Legally speaking Saddam was taken as a prisinor of war and was under the custody of the US military, who is responsible for his protection till he is handed over to the people of Iraq.At the time of his death Saddam was still a prisoner of war and the US government is reponsilble for the protection of his life under the Geneva convention.
2007-01-02 17:43:51 · 9 answers · asked by raj k 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
My understanding is that he was in the physical custody of the US military, only because we are handling security at the facility where he was held. Technically, though, the facility is an Iraqi facility, so he was in their custody.
Think of it like this... if there's a prison uprising and the National Guard gets called out to secure the facility, the prisoners are not held by the military, theyr'e still in the custody of the State Dept of Corrections... but the military is providing security services.
Also, he was tried for the atrocities he inflicted on his people... including the deaths of 1.3 million of his own people... many women and children...
So no. I don't believe he was entitled to anything under the Geneva Convention.
2007-01-02 17:51:30 · answer #1 · answered by Amy S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
An Iraqi court determined that he did not commit any War Crimes, as funny as that may sound. Therefore, he did not have to go to the Hague to stand trial for his crimes. This was intentional because Iraq has the death penalty and the Hague does not.
Legally speaking, the US could of held a military tribunal, found him guilty, and shot him.
2007-01-02 17:53:45 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Mojo Risin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certianly he was a prioner of war and that's the reason for the treatment gave it to him under the Geneva Convention Rules.
2007-01-02 17:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by Javy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm no longer a mom yet i think like I ought to compete with my siblings to make my mom experience particular. i like my mom better than absolutely everyone else right here in the international. I salute each and all of the wonderful mothers there are interior the international. shop loving. playstation . i does no longer bake cake for her with the aid of fact i only can not and despite if I did, it may nonetheless style undesirable understanding that she's a ask your self interior the kitchen. each and every so often, I only provide her money so she would be able to do despite she desires to do with it. i understand she donates them to charity or help others. That makes her experience better: assisting human beings or the community. through giving her the money, i think like I provide greater possibility for her to help others. :-)
2016-11-26 00:08:47 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, while in U.S. custody. In Iraqi custody, theoretically it should have been iraqi standards for prisoners.
He was a terrible man and his execution was warranted, assuming that capital punishment is the rule of law in Iraq. Regardless, all people, even the worst should be afforded basic human rights. The state needs to be more responsible than those it punishes in order to gain any sort of moral authority over it's people. That video, seems to show otherwise.
2007-01-02 17:55:18 · answer #5 · answered by Jonny Propaganda 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no he was turned over to the Iraqi govt. when the Americans had him he was treated good. they protected him. i herd bush really didn't want him killed. we need to let the man rest in peace. let him find peace with god now.
2007-01-02 17:50:01 · answer #6 · answered by loretta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
US government was asleep maybe he will next because no protection at all.
2007-01-02 17:56:04 · answer #7 · answered by Freesia 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
F uck any rights that that filthy monkey ever deserved. Who cares he is with is 2 sons now ( in hell ) I believe their names were Koo-Koo and Moo-Mae
2007-01-02 18:10:35 · answer #8 · answered by caciansf 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No
2007-01-02 17:52:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