Saddam's in his final hours....sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-12-29
In Reply to:
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The official witnesses to Saddam Hussein's impending execution gathered Friday in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone in final preparation for his hanging, as state television broadcast footage of his regime's atrocities.
With U.S. forces on high alert for a surge in violence, the Iraqi government readied all the necessary documents, including a red card - an execution order introduced during Saddam's dictatorship. As the hour of his death approached, Saddam received two of his half brothers in his cell on Thursday and was said to have given them his personal belongings and a copy of his will.
Najeeb al-Nueimi, a member of Saddam's legal team in Doha, Qatar, said he too requested a final meeting with the deposed Iraqi leader. His daughter in Amman was crying, she said 'Take me with you,' al-Nueimi said late Friday. But he said their request was rejected.
An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST. Also to be hanged at that time were Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, the adviser said.
The time was agreed upon during a meeting Friday between U.S. and Iraqi officials, said the adviser, who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.
Saddam will be handed over shortly before the execution, the official said. The physical transfer of Saddam from U.S. to Iraqi authorities was believed to be one of the last steps before he was to be hanged. Saddam has been in U.S. custody since he was captured in December 2003.
Al-Nueimi said U.S. authorities were maintaining physical custody of Saddam to prevent him from being humiliated before his execution. He said the Americans also want to prevent the mutilation of his corpse, as has happened to other deposed Iraqi leaders.
The Americans want him to be hanged respectfully, al-Nueimi said. If Saddam is humiliated publicly or his corpse ill-treated that could cause an uprising and the Americans would be blamed, he said.
Munir Haddad, a judge on the appeals court that upheld Saddam's death sentence, said he was ready to attend the hanging and that all the paperwork was in order, including the red card.
All the measures have been done, Haddad said. There is no reason for delays.
As American and Iraqi officials met in Baghdad to set the hour of his death, Saddam's lawyers asked a U.S. judge for a stay of execution.
Saddam's lawyers issued a statement Friday calling on everybody to do everything to stop this unfair execution. The statement also said the former president had been transferred from U.S. custody, though American and Iraqi officials later denied that.
Al-Maliki said opposing Saddam's execution was an insult to his victims. His office said he made the remarks in a meeting with families of people who died during Saddam's rule.
Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence, al-Maliki said.
State television ran footage of the Saddam era's atrocities, including images of uniformed men placing a bomb next to a youth's chest and blowing him up in what looked like a desert, and handcuffed men being thrown from a high building.
About 10 people registered to attend the hanging gathered in the Green Zone before they were to go to the execution site, the Iraqi official said.
Those cleared to attend the execution included a Muslim cleric, lawmakers, senior officials and relatives of victims of Saddam's brutal rule, the official said. He did not disclose the location of the gallows.
Raed Juhi, spokesman for the High Tribunal court that convicted Saddam, said documents related to the execution would be read to Saddam before the execution. The documents included the red card, al-Maliki's signed approval of the sentence and the appeal court's decision.
On Thursday, two half brothers visited Saddam in his cell, a member of the former dictator's defense team, Badee Izzat Aref, told The Associated Press by telephone from the United Arab Emirates. He said the former dictator handed them his personal belongings.
A senior official at the Iraqi defense ministry also confirmed the meeting and said Saddam gave his will to one of his half brothers. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
Saddam's lawyers later issued a statement saying the Americans gave permission for his belongings to be retrieved.
An Iraqi appeals court upheld Saddam's death sentence Tuesday for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate him in the northern Iraqi city of Dujail in 1982. The court said the hanging should take place within 30 days.
There had been disagreements among Iraqi officials in recent days as to whether Iraqi law dictates the execution must take place within 30 days and whether President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies had to approve it.
In his Friday sermon, a mosque preacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf called Saddam's execution God's gift to Iraqis.
Oh, God, you know what Saddam has done! He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighboring countries and he is responsible for mass graves, said Sheik Sadralddin al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as SCIRI, a dominant party in al-Maliki's coalition. Oh God, we ask you to take revenge on Saddam.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
final result
I think pretty much this debate was McCain's best hope. His strength, according to most, is foreign policy. I thought that all O really needed to do was avoid being seen as weak on foreign affairs. He more than lived up to that. The clear frontrunner is O. This debate did not change that. The next two pres debates will show O's strengths and Mc weaknesses. The Sarah/Joe debate is going to be high theatre. I am so looking forward to that one.
