Since the war in Iraq was declared over, some time ago by GW, the US and Iraq are now presumably not at war. As such, was the shooting of Usay & Qusay not murder ?
I don’t want a GD on the issue of Iraq etc. Simply a legal question. I would imagine, especially since the US fired first, in a country that it is not at war with, that this should be called murder ?
Any ideas ?
The US did not fire first. The people in the buildings were asked to surrender over loudspeakers. When the first team entered the building, they were fired upon and fired back. A second team entered the building and were also engaged in a firefight. A few soldiers were wounded in those fights. At that point, the decision was made to blow stuff up instead of risking more troops.
That’s not how it was reported over here. To wit: They pulled up in humvees and whatnot, and asked the occupants to surrender. “After a short pause” they opened fire with ::insert technical specs:: guns and shit. They then fired 10 bazookas (??) at the 2nd floor of the building. THEN they entered the building and found the bodies…
Why the discepancy in stories ??
Fox News, THAT’S why.
I dunno, but CNN gives this account (go here and click on “Timeline of the attack.”
So there was at least 45 minutes between the initial demand for surrender and firing the rockets and .50 calibre guns.
Thanks… I guess in the heat of battle (or whatever) exact actions get kind of muddled. No probs and thanks for the link. It’s just weird the difference in reports…
The one I heard was very early on, i.e. just after the attack. So either the journalist reporting didn’t know exactly what had happened, or the US Army PR Machine hadn’t got rolling with the “real” story… I suppose war is always like that… history being written by the victors, I mean…
There’s also a more detailed chronology from the BBC, which agrees with the CNN account. Granted, the source for the information is the US military, but this was a raid conducted in broad daylight in a major city, so there were plenty of eye witnesses to the affair.
Thanks…
No problem. 
Though it seems I was wrong about the order of events. The second invasion team entered after the big guns were used. And it was a third team that eventually killed the last guy and brought everyone out.
War was never declared. The US pres was merely authorized to use force.
War was not declared over. “Major combat operations” had come to an end was the pronouncement.
Probably true. But since I used the expression “guns and shit” and then “bazookas”, I think you might understand that I’m not a military dude. If the US bombs a country, I assume they’re at war. If they’re not, to my mind that makes the whole thing completly illegal ?
I understand very, very little about these things…
You make a good case but I do not think it is clear cut one way or the other. I think it could be argued that US forces were justified in their actions if there was a credible risk that the suspects could escape OR if there was a credible risk that a siege may have been ineffective because enemy forces could have disrupted it and caused casualties among American troops.
I think the level of control the US has in the area is such that both scenarios are not possible. AFAIK the US could have blockaded the house successfully and without opposition. It could have waited them out with no problem but this may have led to PR problems which it did not want or need. This situation is very comparable to what happened in Waco.
The house could have been slowly destroyed by smaller gunfire in such a way that the occupants could move to other parts. After a few days of slowly destroying the building they would have probably given up or, at least, maybe the young boy would not have lost his life. I believe a much more measured response could have successfully captured them alive unless they had committed suicide.
Thank you for the opinion. I was thinking of something along those lines myself. If nothing else (and it’s irrelevant to the legality of the deaths) the Sons may have had info regarding the whereabouts of Daddy…
Just a thought. Gald to see that I’m not the only one who thinks along these lines…
I was just saying that the deaths of the Sons of Saddam are on the same legal footing as the deaths of all the other Iraqi military and paramilitary combatants. The war issue is a fuzzy one that seems irrelevant. According to US law, the president gets to decide whether or not the deaths of those two were necessary to his prosecution of the war. So, I’m sure that as far as US law goes, the killing were legal.
Can you explain that? What law says that? The POTUS can legally decide who can be killed without any limits? Can he legally order all the prisoners held at Guantanamo to be executed without trial if he considers it “necessary for the prosecution of the war”? How about a hgropup who opposes his policies? Where’s the limit?
I do not believe the POTUS has the legal power to just decide on a whim who needs killin’.
Sailor - I really hope you’re right…
Oh Sailor, Congrats on the 10,000 posts…
This is all that I was talking about:
Public Law 107-243 of 2002
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization. — The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to —
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by <Iraq>; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination. — In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations,including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned,authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001.
If you’ll care to notice, I didn’t make the claim that, “The POTUS can legally decide who can be killed without any limits.” I specifically said, “…the president gets to decide whether or not the deaths of those two were necessary to his prosecution of the war.”
Sorry for the confusion. I’ll try to be more clear in making a distinction between anybody and who I’m specifically talking about from now on.
While any of those scenarioes may well have played out if it were the Police or FBI outside, but this was the US Army, who is not well trained in sieges or slowly picking away at a building. When they receive significant fire, they respond with overwhelming force and destroy the source of that fire. In this case they seems only to escalate the firepower when it was seen the last go was not enough.