hero is soon to be dead. Now is the time for you to join the jihad and go avenge him.

-z

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by jj


Yes, but as you've pointed out repeatedly, two wrongs don't make a right, eh?

What "two wrongs"?

Our behavior has far exceeded Saddam and his regime.

We didn't beat him up, or force him to make statements (hmmm, reminds me of the POW footage from the first Gulf War...).

We simply played the first raw footage we had of the man to prove to the world that we were telling the truth.

He was cleaned up immediately after his examination as evidenced by the comparison photo the displayed showing Saddam clean and shaven.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Hey, we did whack his two sons ya know.

Only because they left the coalition forces involved no other choice.

[Tmy]

hey, whatd we end up doing with Noreiaga??? I hear hes got a pretty good spread.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jj
Ok, I don't like the guy any more than anyone else, but I really, REALLY didn't need to see part of his (*&(*& medical exam.

I'm afraid I have to agree. He already has the agony of defeat squirting out from every pore. There is nothing to be lost by being scrupulously, even excessively honorable toward him.

Besides, he's a sociopath. He'll hang himself if we just let him have rope. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

[reprise]

Oddly enough (given how critical I usually am of US actions in respect of Afghanistan and Iraq), I don't think the US has done anything wrong in this particular instance, and they certainly haven't violated the Geneva protocols by releasing any of the images I've seen so far. Technically, the US could argue that the Geneva protocols do not apply to Saddam anyway. I find it refreshing that to date the US appears to be treating Saddam as if those protocols did apply rather than justifying why they are not required to do so.

Should the US start releasing images which would violate the Geneva protocols, then I will condemn their handling of this particular situation - but not UNTIL that happens.

[jj]

Originally posted by reprise
and they certainly haven't violated the Geneva protocols by releasing any of the images I've seen so far.

I'm not talking about violating the Geneva protocols.

I'm talking about outclassing the lot of them by so much that they keel right over.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hey JJ,

Boo f-ing hoo.

How sad you must be that your hero is soon to be dead. Now is the time for you to join the jihad and go avenge him.

-z

Is there a reason for your willful, deliberate lie?

You, sir, are a pathological, contemptable, willfully hurtful LIAR.

I do believe that you have, in fact, just attempted to recruit for some terrorist group!?!? Was that what you meant to do? I hope not!

[jj]

Originally posted by epepke
Besides, he's a sociopath. He'll hang himself if we just let him have rope. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Yup, I tend to agree with that one, entirely. Let him show his spots, and let everyone see how revolting he is.

[DanishDynamite]

reprise:Technically, the US could argue that the Geneva protocols do not apply to Saddam anyway. How?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


What "two wrongs"?


I assume that you agree that Saddamn is responsible for lots of "wrongs", so the other side of the wrongs (which is, I agree in advance, much less serious) is that of exhibiting him like an animal.


Our behavior has far exceeded Saddam and his regime.


Yes, that's true, but this is exactly relevant, how?


We didn't beat him up, or force him to make statements (hmmm, reminds me of the POW footage from the first Gulf War...).


Agreed, at least mostly. I'm not entirely sure what you're thinking of.


We simply played the first raw footage we had of the man to prove to the world that we were telling the truth.


Ok, show them giving him the head-injury check, fine, I do NOT object to showing that "yes, we really have that (*&(*&(*", but showing the oral exam?

Look, although you and some others don't see it, I think there's a lot of opinion to be had by outclassing him and his thugs COMPLETELY, and I mean as completely as possible. Be nice, be sweet to him, let him blab, let him hang himself, so to speak.

He IS, after all, a total sociopath. Give him some rope, he'll help us by pulling on it himself.


He was cleaned up immediately after his examination as evidenced by the comparison photo the displayed showing Saddam clean and shaven.

The comparison photo I saw was from 'before the war'.

[Aoidoi]

[shrug]
If they didn't show pics there would be lots of questions over if we really had him, if the lack of video was covering up his torture, if he was really dead and the US was lying, etc.

Frankly, showing them checking him for lice (or whatever they were doing) served the purposes that Larspearte said without being particularly invasive. I mean, it was a head shot of a doctor checking out his head for whatever they were checking for, demonstrating that he was in relatively good shape physically if obviously worn out mentally and emotionally.

I'm having a hard time faulting the military for the way they're handling this.

btw, Rumsfeld mentioned on 60 Min that they're treating him with the priveleges of a POW even if he might not technically be one depending on his role in post-war Iraq. I took this to mean that even if he is technically an illegal combatant based on his postwar actions they're not going to ship him off to Cuba.