Another point. I don't get all misty when Mc tells his bracelet/POW stories. I think they are blatant attempts at pulling emotional strings and I cringe when anyone, anywhere tries to manipulate me. I am saying he uses stories for his benefit instead of feeling them. So as far as I am concerned they backfire.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Final Palin segment
I was very impressed with Charlie Gibson. I am not an ABC news watcher, so I did not know what to expect. He brought up all the important issues involved in the contradictions between Maverick and Reformer claims including per diem, keeping the money from bridge to nowhere, lobbyists for Alaska, abuse of power in Troopergate, etc. I thought he allowed her to expose her lack of knowledge on foreign affairs. I thought he, for the most part, keep questioning her on points when she tried to evade questions by throwing out the slogans and talking points.
The one point that I had not heard before was the fact that the sendoff for the soldiers she staged in Alaska was timed to be on 9/11 for the publicity, and that the soldiers were not in fact going to leave for 2 to 3 more weeks.
All in all, I thought it was a good introduction of the actual Sarah Palin. When you add the tape of McCain disparaging mayors and short-time governors, it was a definitive package for those who have not yet made up their minds in this election.
Head in the sand....final thoughts
You said: I am truly sorry that any of you on the right equate not wanting to fight, not wanting to kill, eshewing revenge shrouded as justice and preferring diplomacy to preemptive attacks with **lily-liveredness.**
My answer: First of all, to say that going into Iraq was revenge does a huge disservice to the people who died on 9-11 and to the soldiers who have died in Iraq since. I think a statement like that is unconsciable. It is your right to say it, my right to disagree strongly, which I do. I have a hard time understanding how any American could think that.
Second, I have never referred to anyone as lily-livered. No one WANTS to kill. You and the left keep saying that like Republicans or anyone NOT liberal (sound familiar?) WANTS to kill. That is just nuts. However, some people do believe that our way of life, our country, are worth dying for or killing for if necessary. That being said, for diplomacy to work, both sides have to be interested in a peaceful outcome. In what alternate reality do you imagine that Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, Al-Zawahiri, the Taliban, or ANY terrorist would be interested in a peaceful outcome, when their stated purpose is the destruction of the United States and Israel, and eventually anything not Muslim? Where in there do you see ANY room for diplomacy? THAT is what I mean when I (not others who post, I cannot speak for them) say *head in the sand.* Do you actually believe that diplomacy will work with these people? I do not for the life of me understand how you can look at the history of terrorist attacks, their escalation, and say that somehow talking with these people will make a difference. Perhaps you can clue me in on the possibility that you see in diplomatically stopping the terrorist threat? How that could possibly happen? I would be willing to listen.
You said: I see those as strength of character, the courage of conviction and fairhandness.
I say: Strength of character is also standing tall and saying *your plan of terrorizing and separating this country and her people will not work. If you plan to attack us, know that we will fight back.* Strength of character is also not kowtowing to bullies. Common sense tells you bullies do not respond to diplomacy. Bullies win by intimidation, sneak attacks, and fear. It is impossible to negotiate with these people, because you cannot give them what they want. Saddam violated how many UN resolutions before 9-11? His word was worthless, absolutely worthless. Simply because YOU desire that kind of diplomacy and YOU have those kinds of values, if they are absent on the other side, you might as well chop your own head off and save them the trouble. Yes, I remember how you said you did not fear having your head chopped off. The trouble is, it is not just YOU they are after, and your seeming lack of caring for what happens to your country and other Americans is pretty darn scary. THAT is what I mean when I say the left has become about me, me, me and the heck with the rest of you. And look at Kim Jong Il and Admadinejad...diplomacy is really working with them, isn't it? When are you and the left going to learn, for it to work both sides have to WANT it to work.
Please demonstrate to me how terrorists will respond to courage of conviction or fair-handedness. When did they ever show fair-handedness? They make cowardly craven attacks designed to murder as many as possible in one strike. There is no courage or fair-handedness in 9-11, in the Achille Lauro, in Beirut marine bombing, in the Cole, and the gazillion suicide bombings over the years, the embassy bombings...where in ANY of that do you think diplomacy would work? They are not of a country with whom you CAN negotiate. And you are willing to just keep the courage of your convictions, even knowing there is no possibility that will work, and allow yourself AND your fellow Americans who might not be like-minded to be murdered? And that is okay with you? No, sorry, I will NEVER understand that.
