Commentary by H.G. Listiak
Does Saddam Deserve Humane Treatment?
Welcome to my world, where late last year on the way to the holidays, we had an early holiday of sorts, the unexpected capture of Iraqi despot dictator Saddam Hussein. After the capture I worried, as did several of you who visited My World, that bringing him in boots down was going to get complicated, wishing he would have been taken boots up like his murderous sons. And indeed it is getting complicated. The Pentagon's lawyers now say he's a prisoner of war because of his status as former Commander in Chief of Iraq's military. This would put him under the protection of the Geneva Convention accords, which means he could only be tried by an international tribunal or the occupying power, which is the U.S. It would make it difficult to get him in the hands of the Iraqis who have already promised a quick trial and execution, despite the fact that the U.S. plans to cough him up to the Governing Council when they hand sovereignty back to the Iraqis on or before the first of July. Like the U.N., the Geneva Convention Accords, agreed upon in 1949, have outlived their usefulness and have never worked in the manner they were designed. The problem with the idea is that they try to put humanity into one of the most inhumane behaviors of mankind, war. The situation becomes even more complex in as much as the good guys abide by it and the bad guys don't. Did Saddam Hussein abide by the accords when he fought the Iranians or invaded Kuwait? We all know the answer to that. Does he deserve what many overzealous Americans call humane treatment? We all know the answer to that one too. Maybe it's time, at least in this case, we become the bad guys and send a message to others who would hurt us for whatever reason. When it comes to war, killing each other, there are no rules except we'll let you keep you own bodies for burial. If you don't like those rules then don't put us in harms way, as I see it ... I'm H.G. Listiak.