Saddam was drugged?

[Fencer128]

Hi,

This story from Saddam's eldest daughter just breaking.

I suppose his betrayer (if they were his guards) would want to make his capture easy?

Thoughts?

Andy

 

[Pepsei]

After Rumsfeld said that we must treat him like a POW and thus having the protection of the international convention, we've already violated that by releasing films displaying him like a trophy.

Drugged? Probably, and If I was him, I'd ask for a heavy dose of Oxycontin daily.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
After Rumsfeld said that we must treat him like a POW and thus having the protection of the international convention, we've already violated that by releasing films displaying him like a trophy.

Drugged? Probably, and If I was him, I'd ask for a heavy dose of Oxycontin daily.

Well, I disagree with you on that one. I think the benefit to the situation in Iraq (hearts and minds) as of now outweighs not showing him on TV. Furthermore, he was seen having a medical inspection and not answering scripted questions under theat of violence, not in a state of obvious emotional distress, nor were any injuries shown.

In the words of the Geneva convention:

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

In this situation I would interpret "public curiosity" differently to "public recognition of his capture", for the reasons I gave above. Now, if new footage was coming out daily then I'd agree with you.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Pepsei]

Actually, I do think it was a good thing to show him, even if it appears that he was being humiliated. This may stop some resistences, and perhaps stablize some areas in Iraq.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Thanks, Fencer128, you saved me some time in responding to the "we've already violated" nonsense.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Fortunately, the Geneva Convention did not parse words . . . "public curiosity" . . . was not followed by the caveat "unless the detaining power desires public propaganda to support their agenda". We have not won the "hearts and minds" 7 months after liberating Iraq b/c we haven't done anything to deserve it. Saddam is certainly POS despot but that earned him assistance from our government in the 80s and then condemnation in the 90s. The Shi'ites remember who left them hanging. The Kurds have faired better from US foreign policy and accordingly they've tolerated our presence. But even the Kurds realize the US does not support Kurdish rights to self-determination. Despite the liberation from Sunni hegemony, the Shi'ites know the US does not support democratic rule b/c it might lead to a cleric taking over. And of course, nothing will win over the Sunnis short of returning Saddam.

The Geneva Convention protects the rights of the detained not the whims (or even potentially laudable perspectives) of the controling power. But the US is misguided in believing Saddam's capture makes a substantitive difference in the long term. "Hearts and minds" want 1) security, 2) reliable power, 3) reliable water, 4) and employment. To the extent that Saddam-controled forces led to less of 1 or 2 . . . then his capture was helpful. Otherwise, the CPA needs to focus on the heavy lifting instead of pats on the back.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fortunately, the Geneva Convention did not parse words . . . "public curiosity" . . . was not followed by the caveat "unless the detaining power desires public propaganda to support their agenda". We have not won the "hearts and minds" 7 months after liberating Iraq b/c we haven't done anything to deserve it. Saddam is certainly POS despot but that earned him assistance from our government in the 80s and then condemnation in the 90s. The Shi'ites remember who left them hanging. The Kurds have faired better from US foreign policy and accordingly they've tolerated our presence. But even the Kurds realize the US does not support Kurdish rights to self-determination. Despite the liberation from Sunni hegemony, the Shi'ites know the US does not support democratic rule b/c it might lead to a cleric taking over. And of course, nothing will win over the Sunnis short of returning Saddam.

The Geneva Convention protects the rights of the detained not the whims (or even potentially laudable perspectives) of the controling power. But the US is misguided in believing Saddam's capture makes a substantitive difference in the long term. "Hearts and minds" want 1) security, 2) reliable power, 3) reliable water, 4) and employment. To the extent that Saddam-controled forces led to less of 1 or 2 . . . then his capture was helpful. Otherwise, the CPA needs to focus on the heavy lifting instead of pats on the back.

I'm not in total agreement with you on that one BBD. I think there are many instances each side of that arguement can list as reasons for and against the success/failure of US occupation (this includes provision of utilities, formation of government, etc). Myself, I see progress in a situation that was always going to be difficult. I think hearts and minds will be won - though obviously not unanimously as there is just too much of the Israel-Palestine mindset caught up in all of this. But, in the balanced and reasoned majority - I think attitudes towards the US will at least soften, if not anything further.