[jj]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Only because they left the coalition forces involved no other choice.

With armed people who don't intend to surrender, capturing them alive is, well, sometimes impossible, indeed.

I suspect his sons had even more to fear than he did from the general population, given the reports of their behavior.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by jj


With armed people who don't intend to surrender, capturing them alive is, well, sometimes impossible, indeed.

I suspect his sons had even more to fear than he did from the general population, given the reports of their behavior.

Question:

Was it low class to show their dead bodies?

On the issue of his sons, given the fear of them that existed, would anything less have counted for the masses?

Just interested in your thoughts.

[reprise]

You might be getting far more detailed footage of Saddam than we are here, because there's nothing in the footage we're seeing of his processing (about 5 seconds of an oral exam and about 3 seconds of someone checking his hair) which I find to be "lacking in class". Hell, I've yet to see an image of him in handcuffs.

I think that the US realises that it will be required by the world community to demonstrate on an almost daily basis that it is treating Saddam well (let's face it, whatever his ultimate fate he's going to be in US custody for a long time) and humanely and that to date they have released the minimum necessary footage to demonstrate that. The US is stating that Saddam is being co-operative. It's pretty difficult to give someone an oral examination or inspect their scalp for parasites without any lack of co-operation on their part being apparent.

To be honest, I'm a little bit surpised (pleasantly) by the sensitivity the US has shown to date in dealing with the whole issue of Saddam's capture, and I hope that it will continue.

[jj]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Question:

Was it low class to show their dead bodies?

On the issue of his sons, given the fear of them that existed, would anything less have counted for the masses?

Just interested in your thoughts.

I think we had to show that they had been captured, dead or alive, yes? I don't think anyone here argues otherwise.

If they're dead, there's not much choice now, is there? Unless you're suggesting that we ressurrect them, that is. Want to give me a hint on how to do that?

There's no chance you didn't know that we had to show them, dead or alive, either, so then there is no real mistaking that your entire question was mainly argumentitive, now, is there?

Hello? That was a wee bit transparent, there, Headscratcher, dude.

[reprise]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Question:

Was it low class to show their dead bodies?

On the issue of his sons, given the fear of them that existed, would anything less have counted for the masses?

Just interested in your thoughts.

I don't think that reassuring the masses was the only objective in releasing the images of the dead Husseins. I suspect that there was also a deliberate intention to convey the message of "this is how you, too, will end up" to other members of the former regime.

[Larspeart]

jj, you seen to have a real problem with the 'oral exam' that was given to Saddam.

Woudl you have prefered they show the anal and body lice exam instead (I am being serious)? They showed what is probably one of the most BEIGN and common of all medical practices.

'Open your mouth and say Ahhh'. What is sooooo degrading about that? I never felt degraded having it done to me.

They are showing medical care, by an army doctor, using fresh, clean gloves, and a tongue depressor instead of a hot iron spike like the Iraqi 'medical examiners' use, lol!

Get over yourself, jj. your arguement will get you no supporters.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by jj


I think we had to show that they had been captured, dead or alive, yes? I don't think anyone here argues otherwise.

If they're dead, there's not much choice now, is there? Unless you're suggesting that we ressurrect them, that is. Want to give me a hint on how to do that?

There's no chance you didn't know that we had to show them, dead or alive, either, so then there is no real mistaking that your entire question was mainly argumentitive, now, is there?

Hello? That was a wee bit transparent, there, Headscratcher, dude.

Well, I grant you this part of my question:


Was poorly phrased. But, I really was more interested in the baseline...whether showing their bodies was ok in your opinion. THere was some outcry at the time by some Arabs that doing so was an insult to Islam.

BTW, I am not accusing you of being a Saddam apologist. Your issues about the handeling of Saddam are fair, we just happen to disagree on whehter this particular aspect of it....
Was it low class to show their dead bodies?

[jj]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Well, I grant you this part of my question:


Was poorly phrased. But, I really was more interested in the baseline...whether showing their bodies was ok in your opinion. THere was some outcry at the time by some Arabs that doing so was an insult to Islam.


Rock, meet hard place.

I think that a lot of people needed to see that the right people were caught, dead or alive.

You notice I haven't objected to them showing Saddamn, only of doing it in a rather disgusting fashion, one that makes him look more like an animal than a person.

BTW, I am not accusing you of being a Saddam apologist. Your issues about the handeling of Saddam are fair, we just happen to disagree on whehter this particular aspect of it....

