Someone please explain to me how comes that Saddam's regime broke international law when showing American POWs on their TV, and the US didn't break those laws as their own TV made a soap opera of subsequent Iraqi troops surrendering - with US army still *****ing about POWS on Iraqi TV, between the showings of Iraqi POWs on American TV.

Please? Anyone.

Which strikes my mind now is that Saddam is also a POW now. He cannot be tried until his status changes and should not be shown on the TV.

Here (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031216/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_vatican_dc_2&printer=1) is what Cardinal Renato Martino, former envoy to the UN, has said. I am quite prone to agree with him - despite the blame that Saddam bears.

This may sound cruel to American posters here, but I'm also prone to think that for Dubya's crew what US is doing is good and what other parties are doing is evil, no matter what it is. Ultimately, even exactly the same show is laudable when performed by the US and abhorrent with the former Iraqi regime in performance.

To me there is a difference between arresting a wanted criminal and capturing a soldier.

I think it is also an issue of treatment. If they were showing footage of Saddam hanging from his wrists while being shocked with a car battery and wet sponges that would cause a problem. That is why they do that when the cameras aren't rolling :D .

Very funny.

The public exposure of Saddam's examination, besides obviously being unethical and morally questionable (i.e. first act of revenge - debase Saddam publicly as much as possible), went way over the limit of good taste. The excuse heard on the US side was that they had to show the footage to the Iraqi people before they'd believe they really got him. Looking as he did, however, only made the Iraqi people sceptical about whether that really was Saddam or not. So next, they had to shave him and clean him and show him again - this time actually resembling his old self.

I guess the chance to put him on TV in his pathetic condition and literally treat him like a cow was simply too good to pass up. Just another example of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality pervading this war, I guess.

I've never understood the prohibition about showing POWs on TV. Can someone point me to the relevant passage in the Geneva Conventions, or wherever this rule is?

I also thought it rather strange that the US complains about American POWs on TV, but then shows Iraqi POWs on TV. As you say, it's like if Americans do it it's OK, but others can't :rolleyes:

As far as the video of Saddam being examined, I don't see the big deal. So his scalp was checked and his mouth examined; it's not like they showed him with his pants around his ankles and the doctor's finger in his rectum.

Pesonally, I didn't see the video as degrading to him, but maybe I'm in the minority. Or maybe such treatment is seen as degrading in Iraqi culture - I don't know.

Under many other circumstances, people would be relieved to have evidence that POW's were receiving gentle medical care. But I have to agree, there does seems to be a double standard at work, here.

Speaking of exams, I heard a description on the radio of an editorial cartoon that appeared in British papers. Seems that Bushie was the one being examined, and when the doc shined the light into his mouth, it also came out hie eyes and ears... ;)

If someone ahs a link to an online version of that, I'd love to see it. It didn't make the weekly Slate round-up.

Can anyone explain why POWs are not supposed to be aired on television?

Besides the fact that its part of the Geneva convention, I mean, what's the rationale?

EDIT 2: (first edit deleted) nevermind, I found it: Article 13;

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.Public curiosity... hey its better than getting a bullet in your gizzard.

[ December 17, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

I think that the rationale would be as follows...
With Bush's declaration of the "end of major conflict", it somewhat changed the status of everyone involved in the occupation.

Insurgents / Terrorists who are currently captured by US forces are not viewed as P.O.W.'s, they are viewed as apprehended criminals, little different than you can see displayed on any newshow in the world. They are not "combatants" as defined by the Geneva Convention, indeed do not identify themselves with any regular military outfit. The Geneva Convention specifically speaks to the rights of captured, uniform, miltary personnel...it does not address, nor ever has, the rights of lawbreakers and criminals in a war zone.

As far as regular Iraqi military who were captured during the early stages of the war, I am unaware of seeing any coverage showing them paraded before the world. The same is true of those P.O.W.'s captured in Afganistan...we have seen very little of the current inhabitants of Gitmo.

Sadam's case is the same, yet more extreme. He could hardly be called a combatant as he cowered in his rat hole, and on top of that, he was a fugitive with a bounty on his head for crimes committed against the Iraqi people. He is no simple P.O.W., and to assume that is a misinterpretation of the purpose of the Geneva Convention.

That aside, I felt that the coverage of his treatment was a bit over the top, but when I consider the teen-age girls "used" by he and his sons in the famous rape-rooms...I just don't care.

