They got the BASTARD! (apparently)

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by Aurel
Now, we may learn a little more about weapons of mass destruction...that should be interesting.

Aurel

Aurel, you asked me a direct question on the "hate Bush" thread and I failed to answer. I wasn't stumped or ignoring you, it's just that when I got back from my trip the thread had gotten so far off where we had left it, I didn't see it as appropriate. If you still want a response I would be more than happy to comply. Sorry I missed you then.

Oh, and I too agree with your current post.

Pete

[nostatic]

as an unabashed liberal freak, I will offer that this is a big deal. No, it doesn't solve everything, or magically make mistakes disappear. But the Saddam capture is critical for the "mind share" part of the equation, both in Iraq and around the world. Perception is everything.

Hopefully they (the administration) will handle his incarceration very carefully. There is still a danger of Saddam becoming a martyr if things aren't done right.

[Aurel]

I am not too worried about him incriminating most of Europe in his crimes, even if true most would refuse to believe it. If the evidence presented so far don't convince you, nothing will.

If he did that, he would probably also incriminate the USA for providing support and WMDs during the Iran-Irak war. If well done, his trial could fire back at the US as well for complicity of mass murder.
It is just a matter of how far you want to look back in history...

Aurel

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by Aurel
If he did that, he would probably also incriminate the USA for providing support and WMDs during the Iran-Irak war. If well done, his trial could fire back at the US as well for complicity of mass murder.
It is just a matter of how far you want to look back in history...

Aurel

Okay, we sold weapons to Iraq during that time, I don't think it's news and I, well I can't defend EVERYTHING we have done in the middle east. But at that time there weren't sanctions in place and it wasn't a "crime". It's a very important distinction to be made. When was the last arms sale that we made to them? And when was the last French arms sale? Or Russian?

Again, I think this is somewhat irrelevant. I am not an advocate of "punishing" Europe here, I just want to know what their intent was EVEN IF I AM WRONG. If I am wrong, I will be more than happy to admit it. It wouldn't be the first time............

Pete

[dd74]

Are YOU ready for another four years of Bush?

I can just hear the Democratic contingent crumbling away.

[Zeke]

Originally posted by Pete Pranger
What we "do" is put him on trial for multiple offenses (war crimes, crimes against humanity, mass murder, illegal possession and use of WMD, etc, etc, etc........)and then execute him if found guilty.



Pete

Has the US dispatched any foreign war criminal in recent history? Say, since WWI?

[Aurel]

If they get Bin Laden for Easter, the dems are definitely done !

Aurel

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by Zeke
Has the US dispatched any foreign war criminal in recent history? Say, since WWI?

I think you meant WWII and in the scope of things 60 years is considered "recent history". To answer your question, I don't believe so, but we aren't really charting new territory here. This shouldn't be a US v. Saddam, but more of an international trial. I personally don't think Iraq is the proper venue for this, I think that might be more vengeance than justice. I just want justice.

Pete

[Zeke]

No, I meant WWI. I don't know of any precedent to executing a foreign national convicted by the US of war crimes. I just said since WWI to be safe. Actually, I don't know of the US executing anyone of a foreign country even back to Revolutionary War times, but I'm sure we must have.

[Pete Pranger]

I am envisioning something similar to the nuremburg trials. Many Nazis were tried convicted and sentenced by an international tribunal. This isn't really any different. Do you see it differently?

Pete

[thamlin000]

News reports claim (Fox, so I know it is reliable) that when saddam was captured in his little fox hole, he had a pistol next to him. After calling on all Iraqis to kill all the liberating soldiers from the armed forces, it is ironic that saddam did nothing to fight off capture.

Actually, it is not ironic at all. It shows his true charactor. Calling on others to do his dirty work.

I'm glad he went down the way he did and that he is still alive. Now he will rot in prison, and never be a martyr.

[350HP930]

It would be great if they did put saddam on trial for all of his crimes against the iraqi people, but that might be easier said than done now that many of saddam's evil henchmen are working for the US occupation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain586841.shtml

. . . . .

Even though Ambassador Paul Bremer is on record saying that no high-ranking members of Saddam's old Baath Party will hold power in Iraq, in Karbala, the U.S. government is cooperating with Gen. Abud and has put him in charge of a well-armed force – even though he is a Baathist.

“The decision is Mr. Bremer's. He's the decision maker and he can make an exception,” says Abud.

Neither Ambassador Bremer nor the Marines would discuss any aspect of their role in Karbala.

One of the arguments the U.S. government has made is that they need trained people to help them restore order in the country. And the trained people are those who are former Baath Party members.

