Any pictures of the bodies yet?

International tribunial? Why? I think if they could have been persuaded to come out and give themseleves up, that they should have been walked down the streets of central Bagdad and let their own people judge them......makes one wonder what the outcome would have been, eh?

International tribunial is being kind to them...let their own people be the judge and jury and the results would have probably been the same!

As to it being murder or a murderous act....I think that is a matter of opinion. One may say that it tastes like butter and another may say it don't....one may see a half cup of water as half empty while one see's it as half full. Question is: Do they actually come under the "assassination" clause or do they fall under combatant? As to Saddam.....in war, I don't see where an "assassination" clause is in effect. Would that not classify him as a "legitimate target" or "fair game?"

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 24-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Once again, you have a left wing liberal wanting tthe world to be their own personal fairytale. Unfortunately, people are killed everyday, in war, on the streets, for valid reasons, and for absolutely no reason at all. M, you actually think someone who has chainsawed womens feet off, put children into wood shredders, and raped women on their wedding days doesn't deserve to die in obscurity like the disgusting monster they are? Wake up.

Originally posted by Seekerof
International tribunial? Why? I think if they could have been persuaded to come out and give themseleves up, that they should have been walked down the streets of central Bagdad and let their own people judge them......makes one wonder what the outcome would have been, eh?

Internation tribunial is being kind to them...let their own people be the judge and jury and the results would have probably been the same!

Well, as the constitutional council hand-picked by US-America has already been shown to represent the power interests of the United States more than the interests of the Iraqi people (over half of them are from the US), i highly doubt US-America would establish any independent jurisdictional system in Iraq to judge members of the former regime. Another problem would be the lack of judges not connected to the Baath regime. The criminal prosecution would be more a political show than a fair trial.

So an international tribunal is probably the only righteous and independent trial possibility for these guys. But according to all we know (or think we know) the outcome could be similar. The main difference would probably be the extent in which they would be allowed to defend themselvses, a point which should not be underestimated.



As to it being murder or a murderous act....I think that is a matter of opinion. One may say that it tastes like butter and another may say it don't....one may see a half cup of water as half empty while one see's it as half full. Question is: Do they actually come under the "assassination" clause or do they fall under combatant? As to Saddam.....in war, I don't see where an "assassination" clause is in effect. Would that not classify him as a "legitimate target" or "fair game?"

regards
seekerof

It's not a matter of taste, neither a matter of opinion. Saddam Hussein was the political and military leader of Iraq, and as such is protected by the ban on regicide, one of the oldest international laws and military traditions, for the reason i detailed in my previous post.
Any attempt at murdering him would therefore be triable under international criminal prosecution laws.

Originally posted by goregrinder
Once again, you have a left wing liberal wanting tthe world to be their own personal fairytale. Unfortunately, people are killed everyday, in war, on the streets, for valid reasons, and for absolutely no reason at all. M, you actually think someone who has chainsawed womens feet off, put children into wood shredders, and raped women on their wedding days doesn't deserve to die in obscurity like the disgusting monster they are? Wake up.

Thank you for the unfitting label .. i am not liberal at all! The stories you are telling yourself to keep you hyped up for your good cause may be the real fairytales in that whole matter. Only an independent investigation could show the veracity of the horror/fantasy stories you are professing. We have seen the anti-iraq propaganda broadcasting lies and false allegations earlier, why should they have told us the truth about their archrivalling personalities Saddam, Uday and Qusay ?

Regicide: a term used to describe the deliberate killing of a king by one of his subjects.

www.wikipedia.org...

Might want to stick with "legitimate target."

regards
seekerof

Bwahahahaaa,
they're dead.

rolol, 0mg us pwn3d j00 lolol, h4x0rd!!!!!111

Originally posted by Leveller
Mokuhadzushi.
You're saying that they shouldn't have been killed.
But it was blatantly obvious that they weren't going to surrender.
This leaves only one option - Letting them go free.
Unless of course you have some miracle way of detaining them which wouldn't have harmed a hair on their bodies which nobody is aware of.

Well sorry dude. Reality doesn't work that way.

Hmmm well there are ways to capture a violent person without killing them. All you need is the will to do so I hope I don't have to give you examples of how.

I sure understand that the situation (they say) were not permitting such alternatives, it saves money and time to just kill them. It's good for the Gov's PR also.
A way to gain the trust again.

Reality is just like optical illusion, sometimes some things aren't the way you think they are.

Eww. Yep, they're dead alright.

The bodies didn't seem to be in as bad a shape as they had made them out to be. Did the clean them up for the pictures? "Say cheese!"

nice exit wound in udays head

In my opinion those bodies don't even look like the brothers.

Where are you guys seeing resemblances?

If that's them, their beards sure do grow fast.

Still though, doesn't look like them at all.