As far as regular Iraqi military who were captured during the early stages of the war, I am unaware of seeing any coverage showing them paraded before the world.There were many right from the beginning of the invasion, when Saddam's government was still in power.

So called terrorists - some of them are, some were put in there without much ado. At present, they're in Guantanamo, so that US constitution couldn't apply to them and give them any rights. Like fair trial. Or ANY trial at all. No one cares they're foreign citizens, either. Where's the embassy call?

@Hacken Slash

The fact that Bush said that the war is over is irrelavant. The Geneva Conventions state the following about the status of members of the resistance movements:

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2) The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions. Although, in an another article of the convention the following is written:

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64) Iraqis can claim that they are members of an organizaed resistance movements and therefore they have combatant status. On the other hand, Americans can claim that they are civilians who perform crimininal acts and therefore they don't have a combatant status. So, I guess that the whole thing is a matter of interpretation of the conventions.

Sadam's case is the same, yet more extreme. He could hardly be called a combatant as he cowered in his rat hole, and on top of that, he was a fugitive with a bounty on his head for crimes committed against the Iraqi people It doesn't matter if he was fighting in the front line or if he was hiding in a rathole. Saddam as the head of the Iraqi state was the head of iraqi army and therefore he has a combatant status.

But because Saddam is also the head of the Iraqi state he is MORE than just a simple combantant. For the very reasons BOC mentioned above, the capturing American forces had the choice of whether or not to declare him a POW. They obviously did not. The two things gained by not declaring him a POW:

1. The ability to put him on television. Note, that the rules of the Geneva Convention protect against showing POW's in a humiliating or (for lack of a better word) "dehumanizing" fashion. For example, we couldn't show Saddam shackled in a jail cell. We had to show him to prove he was captured, and this alone was reason enough to not declare him a POW.

2. By not declaring him a POW we can keep him at an undisclosed location for an indefinite period of time. In this case, that means until his trial. This helps to avoid the possibility of Saddam sympathizers attempting to get him released, or attacking the location where he was held.

So to summarize, the main reason we can show Saddam on TV, is because he isn't a POW.

Saddam wasn't arrested because he was a mamber of iraqi resistance, he was arrested because he was the president of Iraq and this makes him a POW. He isn't a civilian and therefore, the article 64 of the conventions cannot be applied to him.

I guess the general idea is that it's demoralizing to a democratic nation. So, take your pick at who's most vulnerable to that stuff. Any Civilization player can tell you that a despotic government is immune to all the negative publicity that a war generates.

Also, it's one thing if you're showing him alive and receiving medical attention.

It's another thing when the kid comes up to the window to show off his bloody palms...

Well, I saw some footage of POW's before Bush declared the war over (how magnamious of him), not much as I tried to avoid watching that sort of thing, but enough to make me think that the Iraqis were being treated worse than the Americans, and in a far more degrading manner, and this is based on the media being shown to us to say that the Americans were being treated badly.

Also, if the war was truly over it would have to have stopped, it didn't. Bush can't just say whatever he likes and keep fighting, I think that if the Iraqis consider themselves as a resistence then they should be treated as such. Also, all of the POW's captured by America should have been released when they decleared the end of combat- but this didn't happen, so I can't really see that America is following the rules here.

Edit: I just remembered that there are a lot of still-imprisoned POW's from other countries as well, who were citizens of Western countries but fighting for the others. Now this doesn't seem right at all. Those citizens should have been released back to their home-countries for the option of trial if that country so wishes. They weren't found on American soil so their laws do not apply, and if they are traitors then they are traitors to their own country, not America. If they are treated as POW's (which they are since they were captured in a war) then they should be released, if they are not POW's then they have done nothing wrong that can be tried by America itself. Wonderful way to treat the sovereign rights of your allies :rolleyes:

[ December 18, 2003, 02:26: Message edited by: Manus ]

@BOC
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2) Surely you are not insinuating that this caveat describes the Iraqi insurgents? Yeah, that's right, those donkeys who carried the explosives into Bagdhad were clearly uniformed, had an obvious chain of command, and gave "name, rank and serial number" when captured. Yeah, I saw "Shrek" too. I think you have proven my point.

@Manus
I saw the same footage too (I think). It showed rows of Iraqi prisoners of war, from a distance, usually seated with their hands bound behind them with a zip-tie. There is no harm in this...the intent of Art 13 of the Conventions is to avoid the parading of P.O.W.'s before the camera, just as Sadam did during GWI. I don't think that the US ever showed the interview or statement of any P.O.W.