You said: No need for you to comment on this because I already know **I have my head in the sand** and do not need to hear you tell me again what a naive person I am, but they are my beliefs and I honor them and are proud of them because, no matter what happens, they are good and decent values and Iraq will not change my mind or my values.
I say: I do not believe you are naive. I believe you just choose to ignore and or rationalize what does not fit with your stated ideals, and I believe you have some noble ideas, and perhaps with a strong charactered, fair-handed enemy those ideals would be fruitful. They are not. They are the antithesis of strong character and fair-handedness.
But, I am sure you will be relieved to hear, I get it. I will not be foisting my opinion on you any longer, because as you say, there is no changing your mind, which is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. As married as you are to your ideals, multiply that by about a gazillion and you know how the terrorists are married to their ideals. THEY are not going to change THEIR minds either, and we are NOT going to change THEIR minds by talking to them about strength of character and fair-mindedness.
And the rest of the story is that as long as there are still some Americans like us remaining, who are willing to go to the mat for America and ALL Americans, perhaps you will not ever have to give up the country and the way of life that let you form and hold those ideals.
You're welcome.
God bless.
never say cinch till the final tally is in!
x
She didn't have to be leading going into the final round to win, obviously!
There wouldn't be much point in the final round otherwise, would there? All five contestants in the final round are there because they have high enough scores that any of them can win.
About the same damage Clinton did in his final months after the election (NM)
x
Final roll call House on bailout bill. sm
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml
Please print it and remember those who voted to pick your pocket. They are clearly operating outside the consent of the people.
she's here 18 hours a day
7 days a week. Takes a 6 hour break to hang from the rafters in the attic.
I don't think bar hours ...(sm)
are really the issue. If people want to get drunk they'll do that whether or not the bars are open. I think the larger issue is that so many people will be there at one time. Anytime you put that many people together (regardless of the reason) there will always be the few that act the fool.
Not if you know that there are 24 hours in a day.
Lets break this one down. If she posted in the morning, it means she get to count the hours in today. So, that means we have 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and part of 20 to get through. I have listed them so (assuming you can count to 14) you can finger count them and see that she is on the mark. Besides, If she didn't count today's hours or left out the ones on the 20th, you guys would be all over her like a cheap suit on a used car salesman telling her she is trying to jump the gun.
Could you get anymore petty than this? Suck it up. Time is short no matter how you slice it and before you know it, he will be sworn in. Deal with it and while you're at it, why can't you simply let somebody be excited and feel good about something for a change? Not all of us choose to wallow around in self pity, look on the dark side 24/7/365 and forecast the end of the world every time we open our mouths.
Why? Because he took a few hours off
Much ado about nothing.
They have to complete 40 hours of
community service each year. The district provides a list of opportunities for them to chose from. If they want to do something that is not on the list, such as initiate their own project, they simply have to have it approved beforehand to be sure it will count toward their credits. Scouting activities, NHS CS commitments, etc., all count toward this requireement.
As of 1 pm EST only 11 days and 22 hours to go
Now if we can just keep W's hands off any fountain pens, we're home free.
Only 14 more hours, and Bush will
I am so glad to say, we're dumping Bush today,
At last it's finally time, to rid us of that SLIME.
He quite unmercifully, screwed our economy,
But no more will he vex us, he's going BACK TO TEXAS!
YAAAAYYYYYYY !!!!!!!! (And good riddance, too.)
can't even MT - restrictions say he cannot sit more than 2 hours!
His restrictions are that he cannot bend, squat, lift, climb, crawl sit more than 2 hours, stand more than 2 hours...
but in that 24 hours important information
could get away. The NSA should be monitored, but 24 hours on wiretaps that need to be done right now is just not realistic for accurate intelligence gathering.
When you dial into a phone line you've just given up your right to privacy. You are not guaranteed privacy on phone lines owned by private companies. There is no privacy contract of any sort when you dial a phone. That's where the disconnect lies. Pardon the pun.
I said warrant within 24 hours of taping...sm
None taken...However the private company is providing a *service* to you and the consumer should have rights.
