Saddam's Sons Very Likely Killed in battle today!

[verte76]

If they were captured alive, this whole mess would end up in litigation - the great American tradition.

A lawsuit thing?? I'm confused. You mean they'd get sued?

 

[nbcrusader]

No, they would sue the US government for trespass, infliction of emotional distress, pain and suffering, etc.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader: *lol*
Besides the fact that from my christian values i prefer that even enemies are living. I guess it would have bin helpful if the US army could ask them some questions (for example about the WMDs) but if the cenario is the way we could read about it the US forces had no big choices.

Klaus

 

[deep]

Interesting, is that what Milosovic did?

 

[verte76]

Egads, did Milosevic sue? When? Geez, what an evil . I guess dictators will be dictators.

 

[verte76]

I was just watching the news (no, it wasn't Fox ) There was a report about Uday (sp???) having the Iraqi soccer team tortured after they lost in the Olympics. I'd read stuff about them like that. Horrors. It's tough for me to consider people like them human.

 

[speedracer]

I was just watching the news (no, it wasn't Fox ) There was a report about Uday (sp???) having the Iraqi soccer team tortured after they lost in the Olympics. I'd read stuff about them like that. Horrors. It's tough for me to consider people like them human.

See

http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/0722/1584175.html

 

[oliveu2cm]

nbcrusader: *lol*
Besides the fact that from my christian values i prefer that even enemies are living. I guess it would have bin helpful if the US army could ask them some questions (for example about the WMDs) but if the cenario is the way we could read about it the US forces had no big choices.

Klaus

Yeah this woulda been great.

Some interesting thoughts Here

<snip>
Saddam's sons would have been worth a lot more to us alive in captivity than they are dead.

Turning Saddam's sons over to the Hague tribunal for prosecution would have gotten the UN and the Europeans back on board, and gotten us some relief on reconstruction and on troops.

Turning them over to the Hague would have been better for the Iraqi people, too, who probably are not going to be persuaded that Saddam's sons are really dead by any dental records or DNA analysis CENTCOM can produce. Prosecuting them live on TV for weeks on end?that would have been persuasive...... <snip>

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think Saddam's sons would never allow themselves to be captured alive. They would have killed themselves first.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Shit happens eh?

I heard our PM talking about this on the radio today and he was saying something like how this was a great psychological victory etc etc. I just thought good onya Johnny, you tool. I hope other more listened to and significant leaders aren't spewing the same shit too loudly. I don't disagree with it at all, but way to piss these people off even more!

 

[Klaus]

I think Saddam's sons would never allow themselves to be captured alive. They would have killed themselves first.

Well we have no way to find that out i guess

oliveu2cm: i agree to the quoted statement (that they would have been worth a lot more alive) and therefore i disslike:

US-General Ricardo Sanchez:
"Find, kill or capture"

"Find, capture or kill if neccessary" would have made more sense to me.

Klaus

p.s. interesting statements from the readers On BBC News

 

[sulawesigirl4]

i'm sure this will be misconstrued, but oh well

As glad as I am that these two monsters will no longer be able to carry out acts of violence, I would have preferred to see them brought to legal justice rather than "justice" at the end of a gun barrel. The willingness to carry out political assassinations disturbs me, and as far as I know, on paper it is against US rules.

This article from the AP elaborates further.

Odai, Qusai Deaths Go Against U.S. Ban
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination. It was the misfortune of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s sons, Odai and Qusai, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.

...

The ban on assassinations, spelled out in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 and reinforced by Presidents Carter and Reagan, made no distinction between wartime and peacetime. There are no loop holes; no matter how awful the leader, he could not be a U.S. target either directly or by a hired hand.


The advantages of using assassination as a political tool seemed less obvious a generation ago than they are today.


Ford's executive order was in response to the general revulsion over disclosures by a Senate committee about a series of overseas U.S. assassination attempts ? some successful, some not ? over many years.

The committee found eight attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro. Other targets included Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, both in 1961; and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in 1963. Lumumba and Diem were both assassinated, although the degree of U.S. involvement has never been clear.

One rationale for the ban was that an attempt on the life of a foreign leader could produce retaliation ? a concern borne out in U.S.-Libyan tit-for-tat attacks during the late 1980's. Libyan agents killed two U.S. soldiers at a German disco in early April 1986. Days later, Reagan authorized the bombing of Libya; Gadhafi was spared but his 15-month old daughter was killed. Libyan agents were behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 270, most of them Americans.

