• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
To the subject of this thread - Saddam is not covered by the 5th.

To Niles - Calm down, when has any country not been guilt of hypocrasy? Britain outlawing the slave trade but still allowing it's nationals to persist in the trade as long as the ships were Portugese flagged. I'm sure you can think of other examples.

To Major - A war against Iraq could be justified; but not in the terms currently used by the American Administration. I believe that the UN should have the right to authorise assaults on venal, tyranical, mass murderers but this cannot happen when major players opt out of treaties that would give minor players a voice in an internationally recognised court - I am thinking specifically about the International War Crimes Court.
 
Too conditional, Intaglio. We've got veto power in the UN.

Moreover, had we participated in the international court people with beliefs like Niles would have tried to haul all kinds of Americans in. Maybe some deserve it, but my feeling is that America is a pariah for the lazy. I'm not willing to see whole governments go to pieces over somebody else's agenda or vindictiveness. That's how a lot of Americans feel, and I've read little on this board that would make me feel otherwise.

By the way, the reasons for justifying war used by the US administration are a) Iraq's (supposed) possession of WMD, and b) dozens of UN mandates. The flip-side of the argument for America's belligerence is the UNs inability to do anything but issue toothless proclamations.
 
I didn't think this belonged so I checked

Thanks MD

The international court would only have had jurisdiction when the home government of the accused had not investigated the accusation. If that government had and if the charge was found to be groundless, the accuser would not have had a right of appeal to the international court.

The Court would only have had jurisdiction when the home government refused to investigate.
 
I didn't know this and appreciate the information.

The Bush administration, through its cavalier attitude to world treaties, has greatly diminished the status of my country overseas.
 
To the extent that people are publishing books with titles like 'Why People Hate America' (I found that one in Ottakars yesterday) and the public are actually letting political considerations overtake their urge to eat fast food.
The latter takes some doing.
 
Minor Drag said:
Too conditional, Intaglio. We've got veto power in the UN.

Moreover, had we participated in the international court people with beliefs like Niles would have tried to haul all kinds of Americans in.
Sorry I though making and researching Chemical weapons was illegal, my mistake; anybody know the recipie for Sarin? :hmph: Quite frankly the reason it wasn't signed was because the people making the decision were the very people who were breaking international law.

The flip-side of the argument for America's belligerence is the UNs inability to do anything but issue toothless proclamations.
:hmm: so why not let the UN grow some teeth?
 
Niles Calder said:
Sorry I though making and researching Chemical weapons was illegal, my mistake; anybody know the recipie for Sarin? :hmph:
To be honest, the production of small quantities of CW agents is not prohibited under the CWC.

Paragraph 1 of Article VI states

1. Each State Party has the right, subject to the provisions of this Convention, to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, retain, transfer and use toxic chemicals and their precursors for purposes not prohibited under this Convention.


And for Schedule 1 chemicals

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. A State Party shall not produce, acquire, retain or use Schedule 1 chemicals outside the territories of States Parties and shall not transfer such chemicals outside its territory except to another State Party.

2. A State Party shall not produce, acquire, retain, transfer or use Schedule 1 chemicals unless:

(a) The chemicals are applied to research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes; and

(b) The types and quantities of chemicals are strictly limited to those which can be justified for such purposes; and

(c) The aggregate amount of such chemicals at any given time for such purposes is equal to or less than 1 tonne; and

(d) The aggregate amount for such purposes acquired by a State Party in any year through production, withdrawal from chemical weapons stocks and transfer is equal to or less than 1 tonne.


So as you can see, the legal production of small quantities of CW agents (all of which are Schedule 1 materials on the Australia Group list) including Sarin, is quite possible under the CWC. Note that "protective purposes", in its broadest sense, could cover research into the methods and techniques that a potential proliferant might use.
 
Niles, you didn't say "small" but then you didn't say "large" either, and I guess small and large depend on your point of view when facing 1 tonne of Sarin/VX, etc. ;)

You're welcome. :)
 
Minor Drag said:
I think eleven years is plenty of time!
Agreed, of pulling teeth whenever they started to grow (likewise for the preceeding decades as well) I mean something like in the SF novels "Peacemaker" (I forget who by) or David Brin's "Earth".

Teeth

A paramilitary UN force independent of nation states.
 
Niles Calder said:
Agreed, of pulling teeth whenever they started to grow (likewise for the preceeding decades as well) I mean something like in the SF novels "Peacemaker" (I forget who by) or David Brin's "Earth".

Teeth

A paramilitary UN force independent of nation states.
It certainly worked in Dan Dare, Pilot of the Future! :p
 
Missed the point.

I know that SH does not come under the fifth amendment my original point was that, hypothetically if he did would the actions be justified, could he in fact claim that any evidence he was forced to reveal would breach his right against self incrimination.
If it would then all the claims as to his lack of cooperation would have to be looked at, after all if Bush et al are asking for stuff from SH that they couldn't ask from the average citizen then it means that that they should be asked why they would need to bbreak their own laws in order to prove what they are claiming is a prima facie case.
 
Of course, all the evidence they find will have 'Made in the US' stamped on it and will prove that the US is also guilty of breaking God only knows how many treaties.
 