Even as the cynic I am - I see the pictures shown of Saddam as being a good thing (see my previous post), all things considered - and not necessarily even in violation of the convention. More than a "pat on the back" IMHO.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[dudleydocker]

I heard on the radio this morning how some "doctorate" type in Sacramento who is advising the Iraqi council says that the U.S. really "blew it" in the handling of Saddam's capture. Everything from Bremmer saying "we got him" to having a member of the Iraqi council standing by rather than having them do the announcing, to how the U.S. military have shown him on TV. BTW, the man had an arab-sounding name but spoke english.

Excuse me, but I do not recall asking the P.C. police to offer critical commentary to the military on how they announce and show to the world the capture of an evil man that most iraqis would kill if given the chance.

This goes back to how selective the press is in what they cover. Why give this bozo the airtime to spout his drivel? Who cares? I sure don't..

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: dudleydocker
I heard on the radio this morning how some "doctorate" type in Sacramento who is advising the Iraqi council says that the U.S. really "blew it" in the handling of Saddam's capture. Everything from Bremmer saying "we got him" to having a member of the Iraqi council standing by rather than having them do the announcing, to how the U.S. military have shown him on TV. BTW, the man had an arab-sounding name but spoke english.

Excuse me, but I do not recall asking the P.C. police to offer critical commentary to the military on how they announce and show to the world the capture of an evil man that most iraqis would kill if given the chance.

This goes back to how selective the press is in what they cover. Why give this bozo the airtime to spout his drivel? Who cares? I sure don't..

I do have concern about the "we got him" bit. Sounds a bit "yee ha!" IMHO. Better to have played it more "professionally", like the way Blair announced it IMHO.

Of little consequnce really of course - but I did want to cringe when I heard that.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[NesuD]

I got the impression that Bremers "we got him" announcement was more for the benefit of those in the room and in country. The fact that the press are playing it off as an announcement to the world is out of context. The official announcements By Bush and Blair were appropriate to their intended audiences. Bremers announcesment to his intended audience was more informal which in my opinion was appropriate to those incountry and present in the room. I have no problem at all with "we got him".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: NesuD
I got the impression that Bremers "we got him" announcement was more for the benefit of those in the room and in country. The fact that the press are playing it off as an announcement to the world is out of context. The official announcements By Bush and Blair were appropriate to their intended audiences. Bremers announcesment to his intended audience was more informal which in my opinion was appropriate to those incountry and present in the room. I have no problem at all with "we got him".

What a low opinion you have of Bremmer's intended audience. I resent being spoken to like I were a savage. We got him is the kind of thing people who feel small says to boost their ego. What delight should their be in capturing that pathetic human being. The only thing of consequence was that he be stopped and prevented from doing more damage. He is undiserving of bringing any emotional joy any more than dancing when you flush the toilet.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: NesuD
I got the impression that Bremers "we got him" announcement was more for the benefit of those in the room and in country. The fact that the press are playing it off as an announcement to the world is out of context. The official announcements By Bush and Blair were appropriate to their intended audiences. Bremers announcesment to his intended audience was more informal which in my opinion was appropriate to those incountry and present in the room. I have no problem at all with "we got him".

Bremner was the first point of call on the ground in Iraq. I don't think he was under any illusion that his audience would be anything less than just about everyone and every journalist.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Fortunately, the Geneva Convention did not parse words . . . "public curiosity" . . . was not followed by the caveat "unless the detaining power desires public propaganda to support their agenda". We have not won the "hearts and minds" 7 months after liberating Iraq b/c we haven't done anything to deserve it. Saddam is certainly POS despot but that earned him assistance from our government in the 80s and then condemnation in the 90s. The Shi'ites remember who left them hanging. The Kurds have faired better from US foreign policy and accordingly they've tolerated our presence. But even the Kurds realize the US does not support Kurdish rights to self-determination. Despite the liberation from Sunni hegemony, the Shi'ites know the US does not support democratic rule b/c it might lead to a cleric taking over. And of course, nothing will win over the Sunnis short of returning Saddam.

