Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Saddam Hussein: How should he be treated?

  1. Dec 19, 2003 #1
    From: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8216785%255E401,00.html [Broken]

    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: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 21, 2003 #2
    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.
  4. Dec 21, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  5. Dec 21, 2003 #4
    Riddle me this, batman: What is the KUBARK?
  6. Dec 22, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That would be a Vietnam War era paper on interrogation techniques, Joker.

    I'm Batman! [/Michael Keaton]
  7. Dec 22, 2003 #6
    Do you suppose the USA suddenly ceased interrogation and torture?
  8. Dec 22, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?

  9. Dec 22, 2003 #8
    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.
  10. Dec 22, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
    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: Dec 22, 2003
  11. Dec 22, 2003 #10

    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?

    The updated book is the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983

    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 [Broken]
    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/12939 [Broken]
    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/14136 [Broken]

    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.

    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?

    Luckily not all of us are so bloodthirsty.

    Only if you ignore the evidence and persist with your delusions about your state. Read the material supplied.

    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.

    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 [Broken]
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510452002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA [Broken]
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510442002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. Dec 22, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: russ_waters

    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: Dec 22, 2003
  13. Dec 23, 2003 #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)
  14. Dec 23, 2003 #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:
    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.
    I don't happen to have that one on hand...
    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.
    I think that 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?
    Isn't this being hotly debated?
    Oh their beards were cut off for goodness sake.
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2003
  15. Dec 23, 2003 #14
    Re: Re: russ_waters

    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.
  16. Dec 23, 2003 #15

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 [Broken])? That's one hell of a stretch to claim it was an accident.


    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.
    Not really. Patriots deny it, but the law is quite clear. Want me to quote the UN Charter once again?

    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: May 1, 2017
  17. Dec 23, 2003 #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...
  18. Dec 23, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
  19. Dec 24, 2003 #18
    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.
    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 I misunderstood what you are talking about. BTW, the bullets I was refering to were the bullets in front of each entry on the list you posted.
    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? 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: May 1, 2017
  20. Dec 24, 2003 #19

    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.

    I see no difference between shaving those beards or painting a swastika on some Jews. What is the logical difference?
  21. Dec 25, 2003 #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, any one 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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook