News Saddam Hussein: How should he be treated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the treatment of Saddam Hussein following his capture, highlighting concerns about his current living conditions, which include being housed in a converted bathroom with limited amenities. Participants debate whether this treatment aligns with international law and ethical standards, considering Hussein's past actions against his own people. There is a significant focus on the implications of torture and interrogation practices by the U.S., with arguments about the historical context of such actions and the burden of proof regarding whether the U.S. continues these practices today. Some participants argue that humane treatment is necessary to maintain moral high ground, while others question the legitimacy of the U.S. government's actions and the potential for torture. The conversation reflects broader themes of justice, ethics in warfare, and the complexities of human rights in the context of national security.
Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
From: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8216785%255E401,00.html

In the photo Hussein appears in much worse shape than when arrested, with pronounced bags under bloodshot eyes and a sticking plaster on the back of his right hand where he has reportedly been receiving intravenous injections.

The photo shows the former president, who once lived in a string of palaces, is now being kept in a converted bathroom lit by spotlights, with his bed right next to a toilet on a tiled shower recess.

But the man who took the photograph said Hussein was being kept in a converted bathroom measuring 4m by 2 1/2m, with three fluorescent tubes and several spotlights glaring on the room's dank tiles.

The room had no windows, and the only other furniture was a wash-basin and a hat rack.

Now, things to consider.

1) It has been oft-reported that Hussein did as much and worse to people.

2) Does this treatment fall within the bounds fo international law?

3) Is it acceptable, when dealing with a rabid dog, to become a rabid dog yourself?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
As long as it is temporary, and he does have contact with people, then I'm not bugged by it. There conclusion that he is in a worse shape now than then is rediculus, a converted bathroom is better than a literal hole in the ground. As far as I'm aware, he was not able to leave that hole, and though he had ventilation he did not have a toilet in there.
 
That just looks to me like bad lighting on the pic.

He is/will be treated humanely - something that cannot be said about the way he treated his people.
 
Originally posted by russ_watters
That just looks to me like bad lighting on the pic.

He is/will be treated humanely - something that cannot be said about the way he treated his people.

Riddle me this, batman: What is the KUBARK?
 
That would be a Vietnam War era paper on interrogation techniques, Joker.

I'm Batman! [/Michael Keaton]
 
Do you suppose the USA suddenly ceased interrogation and torture?
 
I notice you don't come right out and accuse the US of torturing him, you just imply it. You know there is not a shred of evidence to support such an accusation. But you just can't resist an opportunity to imply the worst about the US, can you?

Njorl
 
Originally posted by Njorl
I notice you don't come right out and accuse the US of torturing him, you just imply it. You know there is not a shred of evidence to support such an accusation. But you just can't resist an opportunity to imply the worst about the US, can you?

The USA has a history of doing it. As do most nations I've ever heard of. They even have a formal method for doing it. Why would they not do it to this guy who the US president said should be killed?

Or, yes, we could assume they are being nice, having cups of tea and scones, discussing the weather... Right.
 
Originally posted by Adam
Do you suppose the USA suddenly ceased interrogation and torture?
_________________________________________________

The USA has a history of doing it. As do most nations I've ever heard of. They even have a formal method for doing it. Why would they not do it to this guy who the US president said should be killed?
First, this isn't the past, its the present - you need to provide evidence that we do it now (to anyone). Second, you haven't provided evidence even of actions in the past. And third (though most important) you haven't provided any evidence that we have tortured HIM.

So all of this is idle speculation and unfounded hypotheticals.

But to answer your one question: why would they not? Because its not legal, right, or just. Many people (myself included) say he should be/have been killed. But you have to take that in context - if he was resisting capture or not in a place where you can easily capture him, you kill him. If he's in custody, you TRY him in court and maybe execute him.
Or, yes, we could assume they are being nice, having cups of tea and scones, discussing the weather... Right.
Assume whatever you want. Doesn't matter to me except when you make accusations. THEN you need to support them with evidence. By all evidence, the US treats her captives humanely. The worst accusation I heard of the Gitmo prisoners' treatment were things like shaving beards and not adequately providing for religious practice. And the prisoners we took in 1991 were treated far better in captivity than they lived when they were free.

