If Uday and Qusay are actually dead, what are the future ramifications?

Great Debates
81

I really can’t understand the assertion that taking Saddam (or his cronies) prisoner would be inconvenient for the US. Why exactly would it be inconvenient? Saddam Hussein and any other high level official is surely guilty of any number of atrocious crimes, under any legal standard you care to name. Saddam can be tried and convicted of hundreds of counts of premeditated murder of innocent Iraqi civilians. There would be no need to come up with vague charges pertaining to WMD, sponsoring terrorism, or violating UN sanctions. The man had people tortured and murdered routinely.

As for capturing heavily armed people, exactly how does one do this? According to the news reports, gunfire was exchanged, surrender was demanded and rejected, more gunfire was exchanged, then the house was demolished via missiles. Ordering soldiers to take the house using only tear gas and flash grenades seems like ordering them on a suicide mission. If someone doesn’t surrender, you use military force. If they surrender, you capture them and off they go for interrogation, incarceration by the US military probably overseas at Gitmo, and ultimate disposal via the future reconstituted Iraqi judiciary. No fuss, no muss, no problem.

82

We ask our police to do this kind of thing everyday.

83

As I said the other option is to wait them out.

Why is everything in Iraq on such a Tight time table when it comes to blowing things up but we have to be patient when looking for WMDs or rebuilding infrastructure?

84

It makes no military sense to surround the house and wait for the bad guys to surrender after lord knows how much time. The soldiers laying siege would be in the middle of an often hostile population, there would be no way of knowing whether the house offered any means of escape for the occupants, and any long-term siege would make the Hussein Boys potent symbols of Iraqi resistance. The Hussein Boys were legitimate military targets, and sending the soldiers in with guns and rockets blazing after they were fired upon and their demands for surrender refused was a perfectly legitimate tactic, if not necessarily the only tactic available.

85

A trial would be a mess that the US absolutely does not want. There would be all kinds of questions about the appropriate venue. The US government might insist on trying him in the United States, but any grounds for US jurisdiction are shaky at best. (Did any of his crimes occur in US territory?) If they did try him, they would open legitimize any other country trying Americans for their crimes. The rest of the world would insist on an international tribunal, which would reopen the conflict between the US and the rest of the world over the ICC. US government might opt for an ad hoc tribunal; in fact, the Special Court in Sierra Leone is intended by the US government as a model for a future Iraqi tribunal. But if it is dominated by the US, it will look to everyone, especially “the Arab world,” like victor’s justice. The US is clearly not ready to allow Iraqis to be involved in their own governance. And it would be costly. And a fair trial (something we supposedly believe in) requires that the accused be allowed to present a defense. This would give Hussein a forum to speak from to rally support. Do you think the US government wants the world to hear his side of the story? The US government is bound to look like less than heroic in that narrative.

86

As for the notion that the deaths of Uday and Qusay will stop attacks on American forces: Iraqi attacks continue on U.S. soldiers

87

A trial would be a mess that the US absolutely does not want. There would be all kinds of questions about the appropriate venue. The US government might insist on trying him in the United States, but any grounds for US jurisdiction are shaky at best. (Did any of his crimes occur in US territory?) If they did try him, they would open legitimize any other country trying Americans for their crimes. The rest of the world would insist on an international tribunal, which would reopen the conflict between the US and the rest of the world over the ICC. US government might opt for an ad hoc tribunal; in fact, the Special Court in Sierra Leone is intended by the US government as a model for a future Iraqi tribunal. But if it is dominated by the US, it will look to everyone, especially “the Arab world,” like victor’s justice. The US is clearly not ready to allow Iraqis to be involved in their own governance. And it would be costly. And a fair trial (something we supposedly believe in) requires that the accused be allowed to present a defense. This would give Hussein a forum to speak from to rally support. Do you think the US government wants the world to hear his side of the story? The US government is bound to look like less than heroic in that narrative.

88

Looks like “moving the goalposts” to me. Were Uday and Qusay ever an issue?

89

When people say “pro-Saddam forces”(currently, not in pre-war context mentioned in rjung’s quote) I’ve got to think it’s code for something else. Can anyone seriously think that Saddam could ever become head of state again?

90

I’m still not convinced that a siege, or the use of an incapacitating gas, would not have been a viable option. Gas can be fired in from outside in canisters. The russians had some trouble with it, but there are only four people in this building, and one was 14 years old.
It is true that a trial could be tricky, but is that really a good reason to kill them? They would have been far more useful alive, especially if you believe that there really are WMDs buried somewhere in the country or shipped to a neighbouring state.
I’m not sorry they died. I just wonder why there wasn’t more of a push to take them alive. It would have made a lot of sense.

