Saddam claims torture in custody

Remove all ads!

kind of ironic i admit but what do you think of his claims? should/will they be investigated? and if so, what do you think will happen?

[ December 21, 2005, 23:11: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Can you say pure BS?

 

I say they have to be investigated. To do otherwise would be to laugh at justice and fair trial.

I don't believe in the "we don't torture prisoners" slogans anymore, but it would take a real idiot to abuse Saddam or one of the top celebrities of the former regime.

 

I'd like to reveal that I've been tortured by my employer.

...and my Banker


...and the kid at the grocery store who pulls the brown leaves off the romaine


...and my 11 year old


...and the aliens who probe me on a regular basis.


investigate, anyone?

 

BS it may be (and I'm inclined to consider it that), but it still merits investigating. At this point, Saddam would probably say anything to shift the focus of the trial. At best, he's full of crap and you can demonstrate it. At worst, you get the people who did it and prove your moral authority. Either way, there's no reason not to make at least some enquiries.

Besides, does anyone seriously believe that there's absolutely no chance that anyone might have taken a liberty or two with the guy while he's been in custody? I can think of at least a couple of SPers who wouldn't mind giving Saddam a few lumps - to say nothing of any prison guards that may have been responsible for him. It's a bit more plausible than some of your "complaints", Hack, even though I don't think they're true (abuse by employer notwithstanding...).

 

why? if saddam can torture and abuse people why not our forces? after all one american soldier has already been charged for said abuse.

i find it hard to believe that noone has given saddam a few digs in custody.

but i guess the next question we should ask is should those who abuse saddam be tried for those crimes? or should we simply turn the other way?

 

I'm being tortured by news about Saddam. Stop the madness!

 

The US has built herself a reputation when it comes to torture. Whether or not Hussein is given the same treatment many other prisoners as well as human rights organisations report about - one can hardly blame him for taking adavantage of the sorry state of affairs. Too bad, really, that the US has plunged to such depth that a cretin like Hussein can easily make these statements without being waved off instantly.

Looks like the US has already lost her war against terrorism.

 

what kind of reputation?

 

That depends on the individual view of torturing prisoners. Suspects. Detainees. You name it.
There are people who think torture will get you somewhere. But it's the reputation of a nation torturing nonetheless.

 

Saddam is claiming he has a sore shoulder. One thing we can say with certainty is this: If he was in fact tortured while in custody, a sore shoulder would be the least of his worries.

Look at Abu Ghraib. We Americans are getting pretty good at this toture business. Doing it ourselves, outsourcing it to other countries. We're much better at than we were just a few years ago. Sure we might not be as hard core as the North Vietnamese, or Iraq while Saddam was in charge, but you can be sure he'd come out with far more than a sore shoulder.

[ December 23, 2005, 18:44: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

He's probably got a sore shoulder from jacking off at the thought of how well he can manipulate the media.

 

Saddam would say anything do discredit Americans and the court. But still it has to be invastigated (they say that they follow the law)

 

It has been said in other threads but it beards repeating here -- torture is a relative word. There are some things that we all agree are torture, and others that could be argued are not. I mean, it's probably "torture" for Saddam not to have access to the nerve gas he used on the Kurds. It's "torture" to be placed in a cell for 20 hours / day. Confinement and a regimented lifestyle could be construed by the tree hugging losers out there (no editorial slant on my part, not at all ) as torture.

As for the marks on his body, well, they could be the result of torture. They could also be the result of him being violent and uncooperative, so the use of force is necessary. They could also, theoretically, be self inflicted! While I believe that his conditions should be looked into, I also believe that anything this guy has to say doesn't carry much weight at all.

 

I wouldn't mind it one bit if they would have actually been doing that. He deserves a few bruises and cuts here and there.

 

Well, he does deserve much worse, but a trial should be fair.

 

Well, what is torture? A Danish soldier was found guilty for torturing an Iraqi prisoner. Apparently the Danish courts find that letting a man sit on his knees during a one-hour interrogation is torture.

Because that was exactly the point on which this soldier was convicted. Because the prisoner was sitting on his knees for one hour. Apparently he claimed that his legs were hurt by this and that he was denied something to drink. He was given something to drink after the interrogation, though. He wasn´t beated or yelled at, nor starving or dehydrated.

But that´s one definition of torture in a Danish courtroom. So Saddam could have been tortured, if he was forced to sit on a floor for an hour. Or if he had to wait for an hour to get something to drink.

 

All accusations of torture need to be taken seriously after Abu Ghraib (not to mention Guantanamo). The fact of the matter is that I don't trust my own country to do the right thing anymore. If the US (auspiciously a progressive and democratic nation) can do this, then any nation can, so all accusations of torture should be investigated.

 

I have only one disagreement on this.
It is not the nation that can't do the right thing.
It is the people of that nation (not all of them, just those who do wrong)
So a generalization is unlucky IMHO.

 

In my mind, nations are just really big people. I don't feel, however, that the actions of a nation are representative of the nation's people.