It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.
I posted this 12 hours ago. Did it take you that long
Little language lesson for you. Could've, as in could have....subjunctive mood, hypothetical. Go figure. The only fools here are the ones who think the hate machine is going to resurrect their tanking campaign.
Coud'a Worked 80 hours too
But after 12 years at my other much better paying job that included 22 years with the company, they eliminated all 8 of our jobs. So here I am still at Medquist and a daughter just turning 18 and not working at all. Would you believe they did this on 11/04. Then I voted for McCain. I was disillusioned with Obama even when he was still running.
!3 hours, 57 minutes and Bush will be out, out out.
How many millions and millions and millions of other children are doing the same thing? Take me for example. 64 and counting every single second.
Hey Newton - parties are after hours?
THEIR personal life and they have a household BUDGET.
4 hours a day of rocking and chanting...........
--
Children were scheduled several hours each a.m.
--
Saddam US friend
Six months after the gassing of Kurds in 1988, the White House lent Saddam a billion dollars. In 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, US troops stood idly by while Saddam's presidential guards ruthlessly suppressed the uprising by the Kurds that Poppy Bush encouraged and had called for. In 1980, Saddam was made an honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan. He was our friend back then, even though we knew his blood thirsty ways. We even supplied him with WMD, which we then destroyed with fly over bombing through the 1990's with sanctions placed on the country to weaken it even more. We also were friends with Osama in the 1970's when we had him and Afghan freedom fighters fight against Russia as we did not want Russia to have control of Afghanistan. In essence, Osama was trained by our CIA for war.
Saddam v. Bush
I agree 100%, especially after watching those videos you so kindly supplied.
We all know how terrible Saddam is. It almost hurts to write that an American president could be worse. He obviously doesn't personally care how many Americans and Iraqis he's killing over there. He doesn't care that he's created a huge deficit that didn't exist before he showed up. I thought Republicans were supposed to be in favor of no deficits and less government. He cares more about stem cells that are about to be thrown in the garbage than he does about living, breathing human Americans who are already here.
He's abrasive and arrogant, and I actually feel sorry for Tony Blair, who I think has stayed with Bush out of a sense of intense loyalty to America. Bush has put Blair's career on shaky ground.
As far as war crimes, it isn't over yet. This whole war might be deemed to be illegal. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. That is, if we all live long enough to see it and aren't killed first by terrorists as a result of his neglect in securing his own country.
Seems to me if there's a WMD anywhere, it's in Crawford, and it's George W. Bush.
Hitler vs Saddam
I remember the stories as a young girl about Saddam throwing babies up in the air and shoting them as they fall. This was during Bush Sr.'s term. There is no doubt in my mind that he was tyrannical and murderous, but from what I understand the mass murderings, chemical genocide in Iraq happened in the 80's and early 90's. The threat of the Gulf War and UN sanctioning (and I know if it's failures)had pretty much tight gripped the dictator. There was no immediate humanitarian need for action in 2003 I'm aware of.
Hitler had a well publicized plan and factory like set up to eliminate the Jews. There was an immediate need to stop him.
Saddam Hussein set the example
of how the UN's ''stern warnings'' are to be regarded. One simply ignores them and does as one wishes. In time, a ''sterner warning'' is issued, which one pays no attention to, etc. This can go on for years, the warnings becoming more and more urgent, the UN doing nothing about the situation, except hold meetings, blather and warn and sanction. The difference? Oh, NK now has nuclear weapons. Give them several years' worth of warnings and their nuclear program should progress very nicely. They may actually be able to hit something with a missile eventually.
Survey: How many hours a day do you spend on these boards? Please?! Thx. nm
.
The debate takes 2 hours. Have it in Washington if that is...sm
where McCain feels he needs to be.
That makes the 3rd time this has been posted within the last 6-8 hours (nm)
x
'a couple of hours??' Are you feeding charcoal?...nm
nm
He was signed up for Islamic teachings 4 hours
nm
Yeah, Saddam was such a little angel then
not causing a lick of problem for his people and the world. The 1990's was when he was testing chemical weapons on his OWN PEOPLE. Yep, things were just hunky dorey. Clinton was having oral sex in the oval office, and life was just one big orgy.
You mean, Bush's patience ran out with Saddam after 9/11.