Maybe but all evidence provided by America is now tainted with suspicion.
 
Well. That's all wrapped up then. Thanks everyone, and drive safely!
 
-I know that SH does not come under the fifth amendment my original point was that, hypothetically if he did would the actions be justified, could he in fact claim that any evidence he was forced to reveal would breach his right against self incrimination.
If it would then all the claims as to his lack of cooperation would have to be looked at, after all if Bush et al are asking for stuff from SH that they couldn't ask from the average citizen then it means that that they should be asked why they would need to bbreak their own laws in order to prove what they are claiming is a prima facie case.-

If the ICC opinion in the Pinochet case is anything to go by, there would be no such thing as a case against Saddam, because there is absolute immunity for these sorts of actions taken by a sitting head of state in his official capacity. Presumably under this precedent, the ICC couldn't touch him for gassing Iranians or Kurdish villagers either. The idea is not to capture him and take him to trial, but to remove him from the position where he commands an army and a nation. Beyond that, everything is speculation... maybe he'll get an office next to Al Sharpton's, and maybe he'll be killed resisting whoever's troops. There is no question of breaking US law in any aspect of this, because the presumption is that US law never applies outside of the US (and our waters, and the EEZ, and so on). Domestic and International law are vastly different things. In theory, if Saddam were captured in Iraq, he could be tried under Iraqi law, and we could rip his toenails out with pliers, then stone him to death, if not for the Geneva Convention, which we abide by and a certain someone does not.
 
Unless Saddam chooses to leave in exile

I believe his time is at hand, either by his own people (upper staff ) or the coalition forces....Bush gets a boost
President Bush received a boost today in his push to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, as the leaders of eight European nations declared their solidarity with the U.S. position. One of those leaders, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi meets with Bush at the White House today, while Britain's Tony Blair visits Camp David on Friday
;)
 
Logan5 said:
In theory, if Saddam were captured in Iraq, he could be tried under Iraqi law, and we could rip his toenails out with pliers, then stone him to death, if not for the Geneva Convention, which we abide by and a certain someone does not.
Alas to say, not entirely. Shotguns are forbidden for use by troops in war, which is why the UK doesn't use them. The US does... :(

sorry
 
Well, here's how it actually panned out when it came to Saddam Hussein's interrogation:

At my first meeting with Saddam, within 30 seconds, he knew two things about me. I told him my name was George Piro and that I was in charge, and he immediately said, “You’re Lebanese.” I told him my parents were Lebanese, and then he said, “You’re Christian.” I asked him if that was a problem, and he said absolutely not. He loved the Lebanese people. Lebanese people loved him. And I was like, “Well, great. We’re going to get along wonderfully.” (Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, while most Iraqis are Shia Muslims.)

Bergen: How long were you with Saddam? And, of course, you’re communicating in Arabic throughout, right?

Piro: About seven months. Initially, I would see him in the mornings. I would translate for his medical staff. And then, the formal interrogations were once or twice a week for several hours. As time went on, I started to spend more and more one-on-one time with him because I could communicate directly and very quickly with him. I built that to about five to seven hours every single day, one-on-one, a couple of hours in the morning, a couple of hours in the afternoon and then a formal interrogation session or two a week.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/29/saddam-hussein-cia-interrogator-john-nixon-intv-ac.cnn
And we talked about everything. So especially in the first couple of months, my goal was just to get him to talk. I wanted to know what he valued in life and what his likes, dislikes and thought processes were. So we talked about everything from history, art, sports to politics. We would talk about things that I knew he wouldn’t have any reservations or hesitations to talk about.

People have asked me about the first interrogation I did of Saddam, saying, “What was the topic?” The majority of that first discussion was about his published novel because I knew he wasn’t going to lie about that. And I had researched and studied the book.

Bergen: Was it a good novel?

Piro: No, it was a terrible novel, “Zabiba and the King.”

Bergen: What was the plot?

Piro: So Zabiba was a beautiful Arab woman, and she was married to a horrible old man. Of course, Zabiba represented Iraq. The old man represented the United States. The king, handsome and dashing, rescued Zabiba from her misery, and they lived happily ever after. Of course, you can imagine who the king was. …

A key thing that can enhance the outcome of an interrogation is subject matter expertise. It’s extremely difficult to lie to a subject matter expert. Now, when you add that with a good interrogation strategy and approach, you are really increasing your likelihood of success with an interrogation. As an FBI agent and especially as an interrogator, I knew I wanted to know everything I could about Saddam because inconsistencies are indications of deception.

I wanted to understand Saddam and know Saddam as well as he knew himself. To give you an example: Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait in 1990. I interviewed all the other “high-value detainees,” and we specifically talked about that decision. And there was a critical meeting where Saddam decided to invade Kuwait. I knew where everyone sat in the conference room, what Saddam did, where he even placed his gun belt, and how he positioned it.

So, when I was speaking to him, I would bring up those little details to reinforce how knowledgeable I was and how difficult it would be to misrepresent or lie about facts. It puts a tremendous amount of stress on the detainee when they are facing a subject matter expert because they must think so hard to develop any kind of lie that has a chance of maybe succeeding.

Continued at some length with some fascinating detail:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/14/...-interrogations-george-piro-bergen/index.html
 
Back
Top