Posted on 06/13/2004 9:48:49 PM PDT by BJungNan
Red Cross ultimatum to US on Saddam
Release him, charge him or break international law, Bush told
Jonathan Steele in Baghdad Monday June 14, 2004 The Guardian
Saddam Hussein must either be released from custody by June 30 or charged if the US and the new Iraqi government are to conform to international law, the International Committee of the Red Cross said last night. Nada Doumani, a spokeswoman for the ICRC, told the Guardian: "The United States defines Saddam Hussein as a prisoner of war. At the end of an occupation PoWs have to be released provided they have no penal charges against them."
Her comments came as the international body, the only independent group with access to detainees in US custody, becomes increasingly concerned over the legal limbo in which thousands of people are being held in the run-up to the transfer of power at the end of the month.
The occupation officially ends on June 30 and US forces will be in Iraq at the invitation of its sovereign government.
"There are all these people kept in a legal vacuum. No one should be left not knowing their legal status. Their judicial rights must be assured," Ms Doumani said.
Saddam and other senior officials of the old regime are the only Iraqi detainees to have been given PoW status. Hundreds of other Iraqis have been seized since the war often, according to critics, on flimsy suspicion and held for long periods without charge, usually without their families knowing for weeks where they are.
The ICRC visited the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in early June and found 3,291 detainees, including three women and 22 boys under 18. This was less than half the 6,527 it found in March.
President George Bush has promised to close the prison where US guards indulged in pornographic abuse of prisoners and several groups of releases have taken place since. But many prisoners have been transferred to other prisons.
The ICRC is angry that it has not been given exact figures for releases or the whereabouts of those who are moved from Abu Ghraib and it is hoping the end of the occupation will put pressure on the authorities to clean up their act. "If we consider the occupation ends on June 30, that would mean it's the end of the international armed conflict. This is the legal situation.
"When the conflict ends the prisoners of war should be released according to the Geneva conventions," Ms Doumani said.
She accepted that US and other foreign forces would remain in Iraq.
Whether that meant an occupation continued would be "determined by the situation on the ground". The presence of foreign forces ought to be governed by a legal agreement with the host government.
The ICRC has made at least two visits to the former Iraqi president who is believed to be in a special prison at Baghdad airport.
Around 40 other members of the so-called "pack of cards", Washington's list of high-level members of the former regime, are also there, most in solitary confinement.
Interrogation has been sporadic and none has been charged or allowed visits by their lawyers. A few have had family visits.
They include scientists who were never members of the Ba'ath party, like Dr Amer al Saadi, who was the Iraqi government's liaison with the United Nations' weapons inspectors.
Family members claim they are being deliberately held without trial so as to be punished even in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing.
US lawyers have been helping Iraqis prepare charges against Saddam but officials say they do not expect a trial until next year at the earliest. The US and the Iraqi authorities hope other defendants will first testify against him.
But none has been willing to do so. Whether it is out of loyalty or fear of retribution by Saddam's sympathisers is not clear.
Once charged the former president will be entitled to judicial guarantees including access to a lawyer and the right to prepare a defence.
The US has made clear it will continue to detain some Iraqis after the transfer of sovereignty as part of its security operations
We should send Saddam to Kuwait. I'm sure they'll know what to do.
How many combat divisions can the red cross put on the field?
Do they have any carrier battle groups?
I heard that Iraq has voted for the death penality in their country. Some claim this was done so Saddam will be one of the 1st ride the Iraqi lightening bolt.
They do much less good than they could do.
If you remember, the ARC viewed the generous donations of the American people following 9/11 as a windfall and earmarked it for pet projects like refurbishing ARC offices etc. Big outcry at the time.
The Salvation Army (faith based) is the only national charity you can be half way sure tries to hold the line on costs etc. Too many of the others have started to act like movie production companies - sky high, even lavish expenses deducted from donations before they concern themselves with fulfilling their missions.
United Way is - politics aside - another charity that was caught paying for lavish offices, limos, escort services, exorbitant executive salaries etc.
Simple solution. Ship The Madman Suddam Husse to Geneva, and let them deal with him. I think an HCL bath might clean him up a bit. Followed by an H2SO4 shampoo. Then, for a manicure maybe a little Davey Tree Service toe-nail clipping; not too close of course. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT.
The Geneva convention covers uniformed combatants captured while following the orders of their government, Ms Doumani. These are terrorists and insurgents, considered to be criminals even by their own society. They're not even in the perview of the procedings of the Geneva convention.
Just stay out of our hair, will you? Serious people are making progress at civilizing a country and you're not helping.
LOL! The red cross is now a legal foundation. Isn't that cute?
Nobody on Earth disputes that Saddam gassed the Kurds. That alone qualifies as an atrocity, makes Saddam a war criminal, and justifies a death sentence. Nobody on Earth disputes that, following the Gulf War, Saddam ordered the virtual starvation of thousands of Iraqis in the south. Another atrocity. If we and the Iraqis in the interim government wanted, a court could be duly convened right now, charged with trying him, convicting him and executing him.
Of course, the red cross knows all this. They want the trial to take place before the new nation of Iraq is sufficiently stabilized in the hope that it will heighten domestic turmoil and give the terrorists a more effective wedge into Iraq.
Well, the Red Cross correctly point out that the US is not barbaric like saddy's regime. Hence, since we are civilised folks we will put him on trial soon. I have no doubt that the preliminary hearings for his trial will be before June30
Why don't the mass grave photo's speak for themselves?
If not that, the jailed children that ran from prisons when we liberated them?
If not that, why not release to the press the 10,000 plus tapes of torture and executions?
If not that, why not just turn Saddam over to Israel for his financing of terrorism there at $25,000 a head for homicide bombers in Israel?
If not that, let's really get the UN to go after him by pointing Saddam's lack of fashion sense? Now that will have them all over his case for sure.
Taking the likes of Saddan out and shooting him, sans trial, does not make us barbarians. And this stands too for if Clinton had done the same to Osama the several chances he got.
That being said, I think it best that we and the Iraqis do put him on trial - when we both are damn ready too.
"...They are still dealing with Bush..."
And will be for another four years.
The Red Cross does not correctly point out anything when they enter into politics instead or their mission to line their own pockets.
Anyone that donates to this organization is a fool.
Your are very mistaken. They are first and foremost a catalyst for doing good for themselves. The way they handle donations would make former PTL televison evangelist Jim Baker look like a saint.
Even if you do have local chapters doing some things, they still have to send their money up to the top of the Red Cross organization. Those dollars, your dollars, pay for extravagance beyond belief and obscene directors salaries.
DO NOT donate to the Red Cross
Once Saddam is formally charged, he will have the right to counsel and we will lose control of the prisoner. He will be much less likely to cooperate and we will be much less likely to get the goods on france and the others, including the media, who colluded with him in his many crimes. Not that we don't already have plenty on them, but in this age of the spinmeisters what we need is mountains of evidence. We also need information on the WMDs. The red cross and their allies on the left know Saddam can provide us with this and it scares them to death. It doesn't take much reflection to know that would be an unwelcome development for them.
Here's another question for the red cross -- how come they didn't object to the illegal treatment Augusto Pinochet received in Britain?
Gee, why am I not surprised.
These international groups... whose side are they on?
We "had" good mountains of evidence with OJ and we saw how that went!
I believe we are in times where the ones who can gain public favor first by even "false perceptions" are the winners.
Just as abortion has lessened the value of a life in morality, liberalism has lessened the value of the truth as the judge of weighty issues.
This is truly a time when all conservative politicians need to be pro-active, and like the 2004 Lakers, they aren't giving a lot of themselves to get it done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.