The Geneva Convention protects the rights of the detained not the whims (or even potentially laudable perspectives) of the controling power. But the US is misguided in believing Saddam's capture makes a substantitive difference in the long term. "Hearts and minds" want 1) security, 2) reliable power, 3) reliable water, 4) and employment. To the extent that Saddam-controled forces led to less of 1 or 2 . . . then his capture was helpful. Otherwise, the CPA needs to focus on the heavy lifting instead of pats on the back.

Have we won the hearts and minds of the 100,000 Iraqi's who have volunteered to join the new iraqi military and police forces and help fight against the insurgents and terrorists?
Have we won the hearts and minds of the 24,999,000 Iraqi's who have NOT participated in any attacks against our troops.
Or do you just mean the 1000 or fewer Iraqi's who have attacked our troops.
OK, say it's a million who are actively fighting against us. Seems unlikely since we only have a few attacks a day, but even if it is 1 million, that still means there are 24 million Iraqi's who are NOT fighting against us.

Sounds to me like we have a lot more support than you like to portray.

Hell, there are far more attacks against police every day in this country. Does that mean we've failed to win the hearts and minds and we should just dissolve the police forces and pull out of the U.S.?

EDIT: Changed 3 to 2.

 

[daniel1113]

What does it matter if he was drugged or not? It's SADDAM HEUSSEIN, incase you have forgotten. Quite frankly, I don't care if he was beaten, shot, drugged, etc. The bottom line is that he has been captured, and doesn't deserve the good treatment he is receiving. Put him to death already...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Have we won the hearts and minds of the 100,000 Iraqi's who have volunteered to join the new iraqi military and police forces and help fight against the insurgents and terrorists?

No, some are certainly former police or military wanting to rebuild/restore their country . . . others are looking for a paying gig in a territory (what's the point of calling it a country) with 50% unemployment.

Have we won the hearts and minds of the 34,999,000 Iraqi's who have NOT participated in any attacks against our troops.

I'm sure you intended minor hyperbole but the typical estimate of the population is 25million. It matters not b/c your point is a non sequitur. The vast majority of people in the world likely despise Saddam's regime (and regimes like it) but they would not actively participate in his overthrow. Depending on the chosen means . . . they might even oppose his overthrow.

Or do you just mean the 1000 or fewer Iraqi's who have attacked our troops.

The pro-Saddam rallies in Iraq required hundreds of soldiers to quell. More importantly, no authority in the region would endorse your estimate of the menagerie of opposition forces.

OK, say it's a million who are actively fighting against us. Seems unlikely since we only have a few attacks a day, but even if it is 1 million, that still means there are 34 million Iraqi's who are NOT fighting against us.

See above. The people capable of directing mass assistance (or mass opposition) are basically the Shi'ite clerics. To date, the big dogs are sitting on the sidelines. Despite the bravado of some CPA officials . . . they are well aware of who not to piss off.

Sounds to me like we have a lot more support than you like to portray.

Sounds to me like you don't understand. I seriously doubt Iraqis are quite as fickle as the typically-polled American. Bush's leadership didn't blossom b/c Saddam was found in a hole. The typical Iraqi (that isn't attacking US troops) did not get more reliable power, security, or a job in the past 48hrs. Maybe Saddam's capture will accelerate all of the above . . . but I doubt it. Accordingly, our limited support in Iraq will remain soft until major issues are adequately addressed.

Hell, there are far more attacks against police every day in this country. Does that mean we've failed to win the hearts and minds and we should just dissolve the police forces and pull out of the U.S.?

Ask the LAPD or NYPD or any of several other major metro PDs how well the hearts and minds campaign works in communities that have historically had difficulties with law enforcement. The warped perceptions and level of trust has improved dramatically in many communities where law enforcement and the community have commited themselves to solving their problems . . . together. But those are skilled officers and dedicated community leaders . . . the US military (in general) lacks the training for such peacekeeper ops, the numbers necessary to execute an effective campaign, and a general ignorance of the culture and language. Knowing three phrases in a foreign tongue will not build bridges when they include:
1) Stop or I will shoot . . .
and
2) Put your hands on your head

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
What does it matter if he was drugged or not? It's SADDAM HEUSSEIN, incase you have forgotten. Quite frankly, I don't care if he was beaten, shot, drugged, etc. The bottom line is that he has been captured, and doesn't deserve the good treatment he is receiving. Put him to death already...

