PDA

View Full Version : US debates bid to kill Hussein and avoid trial


zimv20
Aug 3, 2003, 08:28 PM
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/213/nation/US_debates_bid_to_kill_Hussein_and_avoid_trialP.shtml


Senior Bush administration officials are debating whether to order military commanders to kill rather than capture Saddam Hussein to avoid an unpredictable trial that could stir up nationalist Arab sentiments and embarrass Washington by publicizing past US support for the deposed Iraqi dictator, according to defense and intelligence officials.

Trying Hussein before an Iraqi or international criminal court would present an opportunity to hold the Ba'ath Party regime accountable for its repression and murder of thousands of people over the past three decades.


The New York Times, citing unnamed State Department officials, reported today that the administration favors creating a tribunal of Iraqi judges to try Hussein for crimes against humanity if he is caught.


the prospect of an open trial that puts him on a public stage has given pause to some in the administration, according to government officials with knowledge of the high-level meetings. Among those said to have taken part in the discussions are Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.


If Hussein attempts to surrender, the United States would have to accept it under most interpretations of international law governing the treatment of enemy combatants, according to John Yoo, a visiting fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and a former Justice Department official.


there's an overview on the options and general feelings. the article gets into some history about previous administrations' efforts at helping iraq's military efforts.

personally, i think it would be disgusting to order his assassination and not even bother trying to capture him. of course, it wouldn't be a public policy, merely couched in the same terms as his sons' killings -- "left up to the commanders on the ground."

if the iraqis want to try him, they should be given the opportunity. let _them_ execute him. if he's guilty, of course.

Desertrat
Aug 3, 2003, 09:15 PM
Well, he's racked up a better score for genocide than Milosevic ever thought of...Heck, give him to the Iranians!

Ran across an article recently about the reason for the public degradation of fallen Arabic leaders--Afghanistan, back in the 1970s comes to mind--with the idea being that the public is reassured that the old regime is gone, and the new folks are more worthy of high position.

Given the Iraqi reactions since the deaths of the Whelps, it makes sense within the culture. If the old bunch is dead, they won't regain power. Generalizing, they're more comfortable with the idea of a strong-man leader, compared to us with our much, much different system and attitudes about governance.

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 4, 2003, 10:14 AM
Are you suggesting that the United States give up on its publicly stated goal of creating a "beacon of democracy" for the Middle East in Iraq?

abdul
Aug 4, 2003, 10:28 AM
killing saddam also has the advantage of taking the US and UK out of the equation. As both countries did supply saddam with most if not all his weapons.

its a win win situation if they do kill him, no reminder of the bones in the closet to their public.

patrick0brien
Aug 4, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by abdul
killing saddam also has the advantage of taking the US and UK out of the equation. As both countries did supply saddam with most if not all his weapons.

its a win win situation if they do kill him, no reminder of the bones in the closet to their public.

-abdul

Actually, the U.S.S.R. earns the title of "supplied most of his weapons" (MiG-25's, 21's 29's SU-27's, T52's T72's, HiND's, etc.) However the U.S. did supply a bunch.

Heck the U.S.S.R. even provided the template to which Saddam modeled his secular government

Backtothemac
Aug 4, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by abdul
killing saddam also has the advantage of taking the US and UK out of the equation. As both countries did supply saddam with most if not all his weapons.

its a win win situation if they do kill him, no reminder of the bones in the closet to their public.

I was just curious as to which weapons, if not all, were supplied to him by the UK and the US?

Was it the Mig's, the Hinds', the ZSU's, the T-series tanks, the RPG's, the AK-47"s?

:rolleyes:

Sayhey
Aug 4, 2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I was just curious as to which weapons, if not all, were supplied to him by the UK and the US?

Was it the Mig's, the Hinds', the ZSU's, the T-series tanks, the RPG's, the AK-47"s?

:rolleyes:

Sure the Soviets supplied many weapons to Iraq, but don't you remember the support given to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war? A lot of US money was involved in the effort. The question is to what extent the expertise and initial supplies of chemical and biological agents are from that period of US support. There is much speculation that one of the reasons a order to kill Saddam would be put out is to maybe stop such revelations from coming out in a trial. It appears the inital Iraqi report to the UN in the period of last December was redacted to eliminate much of the information about this connection.

Backtothemac
Aug 4, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Sure the Soviets supplied many weapons to Iraq, but don't you remember the support given to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war? A lot of US money was involved in the effort. The question is to what extent the expertise and initial supplies of chemical and biological agents are from that period of US support. There is much speculation that one of the reasons a order to kill Saddam would be put out is to maybe stop such revelations from coming out in a trial. It appears the inital Iraqi report to the UN in the period of last December was redacted to eliminate much of the information about this connection.