Support for the assassination ban appears to have eroded considerably after Sept. 11, 2001. The events of that day demonstrated that a small but determined group, no matter how far away, could pose a greater threat to ordinary Americans than the German Luftwaffe could in 1940.

Abraham Sofaer, a former State Department legal adviser, makes the case for pre-emption against terrorists: "If a leader ... is responsible for killing Americans, and is planning to kill more Americans ... it would be perfectly proper to kill him rather than to wait until more Americans were killed."

The Bush administration seems to agree, but the old assassination taboo lives on, at least on paper.

"There's an executive order that prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and that remains in place," a White House spokesman said just as the Iraq hostilities were about to begin.

Perhaps if we are in a new era of warfare and the rules have changed, we should be certain to follow up with the legalities of it and not be breaking what we have down on paper. Just a thought to add to the mix.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Posted by oliveu2cm
<snip>
Saddam's sons would have been worth a lot more to us alive in captivity than they are dead.

Turning Saddam's sons over to the Hague tribunal for prosecution would have gotten the UN and the Europeans back on board, and gotten us some relief on reconstruction and on troops.

Turning them over to the Hague would have been better for the Iraqi people, too, who probably are not going to be persuaded that Saddam's sons are really dead by any dental records or DNA analysis CENTCOM can produce. Prosecuting them live on TV for weeks on end?that would have been persuasive...... <snip>

This would never have happened. The USA does not want the ICC to exist, you understand? Turning them over to the Court in The Hague would have implied that this Court is necessary for international law. No, for the Bush administration they maybe are worth more dead than alive...

C ya!

Marty

 

[oliveu2cm]

"Find, capture or kill if neccessary" would have made more sense to me.

Klaus
[/URL]

Exactly.

I'm finding I agree with you a lot latelly Klaus!

Marty, I think you're bang-on there. It's a shame!

 

[nbcrusader]

"Find, capture or kill if neccessary" would have made more sense to me.

I am sure someone yelled "Coalition Forces. We have a search warrant. Please open your door."

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

None the less, I do not expect this to quiet the Bush bashers and Anti-American groups opposed to the war and the good work that Coalition troops are doing in Iraq.

not a chance. getting them means nothing to me.

 

[STING2]

Just like to state for the record is that it was Saddam's sons that fired first, not the US soldiers. The US soldiers approached the house, and then were fired on by those in the house. 4 US soldiers were wounded. If the USA wanted to simply kill them, it would have been easy enough to simply block off the escape routes and allow an strike aircraft to destroy the house with a bomb. Instead, the coalition spent 6 hours confronting them, 6 hours in which Saddam's sons could have surrendered.

This did not violate the US ban on assasination in any way. Saddams sons were not the leaders of Iraq and both had an opportunity to surrender.

 

[Rono]

I think Saddam's sons would never allow themselves to be captured alive. They would have killed themselves first.

I heard on the news that people think now that the sons of Saddam are freedom fighters now,...new heroes are born. Sadly enough,...

 

[80sU2isBest]

Just like to state for the record is that it was Saddam's sons that fired first, not the US soldiers. The US soldiers approached the house, and then were fired on by those in the house. 4 US soldiers were wounded. If the USA wanted to simply kill them, it would have been easy enough to simply block off the escape routes and allow an strike aircraft to destroy the house with a bomb. Instead, the coalition spent 6 hours confronting them, 6 hours in which Saddam's sons could have surrendered.

This did not violate the US ban on assasination in any way. Saddams sons were not the leaders of Iraq and both had an opportunity to surrender.

But Sting2, this assumes the US government is telling the truth about what happened. And we all know they never ever tell the truth!

 

[Scarletwine]

Just like to state for the record is that it was Saddam's sons that fired first, not the US soldiers. The US soldiers approached the house, and then were fired on by those in the house. 4 US soldiers were wounded. If the USA wanted to simply kill them, it would have been easy enough to simply block off the escape routes and allow an strike aircraft to destroy the house with a bomb. Instead, the coalition spent 6 hours confronting them, 6 hours in which Saddam's sons could have surrendered.

This did not violate the US ban on assasination in any way. Saddams sons were not the leaders of Iraq and both had an opportunity to surrender.