“Some of these people, what they are really actually doing are recruiting the newly organized Baathist apparatus back into the force,” says Shahristani, who adds that the people are extremely concerned about this. “People feel vulnerable.”

They feel vulnerable because some of the same people who jailed, tortured and informed on them are once again in a position of authority: carrying weapons, communications equipment and driving official vehicles.

One of the reasons Karbala has been relatively peaceful since the invasion is that Shi'ite religious figures have ordered people to be calm and cooperate with U.S. authorities.

But Sheik Abdul Mehdi Salami - the top Muslim cleric in Karbala - is losing patience.

“They all have to be taken out of management. We don't need them. The Americans issued exemptions to some Baathists. This is not right,” says Abdul Mehdi.

Is it possible that the Americans just were ignorant when they first came in? That they didn't know who to talk to?

“They might not have known at the beginning. But later on the picture became clearer,” says Abdul Mehdi.

“The Baath Party is reorganizing itself. They are getting financial support from Saddam's inner circles who are still loose, and they are holding meetings to organize their activities,” adds Shahristani.

Not only have the Americans installed Saddam loyalists in the police department, they have tried to arrest two people selected by Karbala's leaders to serve on the city council.

Akram al Zubaidi was appointed to be the city's spokesman and he had spent 11 years in Saddam's prisons. Yet when he complained to the Americans about the new police chief and the way they were trying to run the city, U.S. forces tried to arrest him. He managed to escape.

He’s now a fugitive on the run. He says that more than 15 American soldiers raided his house in the middle of the night. He also says that his crime was doing the job the leaders of Karbala had asked him to do.

“My crime is that I was 100 percent honest,” says al Zubaidi, who claims this made him a troublemaker. “That's the way they saw me. I was telling them everything. And I was very honest with them and I thought that was democracy. And then, I realized democracy is only allowed in your country and not in ours.”

Why is this happening?

“The U.S. officers in charge of the city have never explained to the people why they've arrested these people,” says Shahristani. “They only told the city council that they have good reasons for these arrests, which they are not going to share with them.”

Nor would U.S. authorities share them with 60 Minutes.

Najeeb al Shami was the city councilor in charge of security in Karbala before the Marines took over and installed a Saddam loyalist in his place. Al Shami, who has a heart condition, was arrested by the Americans as an enemy prisoner of war, and cleared after it was determined that there was no evidence that he had committed belligerent acts against coalition forces.

His son, Ahmed, says al Shami was rearrested a few days later and taken to Abu Ghrieb Prison. When Ahmed went to the prison with a lawyer, he says they were turned away: “It is forbidden for any lawyers, humanitarian organizations, or any member of his family to visit him.”

What is he charged with?

“We don't know. Abu Ghrieb is a very big complex,” says Shahristani.

60 Minutes went off to Abu Ghreib with Shahristani to see if we could get some information. Shahristani had once spent nearly 4,000 days in solitary confinement under Saddam in Abu Ghrieb. As it turns out, he was lucky. The cells just outside the execution chamber still bear the names of those who got the gallows.

“Most people just left their names. This guy is Jawad al-Abadi. It's a big family. And this guy is Jawadi Malek,” says Shahristani. “Everybody was executed.”

“When the execution was complete from, with the hanging, the ropes were removed from the individual,” says Brigadier Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th MP Brigade. He’s now the American officer in charge of Abu Ghreib. “We've been told that they were gassed until the execution was complete.”

Gen. Karpinski assured 60 Minutes that Abu Ghreib is a much different place now than it was when Saddam was running it. Prisoners were well fed and taken care of. Most of them, she said, were common criminals, and that everyone here was allowed visits with their families and lawyers. A few, she said, were being held for "crimes against the coalition," but no one was being held without charges.

When asked about al Shami, who was originally classified as an enemy prisoner of war, Karpinski said she didn’t recognize the name. “We have several thousand prisoners here,” she says.

She also said that it was unlikely that his family and lawyers have not been able to get information about al Shami or visit him in Abu Ghreib.

Is it possible to find out whether he is here?

“We can, with this information, we can find out what the circumstances are, sure,” says Karpinski.

But are there people here who are being held without charges? “No. We have prisoners in all of our facilities who, I mean there's nobody being held for no reason,” says Karpinski. “There's foundation or, or charges for all of our prisoners.”

60 Minutes followed Gen. Karpinski to the computer room and waited. She had told us that all prisoners were charged after an initial 72-hour processing period. But Najeeb al Shami had been in Abu Ghreib for more than a month.

