Iraqis Want Saddam's Old U.S. Friends on Trial

[clk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20040120/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_trial_dc

Some Iraqis want to see American leaders on trial, since the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

[The idea]

Even bigger than the Iraq-Iran war was the second World War. If Stalin had lost political control after the second World War and been put on trial in Moscow, then would you say that, because the US supported the USSR during that war, it would be a good idea to put American leaders on trial along with Stalin?

[Tmy]

I say we put all of Iraq on trial. After all those years them losers couldnt beat Iran?!? Whats up with that?

Iraq can never get the job done. Theyre the Philadephia Eagles of the mid east.

[clk]

Originally posted by The idea
Even bigger than the Iraq-Iran war was the second World War. If Stalin had lost political control after the second World War and been put on trial in Moscow, then would you say that, because the US supported the USSR during that war, it would be a good idea to put American leaders on trial along with Stalin?

First of all, I never said that I agreed or disagreed with the statements by the Iraqis in the story. However, I'm afraid that I don't agree with your analogy. Hitler was actively waging war on all of the countries around him, and he was slowly taking over Europe. If he had not been stopped, the world would be a much, much, different place today. I think it's a stretch to compare a 1980s Iran to an early 1940s Germany.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by clk
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20040120/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_trial_dc

Some Iraqis want to see American leaders on trial, since the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

Just Americans, huh?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by clk
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20040120/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_trial_dc

Some Iraqis want to see American leaders on trial, since the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

So did French, so did Germans, so did USSR, etc. Yes everyone in the world is responsible for the problems with the world, I'm sure it's a shocking revelation too.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by clk
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=1&u=/nm/20040120/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_trial_dc

Some Iraqis want to see American leaders on trial, since the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

Another weird legal thing is that the last I heard (it has been a few days, so my data may be out date since things flip-flop so quickly with stuff like this) is that Saddam Hussein is to be treated as a Prisoner of War.

If so, that means he cannot be executed (unless he did a capital crime while he was a prisoner, which seems rather unlikely) and that he should be sent back Iraq once the war is over (presumably June 30, 2004 when Iraq is returned to the Iraqis).

However, the people who have been sitting in Camp X-Ray for over two years now, without charges, without representation, and incommunicado, can be executed by the same organization that is responsible for their defense (if and when it is allowed).

Go figure, huh?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So did French, so did Germans, so did USSR, etc. Yes everyone in the world is responsible for the problems with the world, I'm sure it's a shocking revelation too.


A revelation, no. Shocking, yes ...

Anyway, what's wrong with making (all) the nations who have helped Saddam commit his crimes answerable to the victims ?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Flo



A revelation, no. Shocking, yes ...

Anyway, what's wrong with making (all) the nations who have helped Saddam commit his crimes answerable to the victims ?

Nothing, but I'm going to need to know how you define "helped Saddam commit his crimes" before I can truly answer that question.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Another weird legal thing is that the last I heard (it has been a few days, so my data may be out date since things flip-flop so quickly with stuff like this) is that Saddam Hussein is to be treated as a Prisoner of War.

If so, that means he cannot be executed (unless he did a capital crime while he was a prisoner, which seems rather unlikely) and that he should be sent back Iraq once the war is over (presumably June 30, 2004 when Iraq is returned to the Iraqis).

However, the people who have been sitting in Camp X-Ray for over two years now, without charges, without representation, and incommunicado, can be executed by the same organization that is responsible for their defense (if and when it is allowed).

Go figure, huh?

The country that holds him can’t execute him as a POW, however he can be executed by the country he "served" in. To US he's a prisoner of war, but to Iraqis, who are going to put him on trial he's a...well a very bad word.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Nothing, but I'm going to need to know how you define "helped Saddam commit his crimes" before I can truly answer that question.

I would like to see all involved countries questioned on their help into fiscal evasion, providing means for biological/chemical warfare, or instructing his special police units, etc.

I think Iraqi grievances about our not listening when, years ago, they denounced Saddam for the monster he was, or for not toppling him in 1991, should be addressed too.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Flo


I would like to see all involved countries questioned on their help into fiscal evasion, providing means for biological/chemical warfare, or instructing his special police units, etc.

I think Iraqi grievances about our not listening when, years ago, they denounced Saddam for the monster he was, or for not toppling him in 1991, should be addressed too.

