Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:45:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
633 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
| |
Is there an addendum that clarifies when a video is humiliating
and when it’s not? Saddam appeared in lots of video before, and
will probably appear in more during the trial. What are the rules
on this? I haven’t found them yet.
|
A good question. I know there was an uproar when US POW’s in Iraq were
featured even briefly on Al-Jazeera, for example. Hussein was able,
according to reports, to identify himself as “the President of Iraq”
to his American captors, so this (if true) demonstrates that he had no
medical condition preventing him from stating his identity.
Beyond that, Hussein’s DNA has been sampled since his capture, and that
would seem to trump the need for any photo as verification of his
identity (as long as a pre-existing known sample of his DNA was
available!) The “humiliating’ part, in my view, comes up when we see
endless rebroadcasting of the open-wide-and-say-aah exam, juxtaposed
with Dubya chanting that Hussein was a rat in a hole.
|
Yeah that’s annoying, but just the sort of thing the media loves
to broadcast. How do you stop them? Anyhow, my question remains:
Has the “Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization”
ever actually identified any of the video on Al-Jazeera or the western
media as “humiliating”?
|
yes
Scott A
|
Thank you. That’s half of the answer I was looking for. Does anyone
have a link where the same impartial humanitarian organization
declares the Al-Jazeera footage humiliating? I found some hints with
a quick google search, but nothing quite as definate as the Saddam
link. I hate the way the passage of time erodes news archives on
the internet.
|
You really are grasping a staws; from their
site:
“The treatment of prisoners of war, again the rules of war are fairly clear, all
parties, all sides are expected to treat the prisoners humanely and in
accordance with international humanitarian law and we are concerned that all
sides respect these rules equally, whether it is the British or the Americans or
the Iraqis.”
Also: Iraq/USA: No double
standards for POWs
Your point is facile. Even if nobody did condemn the way US troops were treated
(they did), that does not give your ‘president’ the right to break the law by
parading his trophies both dead and alive on TV.
| |
What do you think the punishment for reciprocal video humiliation should
be?
|
Put Bush in front of the ICC? ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Heh, beat you to it. (URL) Your point is facile. Even if nobody did condemn the way US troops were (...) I'm not sure I made a point, other than that google is not the best way to search for old news. I did find it before you did though, or (...) (21 years ago, 18-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Thank you. That's half of the answer I was looking for. Does anyone have a link where the same impartial humanitarian organization declares the Al-Jazeera footage humiliating? I found some hints with a quick google search, but nothing quite as (...) (21 years ago, 18-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