Yes, we funded Saddam during the Iraq war. Everyone knows that. It was a choice of two evils, and Iraq was far less evil at that point to the US than was Iran. However, the previous poster insinuated that the US supplied Saddam which was not the case. Russia, China, and N. Korea did.

Sayhey
Aug 4, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes, we funded Saddam during the Iraq war. Everyone knows that. It was a choice of two evils, and Iraq was far less evil at that point to the US than was Iran. However, the previous poster insinuated that the US supplied Saddam which was not the case. Russia, China, and N. Korea did.

I don't know what abdul meant by "most if not all his weapons" but the point about, "no reminder of the bones in the closet to their public" is certainly relevant.

Desertrat
Aug 4, 2003, 05:23 PM
IJ, I dunno that I'm suggesting--or advocating--the US give up on democratic governance, but there's little or no experience with that in any mideast country besides Israel. Quien sabe? Maybe with all the Iraqis who've returned from exile with direct observation of other systems besides "El Supremo", there might be some hope.

Depends on how much cooperation or maybeso passivity there is with the religious leadership.

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 4, 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, I dunno that I'm suggesting--or advocating--the US give up on democratic governance, but there's little or no experience with that in any mideast country besides Israel. Quien sabe? Maybe with all the Iraqis who've returned from exile with direct observation of other systems besides "El Supremo", there might be some hope.

I'm suggesting that the US should lead by example. The US has a choice between justice and expediency. Which course is chosen will tell me a great deal about what US intentions are in Iraq, and I suspect the Iraqi people will recieve the same message.

Pinto
Aug 4, 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
It was a choice of two evils

There was a third option - keeping your nose out of other peoples business.

If the US did more of that there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

zimv20
Aug 4, 2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
There was a third option - keeping your nose out of other peoples business.

If the US did more of that there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

i advise you to duck.

:-)

Pinto
Aug 4, 2003, 09:33 PM
My flack jacket is donned.

pseudobrit
Aug 5, 2003, 06:00 AM
Remember that US troops were unpacking crates of US weapons still in their packing grease to use during this conflict.

That would be crates they found in Iraqi ammo dumps.

Desertrat
Aug 5, 2003, 10:39 AM
Pinto, stipulate that you're entirely correct. The problem is that it was too late by 1991, if not before then. Once Pandora's box is opened it cannot be "repacked". It's the old, "If a frog had wings..." deal.

Heck, had I married a different woman back in 1962, I might have wound up as General Manager of the Chevrolet Division of GM. If, if, if...

IJ, I agree about the leading by example. I think that's what's being attempted. Real life ain't like a TV show; good intentions and sincerity don't necessarily win the day. So, some unknown number of months from now I'll have an opinion.

:), 'Rat

patrick0brien
Aug 5, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Pinto
There was a third option - keeping your nose out of other peoples business.

If the US did more of that there wouldn't have been a 9/11.

-Pinto

Sorry, we learned that the hard way on December 7, 1941 when we were quite the isolationist.

Yes, it's a sticky subject - how would have things been if the US wasn't so involved in other countries. If we didn't come to help when asked, etc. 9/11 may not have happened - but then, it probably be a different date.

Eveyone wants to chop the tallest poppy in the patch, and the US is considered that. The US is the world's biggest target - for blame an animosity as well.

If we aren't involved in helping other countries, the US would probably be hit more often - as the other countries would have little reason to help us.

IJ Reilly
Aug 5, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, I agree about the leading by example. I think that's what's being attempted. Real life ain't like a TV show; good intentions and sincerity don't necessarily win the day. So, some unknown number of months from now I'll have an opinion.

If good intentions and sincerity don't win the day, then certainly bad intentions and insincerity won't win it either. People outside of the US seem to be far more sensitive to the latter then we who live here tend to realize. They expect the US to be insincere until proven otherwise. As the emphasis for the justification for the invasion shifts away from the immediate threat to US national security and more towards doing right for the Iraqi people, the need for the US to actively demonstrate the values the nation hopes to instill in the Iraq and the Middle East as a whole become even more critical. If we're going to talk the talk, we have to walk the walk.

Desertrat
Aug 5, 2003, 05:11 PM
Okay, IJ, no argument, there. However, consider the historical parallel: We've appointed a High Commissioner, just as with MacArthur in Japan. As near as I can tell, we have more Iraqis being involved in establishing a local-control government in Iraq than the way Big Mac did it in Japan. It appears to me to be a more democratic process, anyway.

Obviously, we succeeded pretty well in Japan. Only time will tell about Iraq, but I reiterate that it's just too soon to have a strong opinion one way or the other. IMO, anyhow...

'Rat

Pinto
Aug 5, 2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Pinto, stipulate that you're entirely correct. The problem is that it was too late by 1991, if not before then. Once Pandora's box is opened it cannot be "repacked". It's the old, "If a frog had wings..." deal.