Like I said, I can live in a post-Saddam world just fine, but I don't think it was America's place to invade that country and impose democracy on those people.
Basically, only the Kurds had the courage to stand up to Saddam. What are they going to do when we leave? We shouldn't be the protectors of the Iraqi people. It's not fair to Africa and all of the others who are living under brutal dictators.
Should we start sending America's troops to protect and save everyone who is living under a brutal dictator? I don't think we can.
Arabs Split Over Saddam
Arabs Split Over Saddam |
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 
CAIRO, Egypt — Across the Arab world, some watched intently as Saddam Hussein (search) went on trial Wednesday for crimes against Iraqis but others seemed not to care — a sign the former Iraqi leader still divides this region two years after his fall.
The region's influential satellite television networks, Al-Jazeera (search) and Al-Arabiya (search), carried nonstop coverage starting hours before the trial began. Pan-Arab dailies like al-Hayat also splashed the opening day on their front pages.
But Saudi Arabia's Arabic language-daily Al-Watan used the headline: Saddam's Trial: No one cares and added: The curtains have opened, the cast is ready and the audience is busy with other issues ... Even if we concede that the majority of Iraqis hate Saddam, they also hate how things have developed.
Yet in Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, feelings in support of the trial ran strong.
We have been waiting for this trial for a long time — not only us, but the Iraqi people and Iranian people as well. We say this is the end of every oppressor, said Omar Al-Murad, a 43-year-old architect.
Many Palestinians also watched closely, but with the opposite view.
Weal Naser, a 42-year-old Palestinian owner of a Gaza vegetable shop, said Palestinians can never forget Saddam's past support for their cause. At the start of the Palestinian uprising against Israel, Saddam paid $15,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, later raising it to $25,000.
He supported the martyrs' families and he helped many students in Palestine or during their studies in Iraq, he said.
Saddam is paying now the price for being a hero, for saying 'No' to America and to (President) Bush, Naser said.
If the world wants justice, as they claim, they should bring Bush and (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon to trial before Saddam.
Palestinian taxi driver Saed Souror, 32, was more ambivalent about Saddam but equally critical of the trial.
I am not a Saddam supporter, but I am against this trial because it came upon American orders, Souror said. If Saddam was a murderer, what can we call the American acts there?
Egypt's state-owned press chose to mostly ignore the trial, with a few carrying small stories inside but none putting it on the front page.
Jordan's media reported on Saddam's trial but provided no independent commentary or analysis, apparently to avoid stirring public anger already high because of opposition to the U.S. invasion.
A columnist in respected pan-Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat said the trial has lost much of its meaning because of the bloody insurgency that now attacks Iraqis daily. Some of the worst terror attacks are blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
It should have been held when Iraqis' memory was full of images of humiliation and that of tens of thousands of the victims and handicapped of the wars, Lebanese columnist Samir Attallah wrote.
Instead, he added: Al-Zarqawi has erased from the minds and hearts all the past horrors. Innocent Iraqis used to die in prison and in their homes, now the occupation resistance is killing the Iraqi innocents and their children in the streets.
In Dubai, the Gulf News paper said in an editorial that not just Saddam, but Iraq itself is on trial, to see whether its new government can rise to the occasion and give Saddam a fair hearing.
Anything less will be a permanent scar upon Iraq and its future, the paper said. |
So you think the genocidal Saddam changed
That's the real question here. Have you listened to his tirades during his circus of a trial? Anyone who believed Saddam changed from being mentally unstable genocidal megalomanic while still the dictator of Iraq has to be the most naive person on Earth. Because he is demonstrating in court that he's still a megalomanic. The U.N. gave them adequate time to straighten up and fly right, and as you know the U.N. is having major corruption problems, so any agreements we have with them are shaky at best. You are right on one statement. The war in Iraq was wayyyy overdue.
There were no terrorists in Iraq... Saddam would not have
allowed anyone other than himself to be the terror! He would have had their heads if they were amassing there as he had TOTAL control of who and what was in his country. He also kept his peoples: the Sunis, the Shiites, and the Kurds on track. He would have never let a civil war happen. As stated, he had total control, now we have unleashed, and helped to create more, infidels.
