Why would the US rather kill the Husseins than capture them?

Mary, I was a military man for a couple of decades. I have worked with all sorts of “special” people. A snatch is a toughie, very tough indeed.

Was taking them alive possible? Of course. Worth a try? Sure, why not? Worth a mess of dead Americans. Obviously not.

This is real-life here, not Mission: Impossible.

Try them? Well that is a moot point now of course.

Still I am sure they would have been found guilty of a number of crimes under Iraqi law. That would have been enough.

Like I said, moot point now, and one I find uninteresting.

Bwahahahaha! These two evil, sadistic, perverted, murderous thugs worried about a little time in US custody? Compared to the treatment they handed out to their own people, that would be Club Med.

But hey, thanks for your even-handed display of sympathy.

And, presuming your statement was made straight-faced, a HUGE rolleyes to you, too.

I think you’re thinking of the ICC, rather than the ICJ (a.k.a. the World Court), which doesn’t deal with criminal charges against individuals. The answer to the question of who could try them, as I’ve said over and over again to no avail in another thread is no one. An Iraqi court could, if one existed.

Yes, you’re right about the ICC. I just responded to your similar question in the Great Debates threat. I didn’t say there was anyone who could try them. I was trying to say that if there was an applicable body, it’s not a stretch to say they could have been tried.

Paul, I appreciate the contribution with background, it’s why I value the SDMB.

NaSultainne, you may have read something (sympathy)(!) in my post that wasn’t in it.

It’s not at all clear that the personell on the ground knew who they had holed up in the villa. Reports are that they knew they had Baathist bigwigs but that they didn’t know that they were the Sons of Saddam. Obviously military personell knew who was supposed to be in the villa, but not the military @ the villa.

A great timeline from CNN.

It would probably take less than a year to set up some sort of Iraqi judiciary to handle all the murder charges for the top Baathists. I don’t see why it would be so difficult to hold them at Gitmo for a year and then hand them over to the Iraqis. Its not like they have to be tried and executed before sundown.

That said, I’m sure the administration is indifferent about whether the Iraqi leaders are killed or captured. If one surrenders its not a big deal, if they’d rather be killed we can accomodate them there as well. I don’t think we will go out of our way to ensure one outcome over the other.

Got a question: Do current “non-lethal” weapons technically violate the wording of the Geneva Conventions or could they be construed to violate the wording of the Geneva Conventions? It would be a delicious irony if the wording of these agreements essentially end up prohibiting the use of “non-lethal” weapons in combat.

Nonleathal weapons have been underdevelopment in the US (and elsewhere) for a number of years. Both the military and law enforcement are interested, but few really good ideas have been fielded.

The police have widely used the Taser electric dart system, but it has little if any military application.

The “Dazzler” laser system has been used against Iranian aircraft by US Navy ships in the Arabian Gulf. A couple of foamy things have been tested. The only place I have heard of the neato light beam thing has been in Tom Clancey.

The systems are not really ready for fielding. Before anyone will trust a soldier’s life to some gadget we have to be pretty certain it works.

In the next few year I guess some systems might reach the troops, but you can be fairly certain that they will specialty systems used in special situations. Regular old troops will keep killing people with regular old weapons for decades to come.

At least.

Just to amplify Paul’s comments. Tear gas and other “incapacitating agents” (e.g., CS, CN, etc.) are prohibited under the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925. I suppose that there could be some argument as to whether the protocol applies to current US operations in Iraq, but I think most countries would say that it did.

Sorry if I was getting snippy in this or the other thread, Marley. I felt like I was repeating myself over there. That “if” is a huge one.

If they surrendered, maybe they would have been captured?

It’s odd they can use tear gas on protesters in SF, Calif but not during war.

I’m sure they would’ve. As far as I know, none of the Iraqi leaders who’ve surrendered have been killed.

Yes, it’s definitely odd. :dubious:

Nitpick: Isn’t it “Conventions?”