It's ok, even experts can disagree. :)

I think Rik is overboard, though, will somebody throw him a life preserver?

[reprise]

Even the "post shower and shave" image demonstrates that the US is being very careful here. No crew cut and clean shaven face for Saddam (and that WOULD have been an humiliating action and image). I don't know whether Saddam was asked whether he wished to keep his beard or how short he wished his hair cut, but I suspect that the US is trying to cut him some slack on the issue of dignity (which is hardly surprising given that they want to interrogate him in depth and can hardly beat or threaten information out of him with the eyes of the world upon them).

[jj]

Originally posted by Larspeart
jj, you seen to have a real problem with the 'oral exam' that was given to Saddam.

Woudl you have prefered they show the anal and body lice exam instead (I am being serious)? They showed what is probably one of the most BEIGN and common of all medical practices.

'Open your mouth and say Ahhh'. What is sooooo degrading about that? I never felt degraded having it done to me.

They are showing medical care, by an army doctor, using fresh, clean gloves, and a tongue depressor instead of a hot iron spike like the Iraqi 'medical examiners' use, lol!

Get over yourself, jj. your arguement will get you no supporters.

Look, do you have the whole world watching your oral exam?

No, you don't.

OBVIOUSLY the whole affair could have been much more degrading. As you would have noticed, had you been dilligent I've said as much. Why do you imply I haven't suggested or acknowledged that point, sir, when I have?

Now, about your iron spike. Could it be that you're trying to argue that two wrongs make a right? I'll stipulate that Saddamn has used inhumane tactics extensively. I think we all agree on that. Why is this in any way germane to how we might treat him? Why should we, in any fashion, be the same kind of animal he is?

Do two wrongs make a right?

I thought we settled that a while ago.

Now, back to the real point, you can tell me something, sir, WHY do you think that we would lose anything if we were extremely, enormously civil to the jerk? What would we lose? What might we gain?

THAT was the original point. Why did you have to derail that point into a personal attack?

[jj]

Originally posted by reprise
I don't know whether Saddam was asked whether he wished to keep his beard or how short he wished his hair cut, but I suspect that the US is trying to cut him some slack on the issue of dignity (which is hardly surprising given that they want to interrogate him in depth and can hardly beat or threaten information out of him with the eyes of the world upon them).

HEAR, HEAR!

Flies, honey, vinegear ...

Btw, good point about the beard. I don't recall him having a beard before, but I didn't intend to suggest that he should HAVE to shave ...

He's been tense and wired on adrenaline for about 6 months now, at least. Let him relax, and let's see what comes spilling out. :arrow:

[Clancie]

re: Geneva Conventions...

The modern use of videotape is an interesting development re: the prohibition on public humiliation. This was the commentary when Iraq videotaped the American captives looking dazed, ill, etc.


The rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war are spelled out in the third Geneva Convention of 1949. The Convention requires that POW’s “must at all times be treated humanely,” and goes on to list a number of specific requirements: they must not be killed, seriously endangered, mutilated or subject to medical or scientific experiments. Furthermore, they must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation, and against “insults and public curiosity” (Article 13).
Geneva Conventions (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2003/0324tv.htm)

Sadaam Hussein has not been classified as a POW and is not, technically, protected by the Conventions. We have said that he will be. It will be extremely bad PR for the US if he isn't....

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tmy


Well they did put Jessica Lynch in a hospital. And they didnt tourture those other POW's. Was I the only suprised that they werent killed???

Not to defend jerk off Saddam in any way. I just think that Arabs are always painted as these non-compassionate ultraviolent tourturing cut off your hands types.


as Jessica Lynch has been mentioned :)

What are the odds that the story of the capture of Saddam will have greater opportunity for fictions than the J L story? Any guesses as to how many months it will be when the T.V. movie of the event premeires.

The Jessica Lynch story was amazing, glorious, excitiing, patriotic, and to a great degree: fabricated. Will the story of the Capture of Saddam parallel the attibutes of the J L Story?
Will Saddam be reunited with his buddy Rumsfeld? Will Saddam's fondness for petti-cures be accurately portrayed?

[Ed]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/noltemug.jpg


rest my case

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed

rest my case

UGH! Ed, how COULD you? :)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Clancie
Sadaam Hussein has not been classified as a POW and is not, technically, protected by the Conventions. We have said that he will be. It will be extremely bad PR for the US if he isn't....