Finally, she was able to find him.

“We've located the individual you were asking about and the process for him, the in-processing portion is not completed yet, and I've been asked not to release any additional information because his in-processing is not completed yet,” says Karpinski.

Obviously, Kroft said, it’s taken a lot longer than 72 hours to process al Shami’s case.

60 Minutes was then asked to turn off the camera. Gen. Karpinski told us that al Shami was "suspected of crimes against the coalition," and had not yet been charged, and would not necessarily be allowed access to his family and lawyers.

Later that day, we received written answers from U.S. Central Command to our requests to find out what happened to the city councilor. On the question of family visits, it said: "To date we have not allowed our civilian security internees to receive visitors." And added, "We do not discuss their cases publicly."

Two months after al Shami was jailed at Abu Ghreib, there are still no charges against him.

Gen. Karpinski said al Shami had been turned in by another Iraqi. We asked the Karbala police chief, Gen. Abbas, a 24-year veteran of Saddam's forces, if he had turned in the city councilor.

“How could it be me,” he said.

In Karbala, hopes for war crimes trials and representative democracy are fading, and it is not clear whether Iraqis will ever be able to vote in an American-style election.

If U.S. forces impose a government rather than allowing Iraqis to elect one, Dr. Shahristani says he fears the worst: “If that process doesn't happen, God only knows what will be the consequences of such a move.”

[pwd72s]

May I humbly suggest that we tie him to the back of Curt's Cayenne, and drag him? Ahhh, on 2nd thought, a Hummer would work as well.

[island911]

Wow, great news.

The lib's should feel fortunate Saddam was captured alive.

I predict that Saddam will stretch reality as needed to take out Bush43 politically. (the assasination attempt on Bush 41 failed, after all)

This will play well with the over zealous Bush haters looking for any obfuscated reality which supports an Anti-Bush stance.

. . .even if it means Saddam is their buddy.

[350HP930]

When it comes to saddam's buddies this pick comes to mind.



http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by 350HP930
When it comes to saddam's buddies this pick comes to mind.

at the time of the Saddam embrace the priority was stopping Iran from taking control of the mid-east. Saddam was the only possible overture in the area. If Iran was in control of the whole area at the time then we would have had bigger problems than Saddam to deal with.

[Aurel]

at the time of the Saddam embrace the priority was stopping Iran from taking control of the mid-east. Saddam was the only possible overture in the area. If Iran was in control of the whole area at the time then we would have had bigger problems than Saddam to deal with.

According to your logic, Hitler should probably have been left alone, which would have prevented the russians from being part of the victors of WWII, and probably prevented the cold war from happening, right ?

Aurel

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by Aurel
According to your logic, Hitler should probably have been left alone, which would have prevented the russians from being part of the victors of WWII, and probably prevented the cold war from happening, right ?

Aurel

I can't speak for Ronin, but I think you are a little out of context here. the comparison between Hitler/Russia and Iran/Iraq isn't equal. It would have been nice however to have a country (or two) to balance the Soviets and slow or stop their expansion in the decades following WWII. Iran/Iraq were both supported by the US at different times to balance the region. Was it a good idea? They didn't ask me and at the time the decisions made seemed to be correct.

Some political scientists believe that foreign intervention is NEVER a good thing and that countries should be allowed to evolve on their own with a "survival of the fittest" type ideology. That does work on occaision. I wonder what our country would be like today if some stronger foreign nation came in and put a stop to our civil war. Either deciding the outcome for us or dividing the two sides with troops. Some things need to develop on their own, knowing which ones is the hard part.

Pete

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by 350HP930
It would be great if they did put saddam on trial for all of his crimes against the iraqi people, but that might be easier said than done now that many of saddam's evil henchmen are working for the US occupation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain586841.shtml

Interesting don't you think that you use the 14 points argument as to why we are fascist here in the US on the "I hate Bush" thread, and then use 2 sources to make a point here that directly contradict that argument (or at least 2 points of it).

Anything to make a point right? Even if they are contradictory.

Oh, and your 2 sources. The CBS one is questionable at best and the National Archives one isn't so much fact as supposition. Yes we supported Iraq, but the reasons behind it is their theory NOT fact.

Damn, I forgot, I'M the dupe. Forget what I just said...............

Pete

[350HP930]

Pete, you would deny the clear daytime sky is blue if it somehow conflicted with your beliefs.

And what in the world are you talking about? How can pointing out the facts that Reagan and Bush I were responsible for building up Iraq in anyway conflict with any of the facts in the facism thread.