Saddam Hussein would provide anyone...
with anything if he thought it would be used to help bring down the United States and would make a "deal with the devil" (Al Qaeda) in order to attack the US, and I think anyone who thought differently would be disingenuous to say the least. Mortal enemies are often joined together by their hatred of some other entity....in this case of the United States, and Americans.
As to the 18 generals lined up behind Obama...what about the hundreds not lined up with him?
We will definitely disagree on this one.
Have a good night.
I wonder why he never threw his shoes at Saddam!
xx
I hope you all enjoy working an extra 10 or 20 hours
So you can give it to Obama to give to the people who don't work. I'd rather spend the time with my famiy.
Yeah, well, I've worked 80+ hours this week....sm
like I do every week. I've been busy watching the spell Obama has over you......so gullible. And I'll be watching to see how long it takes for you to become disillusioned.
Thousands may have been dead at the hands of Saddam anyway, what with
x
The right did not have the same venom for Saddam when Clinton was in office...sm
You should read back through some old quotes from the right when Clinton was in office. Some of the big hitters on Cap. Hill now didn't even agree with the air strikes. Go figure.
Eventually, Saddam would have killed enough of his own people sm
maybe we wouldn't have to worry about it, right? I mean, really, he was only killig his own people, so what is the problem. He was persecuting his OWN people. What a guy.
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
Aaron Glantz, OneWorld USFri Aug 25, 8:57 AM ET
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.
Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.
He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.
Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.
Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.
The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.
Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.
That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.
Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.
Saddam Hussein. © Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988.
Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.
Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.
In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.
Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.
The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.
Saddam insisted on euros for Iraq's oil. sm
About six months to a year before 911 happened, Saddam started insisting on payments for their oil in Euros instead of dollars. This did damage to the dollar. The US was furious. I remember Bush Sr. making the comment the American way of life is non-negotiable or something like that.
We hung Saddam. Remember. I'll ask again.
You are defending an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. We are NOT IN CHARGE of Iraq. Sooner or later, we have to leave. Fact: Under Saddam, a 96% Shia MAJORITY was repressed. Those would be the guys US troop literated. FACT: It will be up to the IRAQIs to decide what to do with their OWN new-found freedom to elaborate and express their Shia majority and whether or not democratic Sunni representation will be tolerated or instituted. Fact: The longer we stay there, the more sympathy and support jihadist movements will be able to garner. Fact: The war on terror cannot and will not always be a military fight. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat. Fact: This is not something the US can succeed in doing without GLOBAL cooperation...not likely to happen, given the tarnish we still wear on our own image overseas at the moment. We could use a "smooth talker" with an uncanny ablity to garner the support of his opponents at the helm...someone who is willing to try a few different approaches.
I have already addressed Ahmadinejad in a different post.
The Iraqis hung Saddam. Remember?
If we had pulled out when Obama wanted us to, the Iranian financed insurgents would have taken over and then I imagine first Iraqi Christians (and yes there are some) would be the first to be obliterated and it would have gone downhill from there. I love the way you say FACT: and then present your case. Who says it is fact?
The war on terror may not always be a military fight. But when they drop two buildings and slaughter nearly 3000 innocent people it needs to be a military fight. Why do you think we have not had another such attack?
Evil is arming Saddam and backing a war against
an enemy (in this case Khomeini's new Islamic regime) without understanding what you are doing or giving a rip about the consequences. Evil is turning around when you have no more use for the spent puppet because he went all rogue on you, assumed his own power and had the gall to defy you by controlling his own resources and proceeding to launch into impotent attempt to weaken his standing and power and bring him down, as though you are the king of the universe. Having failed that, evil is building a case for war based on lies (with the exception of the WMDs you had supplied him with 2 decades earlier), flaunting international protocol, lying to your own citizens and waging an imperial war because you do not have a clue how to solve your own problems without carnage and bloodshed. Evil is propping up a reviled, fascist apartheid state whose occupation of an entire indigenous people has been the root of the rise of the terrorism you so vehemently condemn. Evil is not being big enough to recognize your own weaknesses, take responsibility for your own screw-ups, turn a page and try other more peaceful and productive approaches to the mess you have created. Evil is manipulating your own citizens into believing your lies and propaganda for decades on end, claiming the moral high ground and turning a blind eye to the death, destruction, pain, suffering and humanitarian crises in a region you seek to control that has never and will never belong to you.
|
;)