No one ever claimed that Sadam was arrested because he was a member of the resistance. Sadam was a criminal fugitive, and is probably currently enjoying better accomdations than he has experienced for the last several months. I already said that I felt the delousing was a bit over the top, but it is a deluded liberal who will dwell at a time such as this on the violation of the civil rights of a deposed tyrant. Perhaps if you "feel" so much for him, we can arrange for him to serve as the next Head of State for your nation.

@Hacken Slash

You obviously prefered to ignore the definition of the combatant given in the protocols of 1977. As I have already said the whole thing is open to interpretation.

No one ever claimed that Sadam was arrested because he was a member of the resistance See the last Aldeth's post. He obviously based his opinion on the article 64 of the conventions and Saddam could only be included in this specific article only if he was civilian or a member of the resistance.

I already said that I felt the delousing was a bit over the top, but it is a deluded liberal who will dwell at a time such as this on the violation of the civil rights of a deposed tyrant. Perhaps if you "feel" so much for him, we can arrange for him to serve as the next Head of State for your nation.I don't have any feelings about Saddam, I don't care about his fate. Although, I can't stand the "everybody is bound to international laws except us" attidute of your government. Also, I don't doubt that your goverment could arrange for Saddam to serve as the head of state of my nation. Afterall it has done it in the past. Have you ever heard about the greek colonels (1967-1974)?

@Manus

I just remembered that there are a lot of still-imprisoned POW's from other countries as well, who were citizens of Western countries but fighting for the others. This issue is open to interpretation as well. According to Geneva Conventions, while volunteers have the compatant status, merceneries are not considered to be combatants. The U.S. government can claim that they are merceneries and therefore they cannot have the protection,which the conventions provide to the combatants.

(@Hacken Slash) I'm not sure, that could have been the same footage. The one I saw had the troops parrading over the prisoners with guns inches from their heads saying some vulgar abuse like"You F-ing something, you F-ing think about F-ing something and I'll F-ing kill you..." you get the picture, (I know it sounds like they were recently captured but the prisoners had all been brought out for quesioning or something of the sort). I don't know if any US troops were actually tortured, I hope not, and I know that would be far worse than this sort of thing.

To me the issue of Saddam's treatment takes the back seat to the fact that America is doing the same thing it critisized others for, and the other breaches of the convention and other treaties which took place. He was a real bad guy, I know, but I don't see the point of all the tv coverage (even if he was only a criminal prisoner, I would disagree with what's going on)

It's the hypocritical attitude that disturbs me, I'm sure that everyone holds a deep resentment for the other side in war, but once he's a prisoner I think that the bad treatment has got to stop, it just seems unessecary. You know how the saying goes, if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander. If they want to delouse him and all that that's fine, but to make a mockery of anyone is un-called for -it's not going to make the other side surrender- especially just after the government finished complaining when someone else did the same.

I think the reason this bothers people is not because they like Saddam Hussein, but because they do not like the manner in which the media and polticians have been conducting themselves. The lesser of two evils I know, but Saddam has allready been dealt with, to some these two issues still pose a threat. I wouldn't like it any more if my own government or media was doing the same. I was even more unsettled by a series of events which transpired parralell to the way in which this has only a month ago or less, I mean of course the execution of a man in Bali who belonged to an underground extremist group, and the way in which a large group of the people in some other countries, who do not even have the death-penalty themselves, were all demanding he be killed, and news updates were recieved many times a day on the trial. It was disgraceful to say the least.

No one ever claimed that Sadam was arrested because he was a member of the resistance. Sadam was a criminal fugitive, I don't remember any writ against Saddamm Husein. Are you aware of any?
And furthermore Hussein was the President of Iraq, the country which USA invaded, and if that does not provide enough evidence that he is to be considered POW then i guess there is not such term.
Not to mention that allthough Bush at first stated end of combat, which afterwards was changed to end of major conflict (meaning that the US administration acknowledged the fact that there was an organized resistance) means that every person arrested so far, and until the US administration declares end of conflict, are POWs and not terrorists/insurgents.
Perhaps if you "feel" so much for him, we can arrange for him to serve as the next Head of State for your nation :toofar:
BOC answered the way i would so i will just add something more. Because US has a history of planting Heads of State this comment is low to put it mildly, and of bad taste, please don't do it again.