Just a quick comment here, as I want to make an important point about the convention and POW status. It's the Geneva convention that classifies who is a prisoner of war and who is not - one of the key points of the convention is that it is not up to the individual signatory bodies to make this decision. As Saddam Hussein was the commanding officer of the Iraqi army, I don't see how he can not be considered to be a POW as defined by the convention until such time as he's released from his POW emprisonment into the custody of a court which will try him for (I guess) crimes against humanity.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj


UGH! Ed, how COULD you? :)

I know. The point is Nolte was DUI, not a mass murderer so a few frames more for saddam are ok. Incidentially, i read that the rule against no pictures does not apply until a criminal is charged . In the present case Saddams status is unclear. Evidentially getting out of town removed some protections that he might have had.

Keegen wrote an interesting essay in the telegraph today on some of the law stuff

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$CSYLXBTPFMPXLQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/opinion/2003/12/15/do1591.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/15/ixnewstop.html

Leave it to us soft westerners to have such worries about saddam. No wonder the a-rabs despise us.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Ed

[horrid Nick Nolte picture deleted]


rest my case

Ed, you crack me up. I was trying to figure out how to get a Nolte reference into one of these threads, but you beat me to it....

On the thread topic, I was a bit squeamish about the oral exam. I think it's on the fine line between effective PR (this video is the equivalent to a perp-walk), and total humiliation.

If it were me, I'd only release the "head exam" shots and the "picture after cleanup" shot, but I'm not sure a moral boundary was transgressed.

How about that for an unequivocal answer?

[jj]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Ed, you crack me up. I was trying to figure out how to get a Nolte reference into one of these threads, but you beat me to it....

On the thread topic, I was a bit squeamish about the oral exam. I think it's on the fine line between effective PR (this video is the equivalent to a perp-walk), and total humiliation.


For me it's not a question of squeamishnes, rather a question of appearance, and also a question of how the captors can relate to the prisoner.


If it were me, I'd only release the "head exam" shots and the "picture after cleanup" shot, but I'm not sure a moral boundary was transgressed.


I agree. I don't think that a "moral" issue regarding what they showed is so much at issue, it's a question of appearance, PR, prisoner feelings, and wisdom.


How about that for an unequivocal answer?
Because there's a huge grey area?

[Ed]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Ed, you crack me up. I was trying to figure out how to get a Nolte reference into one of these threads, but you beat me to it....

On the thread topic, I was a bit squeamish about the oral exam. I think it's on the fine line between effective PR (this video is the equivalent to a perp-walk), and total humiliation.

If it were me, I'd only release the "head exam" shots and the "picture after cleanup" shot, but I'm not sure a moral boundary was transgressed.

How about that for an unequivocal answer?


Not bad. But let us be real, gentlemen. The guys vaunted armies were squished like bugs in record time on two occasions. It strike me that a picture of a Dr. looking for poison tooth caps can hardly be worse, humiliation wise. Furhter showing his urmmmm .. decorating "flair" as it were would have had any normal person looking for some hole to crawl in to.

......... Hmmmmmmmm

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed

Leave it to us soft westerners to have such worries about saddam. No wonder the a-rabs despise us.

Ed, I don't think that any "law" of any sort (be it law or convention) was broken.

It's a question of wisdom, appearances, and the like.

Which would serve us better, humialiting him, or treating him obviously well until the trapdoor falls open?

[reprise]

As Saddam Hussein was the commanding officer of the Iraqi army, I don't see how he can not be considered to be a POW as defined by the convention until such time as he's released from his POW emprisonment into the custody of a court which will try him for (I guess) crimes against humanity.

Saddam was not commanding officer of the Iraqi army at the time of his capture (nor was the US at war with the Iraqi army at the time of his capture); it's difficult to argue that he was part of the Iraqi army at all at the time time of his capture.

It does the US no harm whatsoever to treat him accordance with the provisions of the Geneva conventions while not formalising his POW status.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
There are a number of good points here...however, I can't but help think that the few minutes (and it wasn't very many) of footage we saw was calculated to a very important purpose. Specifically: breaking the image of Saddam in Iraq. Exposing him in this fashion not only demonstrated that Saddam was alive, but demonstrated that the man who terrorized an entire nation, was himself on-the-run and harried. It deomnstrated clearly that the man who urged the sons of Iraq to die in his name and to kill themselves in his cause, was himself afraid to die fighting -- even as his sons did.

Saddam is like Goering. Clean him up, and he will attend his trial and his brovado will be back. THese pictures are critical because they will always be there to remind Iraqis that Saddam was essentially a "coward" though he will claim on the stand at his trial that he did it all for them, and that he is the victim.