I agree, they should have just shot him and said he was using force against them. Felt that their lives were in danger therefore he was shot and killed. Their mission was to find and capture or kill Sadaam.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Have we won the hearts and minds of the 100,000 Iraqi's who have volunteered to join the new iraqi military and police forces and help fight against the insurgents and terrorists?

No, some are certainly former police or military wanting to rebuild/restore their country . . . others are looking for a paying gig in a territory (what's the point of calling it a country) with 50% unemployment.

The point was that these people are either supportive of our efforts or at least neutral. Would you volunteer to work with the occupiers of your country if you hated them and wanted them out immediately? There are plenty of "paying gigs" fighting for the insurgents as well.

Have we won the hearts and minds of the 34,999,000 Iraqi's who have NOT participated in any attacks against our troops.

I'm sure you intended minor hyperbole but the typical estimate of the population is 25million. It matters not b/c your point is a non sequitur. The vast majority of people in the world likely despise Saddam's regime (and regimes like it) but they would not actively participate in his overthrow. Depending on the chosen means . . . they might even oppose his overthrow.

The point was that the vast majority of Iraqi's are choosing not to fight against us and many are actively fighting against the insurgents. So they either support us or are resigned to accepting the fact that we will be there for awhile.

Or do you just mean the 1000 or fewer Iraqi's who have attacked our troops.

The pro-Saddam rallies in Iraq required hundreds of soldiers to quell. More importantly, no authority in the region would endorse your estimate of the menagerie of opposition forces.

See below.

OK, say it's a million who are actively fighting against us. Seems unlikely since we only have a few attacks a day, but even if it is 1 million, that still means there are 34 million Iraqi's who are NOT fighting against us.

See above. The people capable of directing mass assistance (or mass opposition) are basically the Shi'ite clerics. To date, the big dogs are sitting on the sidelines. Despite the bravado of some CPA officials . . . they are well aware of who not to piss off.

Sounds to me like we have a lot more support than you like to portray.

Sounds to me like you don't understand. I seriously doubt Iraqis are quite as fickle as the typically-polled American. Bush's leadership didn't blossom b/c Saddam was found in a hole. The typical Iraqi (that isn't attacking US troops) did not get more reliable power, security, or a job in the past 48hrs. Maybe Saddam's capture will accelerate all of the above . . . but I doubt it. Accordingly, our limited support in Iraq will remain soft until major issues are adequately addressed.

With the vast majority of Iraqi's choosing not to fight against us, the incredible ease with which we took control, the massive desertions and walk-aways of their military in the initial invasion, and the large amount of cooperation and support we are getting from Iraqi citizens, I think it is fairly clear that we have a large amount of support from the majority of Iraqis.

Hell, there are far more attacks against police every day in this country. Does that mean we've failed to win the hearts and minds and we should just dissolve the police forces and pull out of the U.S.?

Ask the LAPD or NYPD or any of several other major metro PDs how well the hearts and minds campaign works in communities that have historically had difficulties with law enforcement. The warped perceptions and level of trust has improved dramatically in many communities where law enforcement and the community have commited themselves to solving their problems . . . together. But those are skilled officers and dedicated community leaders . . . the US military (in general) lacks the training for such peacekeeper ops, the numbers necessary to execute an effective campaign, and a general ignorance of the culture and language. Knowing three phrases in a foreign tongue will not build bridges when they include:
1) Stop or I will shoot . . .
and
2) Put your hands on your head

The point was that there will always be people who oppose our authority, even within our own government. This opposition represents a small minority and does not mean we should give up and pull out.

 

[Conky]

It is remarkable that his daughter who has also suffered at her fathers hand is still wanting to defend his rather pathetic response to being captured.

If he wanted to keep his invented legacy alive as the greatest modern Arab then he should've gone out with a fight or at least not allow himself to be taken alive. He is an old man who has lost all his power and must now account for the atrocities he has inflicted on millions. No French or Jordanian lawyer can get him out of this predictament.

Saddam is proof that the USA is not the impotent force the Arabs like to think we are and now their best response is that he must be drugged. That response is even more pathetic than even the old man's weak display.