Any pictures of the bodies yet?

Those bodies are most probably doubles these 2 brothers are just as rich if not richer than their dad.

Good stuff, good references.

Is there some documentation on why Hussein's sons would pose a threat to the USA, therefore kill them without prejudice, don't take them alive?

I have no opinion as to how they would be adjudged a threat, except if there was evidence of their involvement in funding terrorism.

They are not saints or martyrs. But I wonder whether the policy to take them out was a quite different rationale to 'threat', and whether there were specific reasons they should not have been able to live and come to their punishment under local and international law.

I agree with Bout Time on the whole media presentation.

Originally posted by Seekerof

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]

I have seen 2 phots of the bros the one of Uday looks enhanced cant comment on the 1 of Qusay cos never seen him b4.

Hers a link to the pics i've seen

www.ananova.com...


The pics are rather gruesome be warned.

[Edited on 25-7-2003 by drunk]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Good stuff, good references.

Is there some documentation on why Hussein's sons would pose a threat to the USA, therefore kill them without prejudice, don't take them alive?

I have no opinion as to how they would be adjudged a threat, except if there was evidence of their involvement in funding terrorism.

They are not saints or martyrs. But I wonder whether the policy to take them out was a quite different rationale to 'threat', and whether there were specific reasons they should not have been able to live and come to their punishment under local and international law.

I agree with Bout Time on the whole media presentation.

To be perfectly honest, no sir. I have found no such information pertaining to Saddam's sons.

On the matter of his sons, I guess that one can look at it as killing without prejudice or that they were given the opportunity to surrender, etc., etc. I guess it would depend on how one viewed the situation, the media information pertaining to the incident and one's own personal view and interpretation. I really don't think it was a policy to "take them out." Please note that this is my opinion. I think if one really looked at the situation one would surmise they had no intentions to surrender nor give themselves up. One of the 'boys' had supposedly shot himself and that would further indicate what my opinion is. But, I do agree, that perhaps the situation could have been handled differently, etc. I can not answer for this, being I was not their during the "heat" of the situation nor do I have all the answer to what my half "bent" government does, whether it be justly or unjustly. I am a victim of the media and my own opinions. Though I feel I have been trying to be more critical of my governments postion on multiple things.

BT does make a good point, but one would also have to agree that the media has always had a habit of doing as he describes. I have mentioned this before, but sometimes I feel the media needs to be held more accountable for presenting "news" more crediably or accurate. But I would surmise that they do as we all do....each of us view things differently with varied opinions as to how something is or as to how something was and I see the media doing likewise.

Thank you for responding. I think its the first time I think I have actually had any sort of postive acknowledgement from you.

regards
seekerof

No, there have been 14 other positive acknowledgments, and it just goes to show how little they are noticed in a tirade of schoolyard insults when people play that game at ATS.

According to CNN,

the bodies had each OVER 20 bullet holes in them. So much for "without prejudice" , Seekerof

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Iraq partly rebuilt the faces of two bodies shown to journalists on Friday in an effort to convince Iraqis that the battle-scarred corpses were those of Saddam Hussein's widely feared sons.

I was one of 15 journalists shown into an air-conditioned, khaki tent at Baghdad airport to view the corpses. They did look like the brothers, who U.S. troops said they killed during a siege on Tuesday.

Arabic networks al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi Television and other broadcasters began showing the bodies identified as Uday and Qusay, laid out at the makeshift airport morgue.

A U.S. military official said "facial reconstruction" was used to repair wounds, particularly to the face of the elder son Uday, which had disfigured the bodies shown originally to the public in photographs taken by soldiers after the battle.

An uncharacteristic beard on the body of Qusay, seen in those U.S. pictures, had been shaved off, leaving a mustache.

Inside the tent, U.S. officials said it was standard practice to use morticians putty to prepare bodies for viewing and was not intended to fool the Iraqi people.

But while it may be common in the United States, the move is unheard of in the Arab world. That could affect Washington's efforts to quash Iraqi conspiracy theories that the bodies are not in fact those of the once powerful and hated sons of Saddam, who is believed to be still in hiding in Iraq.

U.S. officials have already played down the importance of visually identifying the men, saying their dental and medical records positively identified the brothers. Four top Saddam aides have also made positive identification, they say.

"You can make anyone look like anyone else," one U.S. official said, insisting the medical evidence was compelling.

The brothers were lying side-by-side on metal trolleys, their bruised bodies, riddled with bullets and shrapnel, naked apart from a blue cloth that covered their genitals.

Autopsies had been performed on both men and large Y-shape incisions bound by black stitches marked their torsos.

SURGICAL HISTORY

Uday still wore his beard. A hole in the top of his skull was left untouched. U.S. officials said they had no evidence to support suggestions that he had shot himself to avoid capture.

A faint smell of disinfectant hung in the air.

Journalists were shown a metal orthopedic plate that officials said they had removed from Uday's left leg and were told that its serial number matched that of a disc that was inserted in his limb after a failed 1996 assassination attempt.

U.S. officials have declined to reveal how they have had access to the former ruling family's medical records.

They said both men had died from multiple gunshot wounds and blast injuries in the northern city of Mosul. Two other people also died. Those bodies were not shown. U.S. officials say one of them was probably Qusay's teenage son, Mustapha.

DNA tests were also being carried out but because previous samples of Uday and Qusay's DNA were not available, U.S. officials said this test would not conclusively identify the bodies. Washington says it has Saddam's DNA.

The officials said the bodies would be refrigerated to slow decomposition but their fate thereafter remains unknown. Muslim tradition demands that they be buried as soon as possible.

A spokesman for the U.S.-led administration said no one had so far come forward to claim the bodies of the fugitives for burial. He said: "If any of their family members want to come forward, we'd be delighted to speak to them."

www.washingtonpost.com...