That trial would take forever. And if you have any grievances about our not helping Iraqis, take it up with the UN who decided that 1991 coalition shouldn't be in the business of toppling.

[American]

Originally posted by clk

Some Iraqis want to see American leaders on trial, since the US supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.


While liberals supported him during the most recent war and still do to this day.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That trial would take forever.

Oh, I'm sure it would, whatever the charges. Mostly because those on trial would do all they can to make it so.

And if you have any grievances about our not helping Iraqis, take it up with the UN who decided that 1991 coalition shouldn't be in the business of toppling.

Sure. Now, refresh my memory, who were the members of the UN security council taking the decision ? Or was the UN an alien body from outer space at the time ?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Flo


Sure. Now, refresh my memory, who were the members of the UN security council taking the decision ? Or was the UN an alien body from outer space at the time ?

So whom should they go after? UN, the country who voted, the person who voted, the legislative or parliamentary system that agree with a vote, the population of a country that elected those people who made the vote?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So whom should they go after? UN, the country who voted, the person who voted, the legislative or parliamentary system that agree with a vote, the population of a country that elected those people who made the vote?

Who?

duh (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=americans&sa=N&tab=wi)

[Tmy]

Geez who hasnt commited a war crime. I pretty sure I torched a refugee camp and I might have looted a national archive here and there. Stuff happens.

Whos next on the trendy war crime wagon??? I hear Churchills parrot is still alive. STRING IT UP!

[Flo]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So whom should they go after? UN, the country who voted, the person who voted, the legislative or parliamentary system that agree with a vote, the population of a country that elected those people who made the vote?


I already agreed that a trial would take forever because those who might have to answer embarassing questions have already figured out how not to: first rule is to make sure responsibility can never be precisely attributed to anyone in particular ... :rolleyes:



Aerocontrols: I ascribe as much blame to my government (France) as to others involved, and I'm not referring to the current war.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Tmy
Geez who hasnt commited a war crime. I pretty sure I torched a refugee camp and I might have looted a national archive here and there. Stuff happens.

Yes, and since the time this has been going on, those flipping natives should have gotten used to it. Get over it, I say ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by American



While liberals supported him during the most recent war and still do to this day.
Can you name one?

As usual you have problems with the "with us or against us" thingy...

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool

Can you name one?

As usual you have problems with the "with us or against us" thingy...

Does Sean Penn count? What about "human shields"? I don't know if he's or they are liberals but their actions were in support of Saddam's regime.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Flo



I already agreed that a trial would take forever because those who might have to answer embarassing questions have already figured out how not to: first rule is to make sure responsibility can never be precisely attributed to anyone in particular ... :rolleyes:


Yes, well you have to start with the fact that UN's job is to protect nations, not people. So I guess you can all trace the blame onto whoever came up with UN and put him (or her) on trial.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Does Sean Penn count? What about "human shields"? I don't know if he's or they are liberals but their actions were in support of Saddam's regime.
I think this is a fair example of what I'm talking about.

Lets take Sean Penn for example...This first point I'd like to make the point and you probably (my guess) agree. The guy is an actor, His opinions on middle east politics are as useful as any other actors opinions. The only statements I have seen from Mr Penn are statements critisizing Bush, republicans, Republican policies, American govenment actions etc.... I have never seen him praising Saddam or apologising for Saddam.

Now is simply critisizing American actions supporting Saddam? No. My opinion is that this is classic "for us or against us" falacy. If I Critisize allied bombing of Civilian populations in WW2 it is not expressing support for Nazism. If I was to critisize a police officer for bashing a drunk driver it is not supporting drink driving.

Now to the "human shields" Firstly, Anyone who enters a warzone to conduct a protest is possibly loopy anyway...but hey, its a free country.

Were these human shields shielding Saddam palace? were they shielding Baath party infrastrucure? Were they shielding Iraqi defence systems? No....they were shielding civilians and civilian infastructure, schools, water pumping stations, hospitals. I know that Australian shields told the Iraqis to shove it and came home when the Iraqis tried to dictate where they would go.

Statements like " While liberals supported him during the most recent war and still do to this day." from "American" are just trolling...I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to offer any evidence to support such a silly generalisation.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool

I think this is a fair example of what I'm talking about.

