Baath Party could use Wikileaks documents for suit against the USA

The WikiLeaks files, released last month, documented a litany of prisoner abuse and civilian deaths at the hands of US forces and, according to the whistle-blowing website, contained evidence of possible war crimes by US troops

From HERE

The Wikileaks information could be used by the Baath Party to bring a suit to the US in international court. Interesting...

Personally, I think they have a case. The war was illegal in accordance with the laws of this country, let alone international law. I just want the US to get out asap and think about solving some problems back home.

I was in the Marine Corps for 4 years and did two tours in Iraq. What does this have to do with it? Well while over there my understanding was that the Baath Party no longer exists(at least in any meaningful way) in Iraq. However, it is still rolling stong in Syria and other places. From an international prospective I don't think the the Baath Party of Syria can bring a suit against the U.S. for things done in Iraq. Were we there for the wrong reasons? Ya, but done is done. Now if I had only been a little wiser when I was 18....

reply to post by F011235813

What does this have to do with it? Well while over there my understanding was that the Baath Party no longer exists(at least in any meaningful way) in Iraq.

The Baath Party is exiled in Syria and other places. That who is trying to use the leaked information.

Were we there for the wrong reasons? Ya, but done is done.

Saying something is "done is done" is a cop-out. The people that created an illegal war that led to the death of tens of thousands of innocent people and the death of our own military personnel need to be brought to justice.

Now if I had only been a little wiser when I was 18....

Right there with you.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Then who sues the Baath's for the mass graves they left behind? Any thoughts on that?

In 1983 8,000 Kurds were rounded up and executed.
In 1988 over 180,000 were rounded up by the Baaths and many have been found in mass graves uncovered in Iraq.
From 1986-1988 the Baaths dropped Sarin, VX and Tabun on Kurds in chemical attacks that killed 8,000.
In 1991 the Baaths of Iraq killed tens of thousands of Shia and many have since been located in mass graves.
The Kurds were also again attacked and slaughtered by the Baaths in 1991.

The above leaves out tens of thousands slaughtered by Saddam's Sons in their killing sprees and also the slaughter in Kuwait by the Baath's when they invaded Kuwait under Saddam's commands. In this case I actually know the only surviving member of one family slaughtered by one of Saddam's Son's.

So, I ask, who sues the Baath's?

reply to post by Blaine91555


You just listed many people with legitimate claims to bring the Baathists to justice. I am not trying to appease the Baathists, I am just saying that two wrongs do not make a right.

So, I ask, who sues the Baath's?

I would say that most people in Iraq could have a claim against the Baath Party. But those same people have likely lost someone in their family that we killed and claim as "collatoral damage".

Collatoral damage is a euphemism for murder. We think the deaths were justified.... but then again, the Baathists thought they, too, were justified.

reply to post by F011235813


"I was in the Marine Corps for 4 years and did two tours in Iraq..
Were we there for the wrong reasons? Ya, but done is done. Now if I had only been a little wiser when I was 18.... "


just wanted to commend u for your honesty thr, very telling reply thank u

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Is not blaming all Soldiers for the actions of a few also a wrong? It seems so to me?

These atrocities occur in all wars, that is true. Even in just wars. If in charge yourself, how would you have dealt with the Baaths and Saddam's attempt to take Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia and place them under Baath rule? You see the dilemma. There are many shades of gray here.

An action like you suggest just stirs the pot and would lead to even more death and suffering as these things always do. Had the US not made the decision to take out Saddam and the Baaths, the mass killings would have continued. The US would still be hated even if we had done nothing. In fact I'd place a wager we would have been criticized for doing nothing.

I now think going into Iraq was a bad move. I agree with Afghanistan because it was an occupied country ruled by Terrorists and Drug Lords and think we should have gone in in huge numbers and ended it quickly.

You are absolutely right that two wrongs don't make a right, but is the world sitting by and watching the slaughter by the Baath's not also a wrong? Hard question is it not?

Another question? How exactly is a war approved by Congress illegal in the US?

You are aware their was no second Gulf War? Saddam violated the cease fire so many times and UN Resolutions so many times it's almost insane to conclude that? Pretending it was a different action was a propaganda tactic used by activists. Iraq invaded a sovereign nation.

The biggest mistake in my mind that would have likely stopped most of what has happened since, was Bush Senior's insane decision to not take Iraq the first time in. He really screwed the pooch with that one.

The facts have been so buried in the propaganda since, many don't even acknowledge them any more.

A government thats not accountable to its own people isn't likely to worry about the grumpy remains of the baathists. The US govt cannot be sued unless it consents to be. Its called sovereign immunity.

Similarly as the USA has not ratified the ICC a US citizen cannot be prosecuted for war crimes by the ICC.

reply to post by Blaine91555

Had the US not made the decision to take out Saddam and the Baaths, the mass killings would have continued.

And since the US did make the decision to take out Saddam, the mass killings have still continued.

As for legality in domestic law. The "Authorization of the Use of Force" and a Constitutional "Declaration of War" are two different things. A good example of what an "Authorization of the Use of Force" is Grenada, but we have gone to WAR many times throughout our history because of this Doctrine. The Doctrine of Authorization of the Use of Force has never been challanged, and why would it? It gives the executive branch powers that Congress legally has (much like the Fed).

Iraq was clearly a warfare operation but was never formally declared a war but you know since being there, that it very much was.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

The WikiLeaks files, released last month, documented a litany of prisoner abuse and civilian deaths at the hands of US forces and, according to the whistle-blowing website, contained evidence of possible war crimes by US troops

From HERE

The Wikileaks information could be used by the Baath Party to bring a suit to the US in international court. Interesting...

Personally, I think they have a case. The war was illegal in accordance with the laws of this country, let alone international law. I just want the US to get out asap and think about solving some problems back home.

I agree. They probably do have a case. So what do we do? Do we "cover up" and protect certain people or do we act like we believe in our own constitution?

So let's send them Cheney, Bush and "what's his name". We all know they are liars and deceivers, guilty as hell. We either stand for truth and justice or we do not. Let's take the high road on this one. Let the Bath party try our petty dictators and hang 'em high.

Until the "Baath Party" is in control of the Government of a Super Power, no lawsuit is going to hurt anyone in the United States Government.

This is the big leagues. War crimes trials of German political leaders/Military leaders only happened because the U.S.A. & The Allies won WW2. Those who are defeated in war stand ZERO chance of bringing a war crimes suit against their victorious attackers. Never, ever will happen.

Even if the case somehow got to court, the United States wouldn't participate. End of story.

So while even though I agree that Bush (et. al) were/are guilty of war crimes, you'll never see him punished. Unless the U.S.A. loses a war against an invading army.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


It was approved by Congress however and they do have the power to decide that. Iraq did invade another country, they did violate the Cease Fire over and over again and we were justified to reenter Iraq when they did it. Propaganda asside, those are the facts.

The real story here, without the propaganda and falsehoods is should we have gone back in? I now agree the answer too that is no, we should not have.

It was the World who backed us the first time in, who engaged in deception when they pretended the second incursion was not simply an extension of the first. Even though it was wrong to do, it does not justify the propaganda an lies told since.