Please not, I'm not saying its never happened. I'm sure it has, but I doubt it has ever happened above a local level, ie, I doubt its ever been an official/unofficial policy.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
russ_waters

First, this isn't the past, its the present - you need to provide evidence that we do it now (to anyone).
No, I don't. You need to provide evidence that the USA ceased doing it. The sun was there eight minutes ago. We can say it is still there, unless you provide evidence that it somehow mysteriously vanished in the past eight minutes. Similarly, the KUBARK was employed thirty years ago. Unless you have a reason to suggest they ceased using it, and ceased all other interrogation and torture, then we can say it is still all being done. Now, keep in mind that they simply don't tell you things unless it comes out under the FOIA, and even then, some things are classified, which is why the KUBARK has blacked-out sections.

What rational reason do you have for suggesting that the USA ceased torturing information out of people?

Second, you haven't provided evidence even of actions in the past.
The updated book is the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983

And third (though most important) you haven't provided any evidence that we have tortured HIM.
Again, I don't need to. If the standard procedure exists (as per the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983), then you must show that for some whacky reason they did not follow standard procedure. Unless you wish us to believe that either the USA has no standard procedures (the existence of the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual -- 1983 seems to suggest otherwise), or for some reason they simply never follow existing procedures. Which is it, russ?

Let's have a look at Amnesty International's view of the USA and torture:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/14057
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/12939
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/14136

Now, I would expect you to make the logical fallacy of attacking the source, rather than the information itself. Say something like "Amnesty International are a bunch of greenies with an agenda, they could see torture in something as innocent as the Muppet show". So before you do that, think. Attacking the source does nothing to change the facts.

But to answer your one question: why would they not? Because its not legal, right, or just.
The USA does many things which are not legal, right, or just. For example:
  • Holding the people in Camp X-Ray without charge.
  • Bombing Baghdad, a civilian population, killing at least 8,000 innocent civilians.
  • Nuking Japan.
  • Shooting down airliners.
  • Invading countries with no legal cause.
  • Shooting wounded soldiers in the back.
  • Dealing with terrorists.
  • Training terrorists.
  • Dealing with states kown to support terrorists.
Need I go on?

Many people (myself included) say he should be/have been killed.
Luckily not all of us are so bloodthirsty.

By all evidence, the US treats her captives humanely.
Only if you ignore the evidence and persist with your delusions about your state. Read the material supplied.

The worst accusation I heard of the Gitmo prisoners' treatment were things like shaving beards and not adequately providing for religious practice.
Why is that the worst accusation you've ever heard? I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but not all of us are 100% materialistic. Some of us place a measure of importance on things like thought, philosophy, our treatment of fellow humans, beliefs, et cetera. Regardless of whether an afterlife exists or not, some of those people place a great deal of importance on spiritual matters, and may even consider them far more important than material matters. Thus they may find something which impinges upon their spiritual self far more painful than something like living in a little wire cage for two years without being charged with anything.

Please not, I'm not saying its never happened. I'm sure it has, but I doubt it has ever happened above a local level, ie, I doubt its ever been an official/unofficial policy.
Then what is the KUBARK? What is the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983? Yes, it's official policy.

Some nice happy reading material for you:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/14107
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/usa/cia_torture_97.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510452002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510442002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA
http://www.amnestyusa.org/truthnow/test1.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11


Originally posted by Adam
No, I don't. You need to provide evidence that the USA ceased doing it.
Is that how burden of proof works?

Lawyer: Your honor, this man has comitted numerous crimes in the past for which he has never been tried and for which I will provide no evidence. He is therefore guilty of this recent crime and evidence is not required to prove his guilt.

Judge: Hmmm... [giggle]
 
Last edited:
  • #12
I think that any sane, rational human being with an ounce of integrity and self-respect wants Saddam Hussein to be treated with utmost dignity, given full access to lawyers and a fair trail, then gently strapped to a table and given a lethal injection.(or dropped in a nice, comfy cell until he dies, depending on the jurisdiction under which he is tried)
 
