Whos going to stop them? The UN? The World Court? Iceland?
“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,…”
Quite my point, roundabout. It is the polite fiction of the US that the Interim Council is the legitimate governing body of Iraq, albeit temporary. Hence my emphasis on the US pretending to be merely supplying security to the legitimate government of Iraq as it performs its crucial function of trying war criminals. Heck, we don’t even know what the verdict will be! Could be anything! Its in thier hands, the Iraqi Government is trying this case, we just stand around holding these guns.
The Iraqi Council goes right to work on serious issues of governance, just like grownups. They prosecute people that everybody hates, more than they hate Americans.
A show trial conducted by an “independent” Iraqi government would have been of enormous value. If I’m smart enough to see that, damn sure bet President Rove is as well. There was a reason this golden opportunity was passed up, and its gotta be a corker.
Semblance of legitimacy? Chula, stop and think for a minute. I understand you are aginst the war. But do you really think that the mass graves being dug up all over Iraq are fakes? Really? The people in those graves were real people, with husbands, wives, children, parents, brothers and sisters. Exactly how hard would it be to produce people to testify that Saddam had their daughter kidnapped, raped, and tortured to death? There’s no hurry, we can wait a year for our puppet Iraqi judiciary to be set up while he rots in Gitmo. There’s no question about jurisdiction, plenty of Saddam’s crimes occurred in Iraq. We wouldn’t even bother with the namby-pamby vague stuff that we’re trying Milosevic for. Murder, commited with his own hands. Open and shut case.
Even in a criminal trial, the accused doesn’t have full freedom to rant and rave. And even so, what good does it do? Are the rantings of Milosevic about the illegitemacy of his trial having any affect of world opinion? Means nothing. Saddam on the dock for murder is like getting Al Capone for tax evasion, but it will be a slam dunk open and shut case, a triumph for the new Iraqi judiciary, a chance to remind the world how fucking awful Saddam really was.
If there is a choice between taking a chance of Saddam escaping and killing him, then of course we kill him. But once he’s in custody there is no problem with trying the motherfucker.
Ah, except then they’d reveal our secrets! Saddam is secretly a CIA mole! He was just obeying orders when he invaded Kuwait! He’d reveal that he never ever ever had chemical weapons! The Gulf War was fake, the US soldiers actually fired blanks! Jessica Lynch is a Mossad agent! The Jews were warned not to go to work on 9-11! Secrets, I tell you, SECRETS!
Right. It isn’t that difficult to put together a legal system. It’s not like the space program.
Reality check: no court in the world, manned by sane people, would grant bail to two tyrannical mass murderers being held for crimes against humanity. The most basic test, “would they flee?,” is clearly answered, “yes.” “No hearing in sight”? It’s going to take years just to put together the indictment. Give us a chance to identify most of the bodies first.
“How exactly does that differ from justice under Saddam Hussein?” :rolleyes: rightbackatcha.
No candles up the rectum, no rape, no summary executions, no torture, regular meals, showers, clean cells, etc.
What does that have to do with anything? I’m talking about the political incentives guiding the US government’s decisions. I’m not just making this stuff up - these are the actual issues that have been taken into account when dealing with these situations in other countries, and the US has been planning how to handle this situation in Iraq for some time.
Do you think I’m saying they don’t have a strong case? I’m saying that it’s not in the interests of the US government to put them on trial. Probably farther down the line there will be some trials, but until there’s a stable government in Iraq that has some support from the Iraqi people, it is not in the US’s interests to hold a trial. The Iraqi government could find the authority to arrest, charge, and try them (even still there would be some legal obstacles), but there is no government in place.
I guess you haven’t been following that case. Support for Milosevic has grown greatly as a result of his trial.
That’s by far the most ridiculous statement on this thread. If you have the secret of how to build a legal system, your expertise is sorely needed in many countries. Guess who the US has hired to rebuild the Iraqi judicial system? A computer sciences firm! (I wish I were kidding.) I guess you’re right - anybody can do it! :rolleyes:
Againest guys armed with machine guns? No, you get a situation like that, and no hostages, the SWAT team will be sent in to waste them if no surrender is forthcoming.
This was a military operation, not a police operation. Qusay and Uday were legitimate targets, and were obviously not in a surrendering frame of mind, and as well, the territory there is hostile.
Criticize Iraq operations on valid bases, not on wildly unrealistic and idealized ones.
(E.g. start showing some interest in how much it is going to cost you)
You give me too much credit. Furthermore, you should get your eyes checked.
I never said anybody could build a legal system. I said it is not comparable to rocket science. There is no massive investment of capital necessary to put together a panel of judges and hold a trial. Building an entire nation’s judicial system is a different matter.
This discussion is about putting two dead men on trial, right?
Uhummm… thanks pop! Sheesh I respect things you say but lord knows you do tend to get condescending don’t you? (I wish this were the pit…)
I remind you that Panama was a military operation as well. The US Army went out of its way to capture Noriega via siege and psychological tactics while he was seeking sanctuary. True, they were not shooting back, but The Army did not storm in guns blazing. They waited him out.
Last I checked Noriega was a legitimate target as well.
Considering the size and back up of the force involved what danger were they in that required them to act so quickly? They could have sat there for days if required. They are supplied and supported, the guys in the house are not.
If the option of taking them alive was discussed it must have been dismissed pretty quickly or at least all but complete ruled out the day before.
They begin operations at 10:00 and by 10:10 the gun battle begins The heavy weapons are called in and by 10:45 Rockets are fired. Essentially they asked for surrender and when they didn’t get it they were almost immediately prepared to kill everyone in the building.