Humiliating it might seem to some, but I keep coming back to the fact that it is critical to break the spell of Saddam, and these actions are an important first step.
I agree. Saddam went to great lengths to portray himself as an object of worship, similar to the way many other despots have portrayed themselves. Allowing the Iraqi public to see him in the mode of scruffy captive will go a long way toward eliminating the fraudulent image of him.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ohrryp
Allowing the Iraqi public to see him in the mode of scruffy captive will go a long way toward eliminating the fraudulent image of him.

Agreed. If you note, that's not what this thread is about.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ed
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/noltemug.jpg


rest my case

:dl:

[peptoabysmal]

The footage was taken of the medical exam to show that Saddam's cheeks were swabbed for DNA.

[jj]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The footage was taken of the medical exam to show that Saddam's cheeks were swabbed for DNA.

All I saw all day was a miserable looking ex-dictator having his face prodded, inside and out.

Your comment seems a rational explaination. Is this something you've actually seen reported?

[reprise]

Originally posted by jj


All I saw all day was a miserable looking ex-dictator having his face prodded, inside and out.

Your comment seems a rational explaination. Is this something you've actually seen reported?

I haven't seen any reports confirming that explanation but as cheek swabbing is the usual method of collecting samples for DNA comparison it makes sense that it would have been done during the oral exam. In all probability, Saddam's dentition was checked at the same time, his general oral health was checked, and the doctor probably had a quick look around for embedded poison phials as well.

[headscratcher4]

Watching BBC world news this morning, I note that there is beginning to be some "reports" that some Arabs are suggesting that it isn't really Saddam.

I only raise this because the act of showing DNA being collected from his cheeks has more importance to the extent that this conspiracy theory gains any acceptance, and nowing the Arab presses pension for such things, it will.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by jj

Which would serve us better, humialiting him, or treating him obviously well until the trapdoor falls open?
I don't think that the two are as far apart as you would think. The footage that was released was only humilating because it was Saddam, the same guy who encouraged others to die fighting for him, cooperating fully with the infidel Americans. THe guy gives up without a fight, and looks completely broken. Not the kind of thing that will inspire his troops.

As for treatment, not once in viewing the footage did I think he was being mistreated. They just checked his mouth. It's not like they showed him bent over and getting a rectal exam. I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The video showed he was not mistreated, and it showed him a broken man.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Ed, you crack me up. I was trying to figure out how to get a Nolte reference into one of these threads, but you beat me to it....



Ayyyyyyyy.... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870230209#post1870230209)

[Larspeart]

Last I checked, Heads of State are not protected (fully) under Geneva, nor do they count as Prisoners of War, REGARDLESS of them being 'Commander in Chief' (which most HoS's are anyway). That being said, we are following the GC's miticulously just to prove that we are not going to chance anyhting, and to show how nice we are to vile despots.



That Nick Nolte picture is dead-on cool! I have been pointing out the similarities to anyone who will isten at work! rofl!

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Ayyyyyyyy.... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870230209#post1870230209)

Great minds (sometimes) think alike. Although I do admit that Brown's comparison to Karl Marx is more on the nose. Karl Marx doesn't look humiliated is his picture, but we have modern history for that.

On the thread topic, again....

I thought about what made me squeamish about the mouth exam video. Saddam not only looks humiliated, but submissive. It's disturbing to me to see anyone look like that.

I'm still ambivalent on the wisdom of actually showing the video.

[jj]

Originally posted by Thanz
As for treatment, not once in viewing the footage did I think he was being mistreated. They just checked his mouth. It's not like they showed him bent over and getting a rectal exam. I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The video showed he was not mistreated, and it showed him a broken man.

Again, I don't think they mistreated him by doing the exam, etc.

Showing him a broken man is necessary to kill the idea that he's still alive, and watching the arab news dailys argue it's not him suggests their real agenda. I thought they all reported to a god who said "thou shalt not lie".

My question is simply "what do we lose by being gracious, right up until the trap door opens and his neck snaps"?

But that's another question, of course, and one that we exacerbated with the first Iraqui war, and even more by not then finishing it, and suggesting we were in fact weak infidels.

But that's yet another mistake in our endless list of )(*&(ups in the middle east. (Note to Rik and the vilification squad, that means mistakes by all parties, not just one.)

[shecky]

I've seen people more humiliated on Cops.

I actually expected to see him a little more humiliated. Perhaps in a grungy t shirt and boxers, or something like that.

[jj]

Originally posted by shecky
I've seen people more humiliated on Cops.

