saddam found

Well said Mick!
T

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
Saddam was caught without a shot fired???!!!

Didn't they just have a war in which thousands of people have died?

---

I was genuinely going to say "Yes, I am aware that there has just been a war but in this small unit action, no shots where fired..." but I had assumed that this would have been stating the obvious.

I will remember next time.

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

Good Old Wiltshire, The Moral Backbone of the Nation innit.
Fritz Von Oohwhatasuprise

Graham Ricketts

Piss² They didn't shoot cos there'd be Blue on Blue all over the bleedin place, Wake Up.

Monologue naturally @

http://graham.ricketts.bei.t-online.de
Though to be honest most of you guys unsuprisingly seem to already know as much as you wish to hear, in an Israeli kind of selective deafness, Up the Hammers.

Take your own advice and bugger off.

Love

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
It was the gloating style of the anouncement I disliked (complete with smirk).

---

I dunno Bruce, I think they are just about allowed that. The relief must be enormous - it was getting very embarassing.
I wasn't aware of any whinging here...did I miss something?

The main problem is that some people just cannot stand action and success. These inactive ******** just moan and moan and moan. Put them in front of a screen and off they go. They should accept the fact that both of Bush and Blair have won the day and will probably get re elected because most of the voters are thankful that they did something rather than waffle on in the UN HQ, passing one ineffective resolution after another.

Regards

Mick

Did anyone hear Martin Shanklemans business news on Radio 2 a few moments ago?
Apparently, in his 'house' they found 2 Mars bars, 2 Bounty bars, a 7-up and a hot dog!!
Political asylum in the land of the free anyone?

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Though to be honest most of you guys unsuprisingly seem to already know as much as you wish to hear, in an Israeli kind of selective deafness, Up the Hammers.

---

And some of us just post pointless drivel.

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

Mick said:

quote:

---

These inactive ******** just moan and moan and moan. Put them in front of a screen and off they go.

---

I'm curious, Mick - how is what you are doing any different? They go off on something they feel strongly about; you go off on them.

Please describe for us the active role YOU'VE taken in the Iraqi regime change. Or, the active role you've taken in, well, anything of any impact. Please tell us all how you've made our world a better place. Otherwise, you're just another inactive ******* getting in front of a screen and going off.

Sincerely,

Jay

Sorry Mick. I respect your argument is that the 'end justifies the means' and your consistency throughout the year.

I'm not whingeing-but I will not accept that the action in Iraq and its aftermath justifies the means used. Even beyond the current situation in Iraq I believe that the region and the world are less safe and the cause of extremists has been served by war in Iraq, which simultaenously weakened the UN and its potential.

I also don't accept that I should just foreget about it and move-on. Too many lies, too many bodies for that.

Bruce

Al-Jazeera

It was interesting reading a few Al-Jazeera stories the last 48 hours. Despite Saddam being a mass-murderer, he's being touted as a hero (by the paper and by many Arabs). Isn't it twisted how humans can look past someone's killing of millions (?) of other humans and see him as a hero simply for resisting the Americans and Brits?

Meanwhile, it gave me great pleasure watching news clips of the 1,500 Iraqi expats in Everett (25 miles north of Seattle) celebrating in the streets yesterday.

[This message was edited by Ludwig on MONDAY 15 December 2003 at 19:26.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trickytree:
Apparently, in his 'house' they found 2 Mars bars, 2 Bounty bars, a 7-up and a hot dog!!
Political asylum in the land of the free anyone?
Paul

---

Paul:

No Bounty bars in the US, sadly - unless you pay way over the odds at Brit expat stores for stuff that's past its sell-by date.

Davie

[This message was edited by Bhoyo on MONDAY 15 December 2003 at 21:43.]

So the new Saladin, the lion who repeatedly exhorted his countrymen to martyrdom, was too chickenshit to take his own advice. How typical that a bully and braggart should be unmasked as a coward.

Bagging this bastard doesn't solve the woes of Iraq - but it doesn't hurt. May he pay for his crimes and rot in hell.

Davie

Although it's hard not to feel a faint smidgen of admiration for a man capable of growing so magnificent a beard in what must have been less than ideal beard-growing conditions.

I personally think he could have made a really good Santa for the Kurdish kiddies before them US rangers got the blade out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
So to whom would you hand Saddam over? They have no legal system or administration. Just release him in the centre of Baghdad with a big sign saying 'come and get him'?

Bruce

---

indeed!

I bet we are still arguing about where Saddam will be tried come Novemeber 2004 but that its quickly resolved after that.

Matthew

Just shoot the bugger...no one will complain.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Surely at the International Court at the Hague as they did with Slobodan Milosevic. Oh I forgot, the US decided not to sign up to that treaty

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

---

Tom's comments are inapposite. The Hague will be available (if available at all - who knows when) for the trial of international war criminals whether the US has signed up for it or not. Saddam is not a US citizen, and therefore would not be protected from the jurisdiction of that court even though the US is not a signatory. Saddam's stutus (with respect to his vulnerability to ICC jurisdiction) is not impacted one iota simply be presently being in US custody.

Of course Iraq is also not a signatory of the treaty - it's not clear to me whether Saddam will fall under the jurisdiction of the court, at least under this line of reasoning.