Lets take Sean Penn for example...This first point I'd like to make the point and you probably (my guess) agree. The guy is an actor, His opinions on middle east politics are as useful as any other actors opinions. The only statements I have seen from Mr Penn are statements critisizing Bush, republicans, Republican policies, American govenment actions etc.... I have never seen him praising Saddam or apologising for Saddam.

Now is simply critisizing American actions supporting Saddam? No. My opinion is that this is classic "for us or against us" falacy. If I Critisize allied bombing of Civilian populations in WW2 it is not expressing support for Nazism. If I was to critisize a police officer for bashing a drunk driver it is not supporting drink driving.

Now to the "human shields" Firstly, Anyone who enters a warzone to conduct a protest is possibly loopy anyway...but hey, its a free country.

Were these human shields shielding Saddam palace? were they shielding Baath party infrastrucure? Were they shielding Iraqi defence systems? No....they were shielding civilians and civilian infastructure, schools, water pumping stations, hospitals. I know that Australian shields told the Iraqis to shove it and came home when the Iraqis tried to dictate where they would go.

Statements like " While liberals supported him during the most recent war and still do to this day." from "American" are just trolling...I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to offer any evidence to support such a silly generalisation.

Well I'm no supporter of American or his opinions, my post was merely a question with an attempt to describe their actions. Perhaps human shields never did try to protect Saddam or his property, but by going there they would make it tougher to conduct war -- human shields easily turn to human hostages or worse could have been killed by Saddam's people and blamed on US. If they were really for support of civilians their efforts would be far better spent on outsting Saddam who as we know was no humanitarian.


I have no problem with people who criticize US and even peacefully protest against the war, I may disagree with them but that's just me expressing my opinion I will never call them traitors for it or Saddam supporters. My problem with Sean Penn, for example, is that he went to Iraq and showed how nice it was how children are happy, some handicapped people from the last war. He said that if we were to go to Iraq we would be hurting and killing many people. Once again, where's the concern for victims of Saddam's dictatorship? So it's not that difficult to draw a conclusion that he supports Saddam's regime compared to anything US would do; he's content to keep him in power and only removed by the Iraqi people.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Grammatron

...
I don't know if he's or they are liberals but their actions were in support of Saddam's regime.
They were in support of Iraqi civilians.

As in no war that killed close to 10,000 Iraqi civilians now.

Devising the overturning of Saddam's regime without killing 10,000 Iraqi civilians hasn't been proposed by Bush in U.N. or in U.S..

What Bush proposed in U.N. and U.S. instead was to take out Saddam's WMDs, to which the world said 'What WMDs?'.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well I'm no supporter of American or his opinions, my post was merely a question with an attempt to describe their actions. Perhaps human shields never did try to protect Saddam or his property, but by going there they would make it tougher to conduct war


I doubt if the american military would have known or cared where human shields are... They don't target schools and hospitals so how are human shields standing there going to make any difference. Stray "precision" bombs hitting a school or hospital is going to be a PR disaster anyway...human shields or not.



-- human shields easily turn to human hostages or worse could have been killed by Saddam's people and blamed on US.

well, I wouldn't put it past him. As it turned out some of the Australian "shields" got mighty nervous when thier papers were confiscated after they refused to go where the Baath party wanted them to go.... They got out before the war started, If they had not they would have been under the complete control of whatever local yokel was in charge of thier immediate location once central control breaks down....they could have easily "disappeared" into the apocalypse or confusion.


I have no problem with people who criticize US and even peacefully protest against the war, I may disagree with them but that's just me expressing my opinion I will never call them traitors for it or Saddam supporters. My problem with Sean Penn, for example, is that he went to Iraq and showed how nice it was how children are happy, some handicapped people from the last war. He said that if we were to go to Iraq we would be hurting and killing many people. Once again, where's the concern for victims of Saddam's dictatorship? So it's not that difficult to draw a conclusion that he supports Saddam's regime compared to anything US would do; he's content to keep him in power and only removed by the Iraqi people.

There is a place for humanising the people under the bombs. It helps balance out the "surgical precision" garbage.

In the end I will always fall on the side of the principle that 3rd party imposed solutions are temporary at best. If there was a groundswell of Iraqi anti saddam feeling lets support that. Iraqis are never going to accept foreign rule or a foreign imposed puppet government. We have learned this lesson many times before, why is it constantly repeated...

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
I say we put all of Iraq on trial. After all those years them losers couldnt beat Iran?!? Whats up with that?