Gentlemen,
When I said Perhaps if you "feel" so much for him, we can arrange for him to serve as the next Head of State for your nation. I never imagined that it would hit upon painful or sensitive nerves. I never meant to insinuate that it would be proper or appropriate for such an action to be taken against you, or to trigger any personal feelings of resentment, anger or fear.

I often say things that are very much over the top to me , and fail to realize how it could bear personal hurt to another.

Please accept my apologies.

I still don't agree with your take, however, on the captured criminals and insurgents in Iraq...including Sadam himself.

No one ever claimed that Sadam was arrested because he was a member of the resistance. Sadam was a criminal fugitive,As BOC said, where's the writ. It's not important why he was arrested, but what his status is. Saddam was the President of Iraq, head of the armed force and also acting in chief officer capacity, himself having a military rank (field marshal :rolleyes: ).

I already said that I felt the delousing was a bit over the top, but it is a deluded liberal who will dwell at a time such as this on the violation of the civil rights of a deposed tyrant.Doesn't matter who he is. Who is the US administration to decide to whom human rights should apply and to whom not? Note: Saddam can't have civil laws in any other country than Iraq since he's not their citizen, ergo: "civil" doesn't apply. What's more, rights are meant to be any sort of reward for good conduct. They're meant to be so egalitarian and basic as to be in a way impersonal.

That Saddam was a bad boy doesn't mean anyone is entitled to treat him badly. Justified - if acting on momentary emotions - perhaps, but not in the right.

What, however, pisses off to the max isn't even the treatment of Saddam itself. It's hypocrisy. All laws applicable apply to all, except the US to whom US-approved laws apply to a US-approved extent. In short: international law consists of obligations and rights. Obligations and rights apply to all, but to the US only rights apply and obligations don't.

...Which is not yet the worst thing, actually. The worst is complaining about Iraqis doing what the US do, and speaking of fair treatment, fair trial where it's hardly trial, let alone fair. Claiming WMD evidence when there's none. Heh, they didn't even have the balls to say "yes, we lied".

And now Saddam is interrogated by CIA. They actually boast using all the best ways to get what he knows from him. Sleep deprivation seems their pet one, how convenient.

CG Art. 32:

The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.No comment needed.

CG Art. 31

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.Speaks for itself.

BTW, wonder what the US would say if the opposing side made something like this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031216/ts_alt_afp/iraq_saddam_us_toy

@ chev (re your link)
Well, this just takes the cake. What's next, an artificially muscled Dubya? - Oh wait, they have that too. :rolleyes:

Actually, all this is being blown out of proportion. The footage of Saddam being examined was just intended to show how thorough the U.S. is in its search for WMD's.

The footage of Saddam being examined was just intended to show how thorough the U.S. is in its search for WMD's.I just laughed hard enough to draw unneccesary attention from the rest of the office.

So NOW we know where those WMD went - Saddam must have ate them before the inspectors got there!

beware, plutonium fillings can reap the world winds gentlemen. WMD, right there.

You may be onto a vital truth, Splunge :D

I'm just glad that they didn't show the WMD search in all of the possible "locations of concealment." :rolleyes:

Then we'd all have something to whine over.

There was evidence of WMDs, the Iraqis actually said that they destroyed the evidence.

BTW, the WMD accusation/rationale was never used in the States. The war was over Iraq's link with the al-Quaida terrorist group, which has been inarguably proven.

Which strikes my mind now is that Saddam is also a POW now. He cannot be tried until his status changes and should not be shown on the TV. The Iraqis will be trying Hussein. Not us, so they'll be the ones deciding what happens to him. Seems only fair to me.

BOC answered the way i would so i will just add something more. Because US has a history of planting Heads of State this comment is low to put it mildly, and of bad taste, please don't do it again.Other than Afghanistan (which we're no longer in control of the government), cite other examples.

Just out of curiousity, you people saying the the US doesn't apply its own laws to itself, did the US ever sign the Geneva Convention? I seem to remember hearing that we did not, rendering the hypocrisy argument null and void. I'm not 100% sure on this, though.

Unfortunately, one of the elements of Freedom of Speech (United States Constitution Amendment 1) states that we can't control our journalists. The American government has no censorship powers at all, so we cannot bear responsibility for what our journalists air to get viewership.