This is just getting ridiculous. So they’re supposed to just set up camp in hostile territory, where they might get attacked by people coming to rescue the two thugs. They’re supposed to just hope that there aren’t escape tunnels. They’re supposed to give these two lots of time to plan a way to blast out. They’re supposed to risk American soldiers’ lives, and for what?
Collounsbury said it best. This is a war. Those two never surrendered. They were probably conducting attacks against Americans. They were combatants. This isn’t a police force.
And even if it were - have you never heard of police snipers? If a criminal is armed and dangerous, and will not surrender, deadly force is acceptable.
An analogy would be Vietnam, when enemy soldiers would be seen running into an underground tunnel. Or Afghanistan, when Taliban soldiers hid in caves. Did the U.S. just sit outside the caves waiting for them to starve? Nope. There’s a cave. A terrorist is inside. Fire a few rockets, kill whoever is in there, seal the entrance and let whoever is alive starve to death. Move on to the next cave.
How is this any different? These guys were in a hardened room. They were heavily armed. They were shooting back. They refused to surrender. As a result, the heavy weapons were brought in, and they were killed.
Noriega was not firing back.
According to overnight press releases, the unit from the 101st ordered the inhabitants out (in Arabic–I don’t know how fluent) and the house’s owner and son came out. The soldiers then entered the house and were fired on. At no point in Panama did the members of the Vatican embassy, (a separate sovereign nation) fire on the troops surrounding the embassy. Just a bit of a difference.
(And the characterization of Noriega as a “legitimate” target is silly. He was the leader of a sovereign nation that we invaded so that we could install our hand-picked rulers. We killed hundreds of innocent people in what was purported to be a trumped up drug bust. Had that been New York or L.A., the lawsuits would still be dragging down our courts.)
Indeed. Panama is a little bloody banana republic with nowhere near the capacities of Iraq, nor the same issues in re culture, etc.
Nice assertions, but sitting there for days attracting local attention and ire is not, I would say, in the context of an active and apparently well done guerilla war killing several Americans a day, a particularly brilliant idea.
Indeed it strikes me as the recipe for disaster and further occasions for public incitement.
But then I look at this purely from the political risk standpoint. Perhaps the military tacticians have other views.
If you want to beat the Bush Admin on the head about something, make it the Intel fracas or the utter failure in proper post war planning or the lack of resources mobilized for Reconstruction to date. Any of these are highly valid lines of attack. Bitching about not taking Uday and Qusai captive is childish nonesense.
I was not beating up anyone I merely asked if it was not possible to do so. I have no agenda with my question.
So it is now childish to ask what other options there are? Why? Do we automatically assume that what was done was correct because those in charge came up with the plan?
I’m sorry, but I thought this board was dedicated to enlightening the masses. Generally, enlightenment comes from asking the right questions to get the right answers. Sorry, you don’t deem these questions as adult enough for you but I also find the name calling and smugness rather childish as well.
Why not just stick to answering and refuting the questions without the pot shots?
In a related vein… Why do some folks consider it “absolutely unacceptable” and “propaganda” when the Arabic news network al-Jazeera showed pictures and videos of American soldiers killed in battle, but don’t have any similar criticism now that the Pentagon released pictures and videos of Saddam Hussein’s sons killed in battle?
Oh, yeah, three more Americans were killed today as well. But I’m sure Sam Stone will be here shortly to tell me how the deaths of Uday and Qusay will knock down the anti-American resistance any second now…
I respectfully disagree.
Given that a trial of those two and/or Saddam would be a legal nightmare, let alone that they would have a chance to give their view, why is it childish nonsense to keep a close eye on proceedings?
It is more convenient that they are dead. I’m not crying ‘FOUL PLAY!’, just being suspicious enough to keep a close watch.
After all that’s been coming out of the official sources of late, I hardly think it unreasonable to not take things at face value and to ask questions.
Latro, I don’t blame you for being suspicious, but there are serious mitigating factors in this incident which I’m guessing led to an on-the-spot decision to simply take them out.
The American approach to warfare is that a soldier is far too valuable to lose in combat if it can possibly be avoided–I don’t know how much it costs to train and maintain one paratrooper, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it were a million bucks over his career.
So if the facts are as I understand them, you’ve got an unknown number of armed people firing back from a building. Three soldiers were wounded attempting to reach the second floor. The Hussein boys may have been in the house, but nobody made a positive I.D. until after the fact.
Two attempts were made to apprehend them, and then they plastered the place with grenades, rockets, and .50 cal. machine gun fire. That appears to have killed three out of the four people on the second floor before soldiers even entered the room.
If they want to fight, we’re going to kill them, simple as that.
That having been said, however, I will also point out that there appears to have been significant participation on the part of American special forces. A psyops team arrived on the scene. The special OH-58 Kiowas used by Delta Force were on the scene. And someone either found or drew up a floorplan of the house within 24 hours of the incident, which leads me to wonder whether or not they had it during the firefight.
If the D-boys were in on it, it’s worth knowing that they’re our hostage rescue specialists, and regularly train to capture people as well as kill them. But since they had an unknown number of unknown shooters firing back, with three of our guys already down, I still think that the tactical decision was made on the spot to take them out, regardless of who they might be. It’s the simplest answer to a complicated situation.
I don’t think it is ridiculous to want them to have taken the Sons of Saddam alive. I do think that the judgement of the professionals who were there and charged with making the call was probably sound. I’ll assume that it was until there is good evidence otherwise. I’m not a professional military officer. I’m not intimately familiar with the setting or procedures that were relevant to the situation. I was not there. There were trained and presumably competent pros there.
They made a professional call that was, AFAICT, based on their best judgement.
CNN reported this morning that the reason that the photos were released was to prove to Iraqis that it was, in fact, U&Q, and that they were really dead.