Iraq can never get the job done. Theyre the Philadephia Eagles of the mid east.

and damned if Bush ain't calling Hussein the middle-eastern Donovan McNabb. More hype than ability. Can't make the big plays in the big games. Oh wait, that's racist, isn't it, but to whom?;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Fool
In the end I will always fall on the side of the principle that 3rd party imposed solutions are temporary at best. If there was a groundswell of Iraqi anti saddam feeling lets support that. Iraqis are never going to accept foreign rule or a foreign imposed puppet government. We have learned this lesson many times before, why is it constantly repeated...


I disagree entirely on this point. We have done the same thing in Japan where we turn the country and its ideals upside-down. And although it took many years, it took hold and I don't see any chance of it crumbling any time soon. In fact, to say Iraqis will never support that is quite racist of you -- I'm not even joking ala Troll -- the people over there are humans just like you and me and want freedom more than oppression.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I disagree entirely on this point. We have done the same thing in Japan where we turn the country and its ideals upside-down. And although it took many years, it took hold and I don't see any chance of it crumbling any time soon. In fact, to say Iraqis will never support that is quite racist of you -- I'm not even joking ala Troll -- the people over there are humans just like you and me and want freedom more than oppression.

It took hold because the government was rapidly and efficiently turned over to the Japanese, If the Government was staffed with americans or American appointed Japanese I think there would have been significant resistance to it... On the Iraq side, it is vital that ASAP a national government is in place that is from the Iraqi people, determined by the Iraqi people......Patsies appointed by an outsider will not achieve anything. This government has to have real power, it is going to make decisions the Americans don't like....If it is a lame duck government beholding to the whitehouse it will be rejected by the people. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam when I was told to go and defend the vietnamese when i actuality I was being asked to defend a puppet government attempting to rule the vietnamese after a foreign supported coup...

It seemed to me the vast majority of Iraqis were very happy indeed to see the exit of saddam....They will even be happy to accept interim rule by a foreign power for the sake of personal safety...Once they are comfortable that America is not going to abandon them to the Baath party for a second time they are going to want self determination....Its not going to take long either. The "end of saddam" celebrations are already long over, it is now "why are we being ruled by foreigners" time.

[epepke]

I have no problem with that. I never liked any of those buggers anyway. A little Hot Plate Heaven at the Green Hotel would do a lot of those Reaganites and Bushies a power of good.

While we're at it, I say we charge all mothers of convicted criminals. Especially those who continue to insist, "He really is a nice boy."

[AlH]

Originally posted by The Fool
It took hold because the government was rapidly and efficiently turned over to the Japanese

From http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Occupied-Japan

After its defeat in World War II, Japan was occupied by Allied troops, almost solely provided by the United States, from 1945 until 1952.

The US (mainly) occupied Japan for seven(7) years. The US has occupied Iraq for about one(1) year.


From http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Japan

The country's constitution took effect on May 3, 1947.

Almost two(2) years after the "end of hostilities"..

The United States and 45 other Allied nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan in September 1951. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in March 20, 1952, and under the terms of the treaty, Japan regained full sovereignty on April 28, 1952.

Almost seven(7) years after the "end of hostilities".

[Graham]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yes, well you have to start with the fact that UN's job is to protect nations, not people. So I guess you can all trace the blame onto whoever came up with UN and put him (or her) on trial.

That's not a fact actually, it's a misperception.

The UN's actual job is:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples

Nothing in there about saving nations . . .

Graham

[The Fool]

Originally posted by AlH


From http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Occupied-Japan



The US (mainly) occupied Japan for seven(7) years. The US has occupied Iraq for about one(1) year.


From http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Japan



Almost two(2) years after the "end of hostilities"..



Almost seven(7) years after the "end of hostilities".

I agree totally with all the facts you present. I have said that Iraq has to be handed back to Iraqi rule ASAP. I didn't say and don't think that troops should have be withdrawn already. To take your ball and go home now would leave a dangerous hole that someone would most likely sieze apon..... But what is the timetable here? The examples of when the US pulled out of Japan relates to when troops finally left. Practical everyday government had been in the hands of Japanese long before that date. The first Post war general election in Japan was on Apr 10 1946 about 4 or 5 months after the end of the war....... So I think we should separate the issue of military withdrawal from home rule....