BTW, the WMD accusation/rationale was never used in the States. The war was over Iraq's link with the al-Quaida terrorist group, which has been inarguably proven.Such as the link between the US and Osama bin Laden and, yes, Saddam himself. BTW, I wonder what will the trial look like if they mention the Iran-Iraq war. Yea, mustard gas and nerve agent...

The Iraqis will be trying Hussein. Not us, so they'll be the ones deciding what happens to him.I'll believe when I see.

AFAIK, the US was a party to the original Geneva conventions, but has never endorsed or ratified the proposed ammendments made in 1977.

The validity of the acceptance of captured Iraqi insurgents as POW's is entirely dependent upon adopting the more recent proposals to the Conventions.

I am not sure if the 1977 ammendments have ever been formally ratified by most of the world powers. They stand out there on par with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" which is a nice, but toothless document.

Oh and here is some evidence (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/) that the US does hold itself accountable to law. Wait...here is another. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=4&u=/ap/20031219/ap_on_re_us/terror_rulings)

What's next? Freedom for Sadam because his Miranda rights were violated? :rolleyes:

[ December 19, 2003, 15:33: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

Rastor, I don't know how you can think some of those things, I mean, people have allready talked about other dictators emplaced by the US in this thread alone, let alone the other recent political topics, I mean, with most of them out there this has been the case.

Ok, I'll do a short list (and I'm not listing everyone here because I have a bad memory, and I'm too lazy to search very hard for this);

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria
Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal ----------------------------Brunei
Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa
Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil
Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia
Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain
Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany
Hassan II-------------------------------------------Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama
Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran
Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece
Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile
Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala
Salassie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua
Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay
Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

Here is the article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2844.htm) I copied this list from, which explains who each man was and what they did, and how they achieved power. It is actually from a book by the same title. By the way, that list is more than eight years old, so I would assume a great many more would be present now, like Ossama Bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar.

And if you're trying to tell us that America never pushed that they needed to be invaded becasue they had WMD that is sorely mistaken, I can't think of anyone else here, for or against this war, who would deny that this issue was pushed.

(Hacken Slash, I know that some of the legal system is crazy, but that's not what I mean. I agree with you that the criminal system gets out of control, but I don't think anyone here is suggesting Hussein be released, only that everyone abides by the same rules)

The matter that is far more pertinent than whether or not Sadam was somehow shamed by being deloused on worldwide TV, is that he will enjoy a judicial process light years ahead of anything available to anyone accused under his regime, and more real than anything that existed in Iraq prior to the US occupation.

At the risk of sounding Shralpish, I think that so many people feel resentment toward America (and in some cases, rightfully so), that you are quick to grasp other avenues to vent criticism without really discerning if your point, though "technically" valid, is rationally pertinent.

Surely there are far more vital issues than whether Sadam might have felt embarassed?

Manus, you're taking that list out of context. You're confusing dictators the US has tolerated with dictators the US has emplaced (there have been a few). Re-read the snapshots in that article you linked to. For example, just to start with the first in line - Abacha - the US had nothing to do with Abacha's annuling of Abiola's election. Nor does the US own Shell Oil - it's a Dutch-Anglo company. And incidentally, to this very day the US still has sanctions on Nigeria - despite its democratic government - because of its military's murderous manner.

If you read the list, the fella's standard seems to be that the US is "friends" with any dicatorship that it doesn't starve or invade. 'Course, when the US does starve and invade a dictatorship, like Iraq...

Sorry, GM, but that's not true, all the ones I read myself were either lead by a US or CIA coup, backed by US funds, or handpicked and put in place by the president. I know the first one doesn't fit this scheme, that is merely an example of the US doing business, but look further down the list and the rest all do.