Uday? is far to fat in the face,ive read lots of books on this maniac,its a double

Originally posted by codes
Uday? is far to fat in the face,ive read lots of books on this maniac,its a double

Yes, I was just looking at pictures of him on the net. Doesn't look like him and in my opinion it's not him.

His facial structure is wrong, even if Uday was to gain weight I don't believe he would look like that.

Good observation from Flinx ("bodies not in as bad shape"). The bodies went from being charred and disfigured beyond recognition, to bullet riddled and easily identifiable. Is that bad media spin, or something else? The Bush administration continues to play a very dangerous game in and with Iraq. Its credibility has suffered so badly that nobody (except the few that swallow lies hook, line and sinker) will believe anything they say ever again.

Seekerof, you will find the appropriate Executive Order prohibiting the targeting of any world leader or family thereof signed by Gerald Ford if you do a simple ATS search. That EO has never been overwritten, simply ignored by Presidents since Reagan. Educate yourself on this, it's interesting.

As far as the body photos not looking like the brothers, that is an interesting but I don't think relevant observation. Identities would not have been confirmed visually in this case. There is no doubt if dental records were available and used legitimately, they created the match, and X-Ray records.

I didn't see mention of "DNA" as claimed (CNN is all I have time to visit). Confirmed use of DNA?

Rushed, over and out...



[Edited on 24-7-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

the thing with DNA is they would need an original sample to compare it to,seeing as Uday owned the private hospital in the grounds of his palace how did the americans get the "original" sample

codes

That is already discussed previously in another topic.

I think it's very possible to have DNA samples of the Hussein brothers. But were they actually finally used, as was claimed in early reports?

I'm interested in the media's overall presentation of the story, because that is a result of the direct flow of approved and censored information from the commanders in charge of the operation to Sanchez, and communication controls are very important.

The change in the makeup of the stories from the media does little for the credibility of the sick Bush administration. It is too late for them to straighten out their act.

"Please have this sent to Mr. Murdock and have it distributed amongst all of his global outlets. Make sure that the NY Post uses words like 'scumbags' and have the reporter make statements that they 'died like the dogs they are'. That should hold the populace over until we get enough shots of the girl private who crashed her jeep and we set up that rescue photo Op...what was her name again?"

Folks, there is no real news that will come out of Iraq that is not screened for mass consumption and spun like a top.

They should have been captured, dipped in Nair, given a Oprah Winfrey makeover full with a trip to Victorias Secret, and put into a mens prison full of life timers. This was just a "Go Team!" spin for the world press.

....but after all this and it turns out NOT to be them, well, you dems just might have a chance in '04.



[Edited on 24-7-2003 by Bob88]

they look so peacful, maybe its all them 72 virgins they got up there.

Originally posted by kitty

they look so peacful, maybe its all them 72 virgins they got up there.

we should bury them upside down in pig skin.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Seekerof, you will find the appropriate Executive Order prohibiting the targeting of any world leader or family thereof signed by Gerald Ford if you do a simple ATS search. That EO has never been overwritten, simply ignored by Presidents since Reagan. Educate yourself on this, it's interesting.



[Edited on 24-7-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

The Ford/Carter/Reagan Executive Order11,905, 12036, 12,333, Sec 2-305 simply states:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

MA, it is interesting. The prohibition/ban is not limited to assassination against heads of state. The legalities of killing a specific person in a military strike are even less clear. This would equate to the prohibition/ban possibly not apply if one is under taking a military action. There is a difference, though it be a subtle one, between an air strike going at facilities when you know the individuals might be there, and going after a single individual. The prohibition/ban applies to assassination efforts by US government employees, but is not applied to the military.

Assassination is not legitimate killing; Assassination in war is considered legitimate. Assassinating Saddam Hussein is viewed as part of an effort to disable the enemy's command and control center and are covered by the rules of wartime engagement. It is, therefore, not against the laws of war in attacking an enemy force to look especially for a particular individual or individuals, who upon resisting at all your entitled to kill them. What you can't do is capture an individual or enemy and then tie him up and execute him.

The fact is that the term "assassination" can be as flexible and open to interpretation as the word "is" famously was to Bill Clinton. Since 9/11, things have changed MA. Its a totally different "ball-game." Since the occurance of 9/11, the new thinking in Washington is that the United States under certain conditions and in certain situations should and would empower the CIA or the military to assassinate/kill terrorists or certain individuals who represent a threat to the United States.

Internationally, the Protected Persons Convention of 1973, does not cover Saddam. The Hague Convention covering the "laws and customs" of war might but again, term "meanings and interpretations" come into play. The international agreement that is relevant to assassiantion is the Charter of the United Nations....term "meanings and interpretations" again apply.

"International Law Part II: The Legality of Saddam Hussein Assassination"
www.law.mcgill.ca...

"Saddam Hussein is fair game, Officials say, but elusive."
www.boston.com...

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-7-2003 by Seekerof]