  • #13
I agree with the previous two posts, it would put us on the moral high ground to treat Saddam with much respect, and that is where we want to be. That bathroom or whatever he is in is not great, I do think he shouldn't have to spend all his time in there. But as I said, it's better than a hole in the ground.
Adam said:
What rational reason do you have for suggesting that the USA ceased torturing information out of people?
Off the top of my head, my best guess is that it is a really stupid and unnecessary thing to do. If word ever got out about it, there'd be lynchings of gov't officials everywhere.
The updated book is the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983
I don't happen to have that one on hand...
Now, I would expect you to make the logical fallacy of attacking the source, rather than the information itself. Say something like "Amnesty International are a bunch of greenies with an agenda, they could see torture in something as innocent as the Muppet show". So before you do that, think. Attacking the source does nothing to change the facts.
It does change the 'facts' if the 'facts' are twisted or made up by Amnesty Intnat'l or any other source. If the source is crappy, find one you know won't be attacked.
The USA does many things which are not legal, right, or just. For example:
Bombing Baghdad, a civilian population, killing at least 8,000 innocent civilians.
I think that was an accident. BTW, how did you make those bullets?
Nuking Japan.
That was necessary, could you even imagine how long WWII would have lasted and how many more deaths there would be?
Invading countries with no legal cause.
Isn't this being hotly debated?
Why is that the worst accusation you've ever heard? I know this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but not all of us are 100% materialistic. Some of us place a measure of importance on things like thought, philosophy, our treatment of fellow humans, beliefs, et cetera. Regardless of whether an afterlife exists or not, some of those people place a great deal of importance on spiritual matters, and may even consider them far more important than material matters. Thus they may find something which impinges upon their spiritual self far more painful than something like living in a little wire cage for two years without being charged with anything.
Oh their beards were cut off for goodness sake.
 
Last edited:
  • #14


Originally posted by russ_watters
Is that how burden of proof works?

Newton. Objects in motion tend to stay that way unless acted upon by another force. The USA did it in the past, for a long time. Torturing info out of people works. Yes, the burden of proof is on you to say they stopped doing it for some reason.
 
  • #15
Jonathan

Off the top of my head, my best guess is that it is a really stupid and unnecessary thing to do.
Well, since the USA is still creating and using books like the KUBARK...

And yes, people do kick up a stink about it. The ACLU, Amnesty International, and other groups are aware and throw tantrums about it. The rest of you don't, because as this thread demonstrates, you are unaware. Luckily the few who give a damn actually pay attention.

It does change the 'facts' if the 'facts' are twisted or made up by Amnesty Intnat'l or any other source.
You didn't actually read the material I linked to, did you? I know it is tempting for the patriot to simply say "they made it all up", and thus assuage your conscience. It's an easy way out.

If the source is crappy, find one you know won't be attacked.
1) Why do you consider AI a "crappy" source?

2) Do you really think any source presented would be considered credible by partriots who are desperate to preserve their illusions? I could post an admission by a CIA torturer, and people would find some way to say it is not credible.

I think that was an accident.
Over a thousand cruise missiles, plus aircraft-deployed bombs, over several days, following a plan developed over months, according to a book they even published on the web (http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html )? That's one hell of a stretch to claim it was an accident.

BTW, how did you make those bullets?
?

That was necessary, could you even imagine how long WWII would have lasted and how many more deaths there would be?
Once again, this is a myth spread by those partiots desperate to preserve their illusions. The nukes were not necessary, and had no military benefit whatsoever. They were merely a demonstration to the Russians, and an experiment.
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe).

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)

"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'

Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so ... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender...The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment."
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.

Isn't this being hotly debated?
Not really. Patriots deny it, but the law is quite clear. Want me to quote the UN Charter once again?

Oh their beards were cut off for goodness sake.
So go draw a swastika on some Jews. It's only cosmetic, right? Surely they won't be upset by that...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Ask yourself, "what would Captain Janeway do?" It's too bad the only place humans can manage to be clear headed about their ethics is in science fiction. Seems like a no brainer to me; but I see ppl. actually genuinely scratching their monkey heads over what to think about using torture. Primitive screw heads...
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Zero
I think that any sane, rational human being with an ounce of integrity and self-respect wants Saddam Hussein to be treated with utmost dignity, given full access to lawyers and a fair trail, then gently strapped to a table and given a lethal injection.(or dropped in a nice, comfy cell until he dies, depending on the jurisdiction under which he is tried)
Nice to hear we more or less agree on this issue. I sometimes find it bizarre how close some of our opinions are while others are so far apart (exact opposites).
Ask yourself, "what would Captain Janeway do?" It's too bad the only place humans can manage to be clear headed about their ethics is in science fiction. Seems like a no brainer to me; but I see ppl. actually genuinely scratching their monkey heads over what to think about using torture. Primitive screw heads...
I have often remarked (to Zero sometimes ) how strange I find it that people can approach science so logically/rationally while at the same time approaching religion, the occult, and politics so illogically/irrationally.
 