Milosovik is being tried under an ad hoc tribunal set up by the UN security counsel designed to prosecute criminals arising from the conflict in the Balkins. It is possible, I suppose, that an ad hoc tribunal could also be set up for Saddam. I have no idea.

As far as I can tell there really are only three venues for trying Saddam - (1) an ad hoc tribunal set up under UN charter, (2) the International Criminal Court in the Hague, or (3) the Iraqi tribunal set up by the provisional government.

We should dismiss out the outset that he could be tried under US jurisdiction. This is all but impossible. More importantly (from a practical matter) the US simply has no taste for the death penalty for political criminals like Saddam. It's simply politically impossible. Despite what all of you think about "Texas" style of justice, we resever the gas chambers for run-of-the-mill murders like child rapists/murderers and convenience store murderers. We could not have put the Rosenburgs to death today. It just isn't politically possible. The reality is that the world would not even tolerate the US putting Bin Laden to death, where we to catch him alive.

In any event, Saddam is a prisoner of war and is being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention (although he is in a slightly different catagory than a prisoner caught during major hostilities - I'm not sure what his exact Geneva status is called at this point). This means he is rightfully subject to interogation, duress and confinement - though not torture or the like. Handing him over the the Iraqis, Iranians, Jordanians, Saudi's, Serians, etc. etc. and he would be tortued to death. It is not clear whether the tribunal set up by the Iraqis comports with Geneva.

In the end, this will surely be a disaster of monumental proportions. It would been better if he had used his pistol. Handing him over the Iraqis (which, even if possible is MONTHS away, election or no election) will be met with hostility from every corner of the world, the likes of which we have not yet seen. However, handing him over to an international body will piss off the Iraqi government to no end. They are on record as saying "no deals" no matter what. Fair enough. But the reality is that the US is stuck in the middle of this particular issue. God forbid he dies in captivity (could happen - who knows).

Judd

"Saddam is a prisoner of war and is being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention"

The US has been very careful not to call him a Prisoner of War but that he will be treated in accordance with the rules for PoWs. I.e. they are retaining the option to call him some other sort of prisoner should the need arise.

They've already broken Geneva by showing the medical examination film which is a clear contravention of the public curiosity clause. Although I don't suppose anybody will be too bothered on that count.

"Handing him over the Iraqis ... will be met with hostility from every corner of the world"

I'd have thought most people would welcome such a move or ata least not object thatr strongly. We are talking about handing him over for a open and ostensibly fair trial by a legitimate tribunal rather than just handing him to a braying mob. One assumes that a resonable system would be in place before any such trial.

For me I can see arguments both for and against both an International Trial (he is, after all, accussed of crimes against other nations) and an Iraqi tribunal.

Matthew

Sorry folks,
but where would he get a fair trial,even if he deserved one, I'm afraid that the Americans have just found the greatest poisoned chalice ever know to mankind, I was and still am against the war that was declared on the Iraqi people [and before it comes up yes I agree Saddam was a all time monster along with all the others that over the years we have funded]the Americans in this case will be dammed if they do and dammed if they don't whatever they decide to do with him. It would have certainly have been better politically for all concerned if he had been "found" dead. Whilst still alive he is still a leader and martyr to his supporters and "we" still might find ourselves in a position of having to defend against hostage takers and killings on a scale unbeknown before. I just hope that I am completly wrong
but I have my doubts.

I'm not sure the US had refrained from calling him a POW. In any event, even if they have not made that admission, it is not clear to me that he is a "prisoner of war". That term is very specific under th Geneva guidelines, and may have passed out of application once the privisional government took over. He has a Geneva status, i just don't know what it is.

As I said before, the US has no jurisdiction to try him, and therefor, despite the issue of the people down in Cuba, there is pretty much no chance the US is going to classify him as something else.

Your consternation at the Cuba status is starting to cloud your judgment. Saddam was a leader of a country that we went to war with - he clearly has Geneva status.

Judd

BTW,

the video footage showing the medical exam was gratuitous. It's these little decisions (like putting the US flag on th face of the Saddam statue briefly) that always defy common sense. I have no idea why there is so much stupidity in these areas.

Judd

Look at the quotes and it'c clear the US has not declared him an PoW. E.g.

"White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say whether Saddam was formally being held as a prisoner of war or where he was being held, but said his treatment was in line with Geneva Convention rules. “He is being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention and provided protections of a prisoner of war,” McClellan told reporters."

(From http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_16-12-2003_pg7_1)

I have no doubt he has Geneva status as indeed do the people being illegally detained in Cuba. My doubt is that the US would grant him those rights if they thought it might not suit them.

But, like I say, overall I am not desperately concerned about Saddam's exact legal status. He's been caught and at some point he'll get a reasonably fair trial of some sort.

Matthew

Reading what Rummy and some of the others have said, it's pretty clear that he will be treated as a prisoner of war under Geneva.

Whether he is handed over to the Iraqis is another question entirely. Pretty much nobody other than the Iraqis want him to go before the new Iraqi tribunal.

At the same time, the US ought not put itself in the position of implying that the new Iraqi government (which despite how little ACTUAL autonomy they have in all other matters) either (1) cannot effectively prosecute Saddam fairly or (2) cannot do it autonomously.

Judd