91

Again, I seriously doubt it. Unless we planned on using the same information extraction techniques that U & Q used, they had far more to lose and nothing to gain by talking to us. Were we going to cut one of them a deal, thus sparing one of these demented bloodthirsty tyrants from an Iraqi or world court? (once the Iraqi justice system is functional, of course)

What would the US have to fear from putting Uday and Qusay on trial in a court? People keep asserting this, but no reasoning, examples, or cites have been forthcoming. The prosecution could parade witnesses for months, torture victims, relatives of deceased victims, witnesses of atrocities, experts on mass graves, etc. Uday and Qusay could say “My daddy made me do it.” I like the prosecution’s chances.

92

I wasn’t there, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were good reasons. IRL, there are a practically infinite number of variables. Maybe history books will give a good account of the battle. I’m sure that the options were considered. I’m not familiar with the reasoning used though. I’m sure that live capture was a possibility. It may not have been the best option though.

93

What court? I guess you’re ignoring my post above, which outlines the reasons why the US government would want to avoid a trial.

94

Said Beagle:

I suppose it’s all speculation now, but I think the usual trick is to put the big guys in captivity with one another and their underlings in a well-observed place to see what they talk about amongst themselves. That’s an intelligence-gathering technique dating back to at least WWII–if I recall correctly, one of the first solid tip-offs the Brits got about the German V-weapons came from two captured German generals chatting at a bugged table.

95

I don’t see why we should take these two alive for trial. We don’t seem to be trying that with anyone else and we should be more willing to kill people like tham rather than their underlings.

96

I’m not thinking alive for trial - I’m thinking alive for interrogation. Take em to guantanamo and find out what they know about:

A. Saddam’s whereabouts

B. Weapons of mass destruction. If these really do exist then any information from such high up government officials would be invaluable, and is desperately needed.

Use whatever techniques and drugs the CIA has up it’s sleeve.

The question is - would they have been more useful alive or dead?

I don’t see what the fuss would be if they were held in prison until such time as an Iraqi justice system could try them. I don’t event think there would be any outcry if they were shipped to Gitmo.

97

Venue? I’ll take any venue that accepts evidence and claims jurisdiction. As I mentioned, a reconstituted Iraqi justice system is my choice of venue for our hypothetical trial of the two dead men in question. I would have had no problems with holding them in an Iraqi jail until such a system is in place. No bail, flight risks. Problem solved.

98

Can you name any venue that could claim jurisdiction? Iraq is the only legitimate candidate, but there’s no judicial system currently in place.

That’s the way to teach those Iraqis about justice! Lock 'em up indefinitely with no charges, with no possibility of bail and no hearing in sight! :rolleyes: How exactly does that differ from justice under Saddam Hussein?

99

Alive, on trial, the Saddam boys would have been a propaganda goldmine. It would have been a simple matter to arrange for American “security” to be provided and make a big show of trying them under the “authority” of the Interim Ruling Council. (Get Chalabi picked for prosecutor?) Solid gold. Doesn’t get better.

Except that it would. Testimony droning on about the unspeakable crimes. Ten times the value of pictures of a grim Wolfowitz examining the mass graves. Shi’ite victims. Kurdish victims. Sunni victims. And lurid? Katie bar the door. Solid gold.

And America, stern angel of Justice, sits quietly by, simply providing “security”, not interfering the least little bit, while the Iraqi Government tries the criminals. Solid gold.

And, of course, the question of the dreaded nuclear anthrax missiles. We are given to assume that the Bushistas are utterly convinced, scouts honor, that those weapons exist and are cunningly secreted somewhere in Iraq. This urgent threat to America has yet to be discovered. We must presume that, if the Bushistas truly believe this, then they must be sore wrought to get the facts. Willing to go to great lengths to resolve this dreadful urgency. Well, maybe Odious and Quesy don’t know anything. But maybe they do.

Given their obvious value as prisoners, one has to wonder why extraordinary efforts were not made to take them alive. Starve them out, wait them out, talk them out. If they kill themselves, they aren’t any more dead.

Could they have bargained? Certainly. There is every chance that we knew the kid was there, we knew who’s son he was. That kind of bargaining chip is major, that’s Darwin, that goes straight to the bone.

Was there no time to make a decision. No, there were hours before a decision was made to use 10 anti-tank missiles. “When you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucker in the room!..accept no substitutes.”

Somebody decided it was preferable that the Saddam boys be dead. Whoever made that decision had a motive that outweighed the enormous benefits to be gained by live capture.

And what would that motive be? I have no idea. But it must be a doozy.

100

Except elucidator, you’re missing the whole part of the trial in which the defendants mount their defenses, including rants about the US government’s imperialists activities (see how Milosevic’s trial has gone) broadcast throughout the Arab world. And no one is going to accept the legitimacy of a tribunal in which the prosecutors, investigators, and judges are appointed by the United States, and there’s no Iraqi governing authority that has even the slightest semblance of legitimacy. Initially, the US government wanted a mixed international (i.e., US) and national tribunal like in Sierra Leone, but until a stable Iraqi government is in place, their hands are tied.