[demon]

Iraqi court to try Saddam
by
Saturday 31 January 2004 7:19 PM GMT

Governing Council is setting up a court to try the ousted leader

Ousted President Saddam Hussein remains in Iraq and will be handed over to a special court being set up by the US-appointed Governing Council.

The former Iraqi leader will face charges of genocide and invasion of neighbouring countries, US occupation chief Paul Bremer said in an interview published on Saturday.

"Saddam is in Iraq now, and yes he will be tried publicly by a special Iraqi court when the prerequisites for setting up such a court are completed," Bremer told the Arabic-language daily al-Sharq al-Awsat.

"The Governing Council has started setting up the special court and we have spent some funds on that and he (Saddam) will be tried publicly after bringing charges of mass killing and invading neighbouring countries against him."

"Saddam will be handed over to the Governing Council after it finishes setting up the court," Bremer said.

'Uncooperative' prisoner

Asked if Saddam was cooperating with investigators, Bremer replied: "He is not cooperating, but he is not a troublemaker either."

"He has not given us any important or useful information up to now and has not confessed to the whereabouts of his offshore funds, but we know for sure that he has a lot of money outside Iraq."

He told the London-based paper: "Saddam was in good health as shown by recent medical exams." But no new photographs of him will be released before his trial, nor will any interviews be allowed.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has insisted on its right to interview Saddam, who was reportedly captured by US military on 13 December and confirmed enemy prisoner of war on 10 January.

ICRC spokeswoman Nada Doumani told AFP last week that Saddam could not be tried in Iraq until the country regained its sovereignty owing to Geneva Conventions restrictions.

You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/130B8C35-9CDD-40A6-AB28-B2B546C28A2D.htm
__________________________________________________ __

13 years of sanctions and bombings and one to one and a half million lives lost as a result. The US & UK, of course, always blamed Saddam although, interestingly there seems to be no plans to charge him with these deaths.
It would be really difficult, even for our amnesiac media, to focus on the regime's crimes over the last decade without our own very much greater ones coming to light.

[clk]

It's true that a trial of foreign leaders who supported Saddam would be impractical and unrealistic. But I think one of the main points brought up by the story is the hypocrisy of the US. Currently, alot of people are justifying the war on Iraq based on the fact that the US freed the Iraqi people. The Republicans are doing this because there are no WMDs, so they can't claim that it was proper to go to war because Iraq was a threat to the US. The hypocrisy now comes into play, because the US supported Saddam in the 80s, and didn't care at that time when he brutalized his own people. Remember the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? So why does the US care about the Iraqis, all of a sudden? The answer is that they don't, and they never have. Is this wrong? Not really....I mean, I don't think there is single country in the world that really gives a damn about people in other countries. However, it is wrong to claim that the US was justified in going to war just because they freed the Iraqi people.

[American]

Liberals, who supported him for the last 13 years, should be arrested and sent to Iran.

[fishbob]

from the article:said Ali Mahdi, a builder.

"If the Americans escape justice they will face God's justice. They must be stoned in hell." Is Mahdi saying that American is stoned in hell or should be stoned in hell?

While liberals supported him during the most recent war and still do to this day. This sounds so much like posts from our own towel toting xx-rational-xx. Somebody is obviously stoned somewhere.

[epepke]

Originally posted by The Fool
It took hold because the government was rapidly and efficiently turned over to the Japanese, If the Government was staffed with americans or American appointed Japanese I think there would have been significant resistance to it.

The occupation of Japan by the US started in 1945. It ended in 1952. That's 7 years. The occupation of Iraq is less than one year old.

[LW]

Originally posted by Crossbow


If so, that means he cannot be executed (unless he did a capital crime while he was a prisoner, which seems rather unlikely) and that he should be sent back Iraq once the war is over (presumably June 30, 2004 when Iraq is returned to the Iraqis).


In my opinion the best possible course of action would be that the Iraqis themselves handled the whole trial and actually searched through their law-books to find as many laws that Saddam himself instituted that apply to the situation as possible and then convict him based on them.

That would have some poetic justice in it. [Like what happened here in early 30s when the fascist Lapua Movement was banned under the very same law that they had aggressively lobbied for several years earlier.]

[demon]

Saddam Reportedly Complying With U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4455-2004Feb1.html

"Complying with the US?"...Yes, throughout the 1980s too, they forgot to mention that.