Recent events show that nothing has been learned.

Pinto
Aug 5, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Okay, IJ, no argument, there. However, consider the historical parallel: We've appointed a High Commissioner, just as with MacArthur in Japan. As near as I can tell, we have more Iraqis being involved in establishing a local-control government in Iraq than the way Big Mac did it in Japan. It appears to me to be a more democratic process, anyway.

'Rat

There is no historic parallel between Japan and Iraq.

While Japan attacked the US and was bent on World domination (with Germany), Iraq never attacked the US and after the Gulf war wasn't even a danger to its neigbours. Japan (unlike Iraq) had no resources that the US wanted, it was only the Korean war and it's proximity to it that brought about the renaissance in manufacturing, before then the US was happy for it to remain a poor third-world country.

At the moment there is no democracy in Iraq and the US has the last word on all decisions. Your country's history of helping overthrow democratically elected whose policies didn't suit your Gv't or the multi-nationals who bribe your top officials show that talk of bringing democracy to the world is just bunk.

wowoah
Aug 5, 2003, 05:45 PM
I'm an American and as much as I love my country, I have to agree with Pinto completely. I'm also a history major and anyone who does even a cursory study of the history of the region will know the extent to which our country totally jacked these people over.

Previous posts have stated that, after the two World Wars, it has been shown that isolationism isn't realistic. There's a HUGE difference between isolating yourself from the world in a sense of false denial (a la World War I and II) and purposely going into foreign nations and enforcing a government onto others. I'm not advocating that the Hussein regime was a good regime, but the United States has no right whatsoever to enact regime change. The entire case for entry into Iraq is completely and hopelessly flawed: (1) There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq ever possessed weapons of mass destruction, something that is coming to light now as, after many months of occupation, not a freaking canister has turned up; (2) There are no solid links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden--the American public basically ate up the Bush Administration's spin that since they're both bad, bad Arabs, they must be in cahoots; (3) Those that believe that America was being altruistic in moving into Iraq and "freeing" and enslaved people need to get their heads out of the clouds, the Iraqi people are hardly better off now, and there're tons of other dictatoral regimes out there with people waiting to be freed. No one sees us sending troops into China.

In short, America should keep its nose out of other people's business. The whole mess we call the Middle East was started because of the arrogance of the West in their belief that they could coalesce racially and spiritually diverse peoples into Euro-style nation-states. I found it tough to understand how our country can justify billions of dollars spent on an occupation per month when we currently have a $455 billion budget deficit and educational crises all over the country.

Oh, and so that I'm not straying too far off the point of this topic, to simply assassinate Saddam would be a disgusting, gross, horrifying breach of international law and bold-faced war crime. We already violated scores of international occupying-power laws by failing to establish an adequate infrastructure for the Iraqi people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Cowboy Bush and his Wild West Gang decided to ride into the sunset dragging Saddam on a noose.

That's what kind of country we are. I love my country, but my government makes me sick.

IJ Reilly
Aug 5, 2003, 06:23 PM
I agree with Pinto, the analogies between Iraq and Japan and Germany are heavily overworked. Both Germany and Japan had at least some experience with democracy prior to occupation. They also had more of their bureaucratic infrastructures remaining in place after the war. In Japan we even made a point of keeping the emperor in place to ease the transition. Iraq is nation-building in its purest form, from the ground up.

Speaking of exit strategies, the only one I've heard articulated by the Bush administration for Iraq is "we'll leave as soon as we can, but not a minute sooner." And this is recipe for what, precisely? For installing a US-friendly government, is my interpretation. I've suspected this from day one of Bush's call for "regime change in Iraq." This phrase quite literally means replacing one regime with another, not the replacement of the Saddam regime with one freely chosen by the Iraqi people.

pseudobrit
Aug 5, 2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I agree with Pinto, the analogies between Iraq and Japan and Germany are heavily overworked. Both Germany and Japan had at least some experience with democracy prior to occupation. They also had more of their bureaucratic infrastructures remaining in place after the war. In Japan we even made a point of keeping the emperor in place to ease the transition. Iraq is nation-building in its purest form, from the ground up.

Let's not forget that the Iraqi people have never truly had a national identity.

The "nation" of Iraq is at least three different countries with three different cultures and peoples and histories that have never been brought together under the banner of nationalism. Thus it will be all but impossible to do so.

The 13 colonies all contained freedom loving Englishmen and people who'd fled European monarchy. Israel was formed by those with a proud affirmation of their Judiasm. The German people were all proud Germans, the Japanese were proud Japanese.

Now what would have happened if we, the US, after WWII, tried to roll Germany's new government in with say, Italy's, Austria's and Romania's? Well, we'd end up with Yugoslavia and civil war instead of VWs and Beck's.