I actually expected to see him a little more humiliated. Perhaps in a grungy t shirt and boxers, or something like that.

Indeed.

What do we lose by treating him very cleanly right up until the trapdoor drops, Shecky?

Anything?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hey JJ,

Boo f-ing hoo.

How sad you must be that your hero is soon to be dead. Now is the time for you to join the jihad and go avenge him.

-z



Rik, that was very much uncalled for. Nowhere did the guy say Saddam was his hero. If you don't agree with JJ, fine, I don't agree with JJ either. But trying to demonize your opponents hardly helps with regards to your credibility.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by jj


My question is simply "what do we lose by being gracious, right up until the trap door opens and his neck snaps"?

We don't need to be gracious, we just need to be fair. I don't think that they have done anything that is unfair. Giving Saddam any sort of special treatment (special accomodations or whatever) is a slap to the Iraqi people who had to live under his rule. Simply treating him fairly and giving him a credible trial will show that "we" are better than he is. When you say gracious, to me it implies preferential treatment, which I do not think that Saddam is entitled to.

[Boo]

Just a thought on the video tape and what was shown.

Video tape is now the preferred media for documenting an event. Given that so far no other film has appeared, I would guess that the military video taped the exam as evidence; should there be accusations of abuse, ill treatment by capturing soldiers, not really him, etc. and then released the few seconds of most generally benign head images of Saddam.


Given that an a complete physical was most likely administered and video taped I would say that the military released to the press the most appropriate images.

If anyone else has video of Saddam they are keeping it to them selves.


Boo

[jj]

Originally posted by Thanz

We don't need to be gracious, we just need to be fair. I don't think that they have done anything that is unfair. Giving Saddam any sort of special treatment (special accomodations or whatever) is a slap to the Iraqi people who had to live under his rule. Simply treating him fairly and giving him a credible trial will show that "we" are better than he is. When you say gracious, to me it implies preferential treatment, which I do not think that Saddam is entitled to.

The only way I'd encourage preferential treatment would be if it would seem likely to get him to spill more information.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist




Rik, that was very much uncalled for. Nowhere did the guy say Saddam was his hero. If you don't agree with JJ, fine, I don't agree with JJ either. But trying to demonize your opponents hardly helps with regards to your credibility.

DM,

I do usually try to keep my emotions in check. I failed on that post and in many posts since Saddam's capture. I cannot help but be extremely po'd at the people who have posted here for months that the Iraq war was illegal, that we'll never catch Saddam and OBL, quagmire, vietnam, etc...etc... Who then have the gall to either join in the congratulations as hypocrites, or downplay the importance of this capture for political or ideological reasons (such as Howard Dean...and assorted people on this board)

Therefore, I apologise for my tone on some of these posts...but I am human.

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


DM,

I do usually try to keep my emotions in check. I failed on that post and in many posts since Saddam's capture. I cannot help but be extremely po'd at the people who have posted here for months that the Iraq war was illegal, that we'll never catch Saddam and OBL, quagmire, vietnam, etc...etc...


The original was directed to me, Rik, and you're going to have a hard time showing me where I've said we'll never find Saddamn. I do fear we'll never find OBL even if we introduce him to a bunkerbuster in operation, that's more because I don't think he'll be taken alive if he can help it.

Saddamn's cowardice shows, I think, in that he was taken alive. Come on, what does he expect now? Surely, a short, sharp shock, and oblivion, nothing more.

I hope finding Saddamn does cut through the problems in Iraq, but I fear it won't, since we've managed, by questionable methods, to destroy the Iraqui security machine, something it needed to avoid incursions by OBL's buddies, for instance, and it's going to be a wretched, horrid pain to reestablish any kind of security force at all, especially one that can be trusted not to take over.

So, I still fear a quagmire in Iraq, but I hope we've improved the situation at least. I still fear it, but that's not hoping for it.

Who then have the gall to either join in the congratulations as hypocrites, or downplay the importance of this capture for political or ideological reasons (such as Howard Dean...and assorted people on this board)

I'm not a democrat, you know, and I haven't downplayed the news of his capture, only the idea that his capture somehow would lead to a Bush victory. That thread wasn't my idea, Rik.

Therefore, I apologise for my tone on some of these posts...but I am human.

-z

As are we all, and humans generally react very poorly to being accused of appalling things, especially when they are simply not guilty of them.

If you'd care to engage in a discussion, that's good.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ed

rest my case


I like this one even better:

http://www.mugshots.com/IMAGES/Mugshot__glen-campbell.jpg