Amin brutalized his people with British and US military aid and with Israeli and CIA training of his troops. In 1970, in Bolivia, when then-President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by US interests, and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union, he was playing with fire. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by US-trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, US Air Force radio was placed at their disposal. Once in power, Banzer began a reign of terror..... When Catholic clergy tried to aid the Indians, the regime, with CIA help, launched terrorist attacks against them, and this "Banzer Plan" became a model for similar anti-Catholic actions throughout Latin America Cuban Army Sergeant Fulgencio Batista first seized power in a 1932 coup. He was President Roosevelt's handpicked dictator to counteract leftists who had overthrown strongman Cerardo Machado. Batista ruled or several years, then left for Miami, returning in 1952 just in time for another coup, against elected president Carlos Prio Socorras. His new regime was quickly recognized by President Eisenhower. To illegally fund what they referred to as the "Democratic Resistance" in Nicaragua, Oliver North and Former Assistant Secretary d State Elliot Abrams solicited funds from several authoritarian regimes, including Taiwan, South Korea and the more obscure Sultanate of Brunei Darussalam. Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei, the world's richest monarch, was indeed generous to the Contras -- to the tune of $10 million. But, this generosity was not because of any commitment to democracy in Nicaragua or anywhere else, for Brunei is a monarchical dictatorship, under a State of Emergency since 1982. The Sultan also allows Brunei to be the ClA's ears on the explosive Malaysian-lndonesian border. His Royal Highness was also involved with the infamous Nugan Hand Bank of Australia, a 1960s-70s CIA front for South East Asian drug operations and money laundering. In 1961, Brazilian President Jaao Goulart sought to trade with communist nations, supported the labor movement, and had limited the profits multi-nationals could take out of the country. These policies were clearly unacceptable to the American business interests. In 1964, the US took part in the overthrow of Goulart by General Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco, although US government officials have denied involvement. As an example of US support for Branco, just prior to the coup, US officials cabled Washington a request for oil for Branco's soldiers in case Goulart's troops blew up the refineries. The Chinese civil war pitted Mao Tse-Tung's Communists against Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists. The US-backed Chiang, but when he couldn't do the job they also supported Japanese troops fighting the Communists, even before WWll had ended.... Chiang gave the World Anti-Communist League (an international organization with links to Nazis, drug smugglers, and the CIA) its first home, permitting WACL members to use a military academy there to train troops for Latin American military coups. President Carter tried to cut US ties to WACL, but Ronald Reagan received campaign funds from the group, and WACL became involved with training and supplying contras in Argentina and Taiwan. In 1978 Honduras received $16.2 million in US aid. By 1985, it was getting $231 million, primarily because President Suazo Cordova, working with the US Ambassador and the Honduran military, allowed Honduras to become a training center for U.S. funded Nicaraguan contras.Now I stopped only a small way down the list, and every dictator there was either actually put in place openly, or was put in place or supported secretly with US government funds, training, or personnel. I didn't even include the quotes about those whop were merely supported and not actively assisted. The rest of the list continues along the same scheme.

Please read more than the fist example, it is an alphabetical list after all.

None of these are example of where the US merely did nothing, it's not trying to say that the US is somehow responsible for everyone they don't decide to defeat. They are all example of when the US actively supported or installed those leaders.

BTW Rastor, here is a link to a compilation of quotes (http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/remindus.swf) regarding Bush and the WMD. It is a .swf, and the end is a bit obscene, but all the quotes are there for you to hear for yourself.

Off-topic: Waitasec, wasn't CIA helping Fidel against Battista, actually? At the beginning, before he nationalised the industry and banking?

You could be right HS, I know I would probably be more tolerant of this sort of thing if another country was responcible, but it is the straw which broke the Camel's back so to speak; and this is what is upsetting, not whether Saddam is embarressed or not, but that he is being embarressed by the US in the same way they were complaining of.

It is just another example of how the US Administration seems to think it is above the laws it is enforcing on everyone else, even if they only suspect you might be thinking of breaking the laws now it seems.

There might be other reasons that Hussein is to be either tried very quickly in the US, or by a mock-Iraqi council instead of the world or UN court, as he would probably have a great deal to discuss of the collusion between himself and other parties, which Bush, Cheney, and Rummsfield don't want to become public knowledge. Perhaps it would be a good thing if it were televised.

Here is an article (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2824.htm) written before he was found (from that same site, if they turn out to be hucksters I'm going to look like such an ass. Of course, I manage fine on my own) which suggests that US officials knew he was in Tikrit and were deliberately avoiding going there. It also suggests that they did certainly want to capture him, but since he wasn't going anywhere that it gave them a good excuse to further entrench themselves.

It is interesting to read as it was written some two months before he was captured, and things have played out very similarily to the way in which this article supposed.

That was an interesting article, Manus... and I would venture to say that much of that is true, particularly the bit about Saddam exposing the true US/Iraq relationship for what it is. I suspect there's been a great deal of palm greasing done in private for quite some time (aside from the sale of military weapons). The last thing in the world Bush would want is for all the subtle intricacies to be aired in a world court -- talk about a feeding frenzy. :D

Heh. I would love to see that, because I'm sure there is plenty of dirty laundry to go around.

I, too, would welcome it. Let's get it all out.