Insurgents want to exchange US POW for hostages

[promethius9594]

well, some new points then:

1) saddam is not a prisoner of war. as a leader of a country (read: non combatent) who was captured outside the time of conflict (read: no war) he is actually what one would consider an international criminal. Or if you account for his actions in bombing the kurds and attacking kuwait he is a war criminal. The mandates of POW treatment apply only directly to troops captured in combat operations.

2) insurgents captured and held are not hostages. why? because they are being held in lue of a trial. why no trial yet? because there is no legitimate government at this point to try these criminals. if you were planning to bomb a police station, and got arrested, would you be surprised and call out that youve been taken hostage? No? didnt think so. and i severely doubt that 10,000 "hostages" have been taken in this manner. 10,000 POW's is different from criminals being held in prison.

[Seraph]

Promethius: You made a big post in this thread about how showing a POW on TV was illegal, and that there is a standard of treatment for POWs.
However, if was Saddam captured outside the time of conflict (as you just clearly stated), then the American "POW" isn't really a "POW" because there was no war. Therefor your claims about how what was being done to the American POW were illegal are meaningless.

[Timber Loftis]

I don't know that I follow Seraphs conclusions to their ultimate ends (that it is illegal to hold US POW's). However, I agree that if the original march on Baghdad was a war, and if we are now at war, then the capture of Saddam in the intervening time period was "during a war."

Technically, we've been at war since 1991, with a long cease fire in the middle.

[ 04-22-2004, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[promethius9594]

Timber Loftis,

one might point out that we have never been to war with iraq. that is to say, and this may surprise you, the congress has never officially declared war on iraq. in fact, we havent actually gone to WAR since WWII. Korea, vietnam, bosnia, gulf war one, now, afghanistan. NOT WARS!!!

But that isnt the definition of a POW. a POW is a soldier who is captured during combat actions. Saddam is niether a soldier, nor was he captured in combat actions. He is the leader of a country AND was captured during a POLICE action. This distinguishes him as a WAR CRIMINAL for his previous actions. he is not, has not ever been, nor will ever be a POW.

[Timber Loftis]

I never said Saddam was a POW -- because even if he was captured during war/combat he may still not be considered a POW. I think there are too many rules there for me to speculate.

I thought we did declare war against Iraq, but you may be correct. Regardless, to-may-to, to-mah-to. As you point out, it's the "combat action" bit (Assuming you've chosen the correct term of art) that matters.

If the President asks for combat action and the Congress approves, I'll call it a war -- even though they may label it a "police action," "tea party," or whatever they want to call it.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by promethius9594: Timber Loftis, one might point out that we have never been to war with iraq. that is to say, and this may surprise you, the congress has never officially declared war on iraq. in fact, we havent actually gone to WAR since WWII. Korea, vietnam, bosnia, gulf war one, now, afghanistan. NOT WARS!!! But that isnt the definition of a POW. a POW is a soldier who is captured during combat actions. Saddam is niether a soldier, nor was he captured in combat actions. He is the leader of a country AND was captured during a POLICE action. This distinguishes him as a WAR CRIMINAL for his previous actions. he is not, has not ever been, nor will ever be a POW.

It doesn't matter whether the US calls it a war or not - legally a war was fought by definition of the US's invasion of sovereign territory (the rights or wrongs of which are a separate issue).

Whether Saddam is to be considered a POW or 'criminal' makes no difference either - he still has roughly the same rights under the HR treaty as under the Geneva convention and his designation will not prevent him from facing a court of law to answer to his 'alleged' crimes.

Indeed, it is in the United States own interests to define him as a POW anyway - because as the commander-in-chief of Iraq's forces, he could be made to face a military tribunal where the rules for conviction are less and the penalties higher.

[Yorick]

Skunk, I believe the point is that the war the US fought against Husseni Iraq has been over for quite a while.

I agree Hussein is a war criminal like Hess, Milosevic or others.

I don't think they should negotiate with these insurgents. There's only one thing we can do to them:

[img]graemlins/beheaded.gif[/img]