|
Opinion>World | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Why the US declaration of Saddam's POW status?
The US declaration of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as an enemy prisoner of war (POW) on Friday has invited close attention from Chinese media. The following excerpts are from commentaries published in Chinese newspapers: Beijing Youth Daily: The US Government has retained a low-pitched posture towards the Pentagon's formal declaration of Saddam as a POW on Friday. The reasons why the United States has delayed making such a decision " although it was reluctant to do so " are based upon its weighing of the pros and cons. First, the United States has been extremely worried that it would be burdened with the accusation of mistreating prisoners of war (POWs) given that the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs stipulates that they are entitled to humanitarian treatment and protection from the detaining country at all times. In fact, the White House has been under strong criticism from the international community, especially the Arab world, since it made public Saddam's photos after he was arrested by the US Army in December. Second, the United States was worried it would not squeeze any useful information from Saddam if it confirmed the former president's POW status at an earlier time. Article 17 of the Geneva Convention states the detaining country should not exert physical or psychological tortures upon POWs or gain information from them in a forcible manner. So far, Saddam has not released any useful information to the United States. The CIA believes that it would not gain a bit of information from Saddam if he was confirmed as a POW. Third, the United States has consistently viewed Saddam as a political hot potato and was thus reluctant to take full advantage of the situation. Washington is well aware that whatever persecutions Saddam is subjected to will irritate the Iraqi people. That also explains the position that the US officials expressed earlier that the United States would certainly hand him over to the new Iraqi Government. Fourth, the United States was worried that Saddam or his family members would appeal for his deserved rights. Article 14 of the Geneva Convention on POWs states they should be able to meet with representatives of the International Red Cross, and that their personal dignity must be respected. But the United States has so far made no such arrangements. Fifth, the United States has been worried that Saddam's POW status would cause a chain reaction. Washington has so far not granted similar status to thousands of detained armed personnel of Afghanistan's Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden's al Qaida network. Jiangnan Times: The reason why the United States declared Saddam Hussein's POW status is that Washington has taken into consideration the following elements. First, the United States has gradually lost its patience with Saddam Hussein after secret interrogations of the former Iraqi president over the past month. Washington clearly knows it would not obtain anything it wants from Saddam no matter what kind of treatment he's subjected to. Second, it was revealed that Saddam possibly suffers from cancer and will not survive two years. That, if true, would mean that if Saddam dies in US detention, the United States would unavoidably be suspected of mistreating him. The US declaration of Saddam's POW status, which the Geneva Convention regulates, ensures against physical mistreatment. This would demonstrate to the world that Saddam's possible death would have nothing to do with the United States. Last, the fact that Washington has so far not found evidence that Saddam was the mastermind behind a series of terrorist bombings targeted against the United States also contributed to Washington's declaration of his POW status. Beijing News: The United States" declaration of Saddam's POW status leaves open the possibility of a war crimes trial by the Iraqis. Saddam's regime is accused of killing at least 300,000 Iraqis. He now faces charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The 1949 Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war spell out that POWs can be tried for crimes against humanity only by an international tribunal or the occupying power, which in Iraq is the United States. But the current situation is that the new Iraqi authorities insist on the right to impose a death penalty on Saddam while the US Government presents an ambiguous attitude on the trial issue. According to the Geneva agreements, Saddam should be tried only by a military court unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war. Under no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. In such aspects, the United States could try Saddam in a US court. Also the impartiality of an Iraqi trial would be questioned. Yet trying Saddam in a US court is not in the interests of the United States. It will not satisfy some Iraqis and is not good for the social stability in Iraq. US judicial procedures will prolong the term and are good for follow-up work. And pressured by the United Nations and world community, the US court could hardly give Saddam a death penalty while an Iraqi trial will make it a domestic issue that the international community shall not intervene. In fact, high level US officials have publicly expressed their support for a death sentence. The United States on the one hand is appropriating funds for trying Saddam, and on the other hand is training legal workers in Iraq for war crimes litigation. The Iraqi rules on establishing a special court also include articles that authorize foreign legal experts to participate in the trials. In sum, the US declaration of Saddam's POW status is primarily a political gesture. The United States could hand Saddam to the Iraqi court in other forms due to the distinctiveness of this case, which is in no conflict with the Geneva agreements.
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