  • #18
You didn't actually read the material I linked to, did you?
I will tell you the truth: no. I do not have the time to do so. My assurtion that it was probably made up and that it is a crappy source was based on your post that predicted such would happen. I assume you predict this having heard similar arguements before, and as these arguements are contrary to yours, and mine are to, then there is a good likelyhood that my arguements would be similar to those arguements, so I merely assumed that was the conclusion I'd come to.
...by partriots who are desperate to preserve their illusions?
You do not know me and have no basis to make such accusations, I am in fact probably very unpatriotic by most people's standards. If I had complete and unquestioned control over the programs in this country, they would be entirly different. I dislike the current status quo and would therefore fall under the category of nonpracticing revolutionary.
I think that was an accident.
Over a thousand cruise missiles, plus aircraft-deployed bombs, over several days, following a plan developed over months, according to a book they even published on the web (http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html )? That's one hell of a stretch to claim it was an accident.
I think I misunderstood what you are talking about. BTW, the bullets I was referring to were the bullets in front of each entry on the list you posted.
Once again, this is a myth spread by those partiots desperate to preserve their illusions. The nukes were not necessary, and had no military benefit whatsoever. They were merely a demonstration to the Russians, and an experiment.
I was not aware of this and all I can say is that I refuse to be punished for the sins of my forefathers.
Not really. Patriots deny it, but the law is quite clear. Want me to quote the UN Charter once again?
Not really? There is a whole thread on it you goof ball, you probably started and did participate in it.
Your analogy between beards and swasticas was a bit of a stretch, but I can say that for most of history the swastica was a symbol of good things. Just because some nut comes along and misuses it doesn't mean it should change the meaning of the symbol. I wouldn't care if someone drew an upside down pentagram on me, as long as they didn't hurt me or ruin my clothes. Then again if they did I could sue for a ton of money...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Jonathan

Not really? There is a whole thread on it you goof ball, you probably started and did participate in it.
Okay, I should say it is debated, but is not really a matter which requires debate. The law is absolutely clear, despite the fact that most of those debating it have not read the laws in question.

Your analogy between beards and swasticas was a bit of a stretch, but I can say that for most of history the swastica was a symbol of good things.
I see no difference between shaving those beards or painting a swastika on some Jews. What is the logical difference?
 
  • #20
Shaving beards has a practical use: they hide what you look like, shaving them makes your face easier to see. It makes perfect sense to me that it is hard to tell one bearded guy from another, esp. if the all the beards are large. Then again, if there is only one bearded guy there then there is no real need for it. And if the beard is tiny then there is no practical reason to do so and they should just bend the rules a little in those cases.
The painting of a swastica has no use and one would therefore do that only to insult those being painted. They don't even need to be Jews, anyone who doesn't know what I said previously about the history of the swastica, or someone who is vain, or an authority, would be pissed, regardless of the symbol.
They cut the beards because that is the rules, in spite of the fact that it insults them. And we all know those stupid bureaucrats won't bend the rules no matter how trivial, as in the previous stated cases.
 
  • #21
I would guess most people have at some stage read some history of the symbol, but it is irrelevent.

Yes, the beard thing makes a practical difference to the captors.

But what logical difference is there, to the captive, between shaving the beard and painting a swastika?
 
  • #22
Well, firstly it is technically not of our gov'tment's concern, they are not citizens. But it would be the decent thing to do to try to be as understanding as possible. The difference is that the captive logically knows that this is not being done to demean or defile them, it is being done for a practical purpose and if they are innoccent it is in their best interest to just put up with it and be an easy prisoner, that way they can be processed quicker. If they threw a whole fit about it and refused to let it be done, the process will be stalled at that phase indefinitly, until they will sit still or someone holds them still.
But as I've said, I think that if at all possible the rules should be bent in order to accommodate the prisoners, since they have not been convicted and therefore should be treated as well as possible until their judgement, so I really can't argue this point well, I'm just being a devil's advocate.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by russ_watters
Nice to hear we more or less agree on this issue. I sometimes find it bizarre how close some of our opinions are while others are so far apart (exact opposites). I have often remarked (to Zero sometimes ) how strange I find it that people can approach science so logically/rationally while at the same time approaching religion, the occult, and politics so illogically/irrationally.
I wonder the same thing about you, on a regular basis...maybe you and I should keep that in mind in the future, huh?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top