Just for my peace of mind....

[nancylebov]

Would somebody mind doing a public medical examination of Saddam Hussein?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1222/husseins.html

He says he was beaten and tortured while in US custody. It's possible he was, it's possible he wasn't--and it's certainly possible to find out instead of having statements from two untrustworthy sources.

Comments

What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[mouseworks.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt it's going to be possible to find out whether Saddam was or wasn't given that he was in US custody and that the rule against distributing photographs had been banned by then.

The only reason he might not have been tortured would be that his information was stale. US forces certainly tortured people if they felt there was an operation need to do so, and catching Saddam Hussein was one of the operational imperatives. Did they think he knew anything about the insurgency? If so, the US forces would have done whatever to get that information. We know that. The argument against torturing him is that it might piss his still un-caught followers off. Torture is okay by the highest powers in the land if the military needs operational information. The only reason not to torture Saddam would have be for PR reasons.

Re: What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Red Crescent? Medicins Sans Frontieres?

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

I heard that on NPR. He said, I have been beaten on every inch of my body -- I have marks to prove it. Then they said, yeah, but you tortured people too, and he said no no, whenever I heard of someone being tortured, it was like I was being tortured too, out of sympathy, and I thought, maybe that's where the marks came from.

But yeah, it does make one wonder why somebody doesn't just look. Somebody trustworthy. Send Jimmy!

Re: What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of it as asking him at his trial whether he'd consent to a televised medical examination. If he won't consent to that, then ignore his complaints, but leave the possibility of a later consented-to televised exam open if he wants one later.

If he does consent, then everyone gets to see whether there are bruises or not, and forensic doctors can argue (if necessary) whether the bruises could have been self-inflicted.

Re: What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[rinku.livejournal.com]

Not that I believe he was tortured (I think it's all made up) but there are many methods of torture that wouldn't leave marks on the body, especially months later. I would say that a method of torture that *would* leave anything detectable on the body a few months later is a really primitive form of torture; a modern military would use much more advanced methods (such as sleep deprivation) which have been shown to work better.

Re: What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

He said he'd been bruised.

Re: What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[rinku.livejournal.com]

Yes, but how often have you been bruised just moving around in your house, falling down by accident, in sports, etc? Bruises can mean anything, and are also very easy to self-inflict.

Re: What's a trust-worthy source in this mess?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I don't bruise myself all that often, but I can easily believe that mileage varies.

I optimistically assume that forensics is up to at least a reasonable guess about whether bruises are likely to be self-inflicted.