I'm always amazed at how you know the exact details of these events, much like what happened at the Palestinian hotel. Do you have camera's set up all over Iraq or what ?

You are simply repeating the official line of the US military. Now while that is a fine source it isn't ever 100% accurate. For one thing each individual sees a scene from a slight different perspective, as proven in accident reporting from witnesses at different vantage points.

I'm not disputing their accuracy, only your reporting them as 100% truth and fact. It may take several days to debrief all those involved and who knows somebody may have gotten antsy.

"But Sting2, this assumes the US government is telling the truth about what happened. And we all know they never ever tell the truth!'

Even I don't believe that 80's, I'm just a wait and see kind of person.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

Well, the only people who know for sure what precisely happened were the people involved in the event. You have perhaps a hundred or so US soldiers involved directly or indirectly in the operation. The owner of the house who was the one that actually informed the soldiers was also there as well. Then, you have the four people inside, SADDAM's two sons and a grandson, plus one unidentified individual. All four members in the house were killed. Latest reports are now that Saddam's sons actually shot themselves.

In any event, the only people that know what happened and are still alive are the US soldiers that were involved in the event, and the owner of the house who was nearby, but not directly involved in the fighting.

 

[Scarletwine]

That's was exactly my point. You jumped in saying they fired first. Well probably so, it's just your dogged unswerving defense of the gov't and the military.
I could even understand your support of the military being a veteran, but all gov't make errors at one time or another. They are not omniprescent (?) nor are commanders. Only God.
I guess I don't understand your motivation, but I'd like to understand it more.

ps regardless of my criticism I don't want any US soldiers to die, I just don't find lives not US citizens worth any less.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Even I don't believe that 80's, I'm just a wait and see kind of person.

No, I know that about you.

But thare are some who do believe that.

 

[Klaus]

oliveu2cm:

nbcrusader/sting:

i wasn't acusing the soldiers who did the operation that they did ANYTHING wrong - it was just US-General Ricardo Sanchez'
"Find, kill or capture" which made me nervous about wrong priorities.
If you mention kill before capture capture isn't no.1 priority. And i simply prefer justice in the ICC over justice with the barrel of a gun - that's all

Maybe Mr. Sanchez just told it the press this way to make the mission a 100% success? i don't know... but like mentioned in the verry first posting of this thread:

but if the cenario is the way we could read about it the US forces had no big choices

 

[Klaus]

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez:

"The option to surround the house and wait out the individuals in the house was considered and rejected,"
...
"The commanders on the ground made the decision to go ahead and execute and accomplish their mission of finding, fixing, killing or capturing."

...

"That was the right decision."

If you think of the order "fixing, killing or capturing" it was definetly the right decision by the groundtroops.
The only question is if his order was the right one.

Capturing these 2 guys and put them on a public trial (the ICC would have bin perfect for that) would have bin for sure much more difficult (and i don't even know if the US army had the capability to do that) but at least in Germany after WW II these trials were helpful for the public to understand what was wrong and to clearly see who is evil and who supports laws and justice. You could also see by the legends "Hitler still lives he's in XY (mostly south america) that the trials where the dictators crew tried to defend themselfes was verry helpful to accept that this period is over.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz:
"The key to success in an operation like that is speed and secrecy,"

Gimme a second - this was speedy?

President Bush
"Now, with the regime of Saddam Hussein gone forever, a few remaining holdouts are trying to prevent the advance of order and freedom,"

Oh, you forget to tell the public that Saddam Hussein was no. 3 of the 4 who were killed?

So again, efficient military - but less efficient guys on the top

Klaus

p.s. is it true that the 14 year old grandson is no.3 of the 4 killed people in attacked Mosul building

 

[Popmartijn]

p.s. is it true that the 14 year old grandson is no.3 of the 4 killed people in attacked Mosul building

Yes, this appears to be true. One of the two (Uday or Qusay) always travelled with his 14-year old son. However, it isn't clear yet whether the two (and maybe also the son) were killed by the US troops or committed suicide, IIRC.

C ya!

Marty (who hopes that Saddam is near that villa so he can maybe be found quickly)

 

[verte76]

Sting--I want to make one thing clear. My criticisms of any acts in this entire conflict have *never* been directed at the troops. I have the utmost respect for our fine men and women in uniform. They are just doing their jobs. I got as many goosebumps as any other American reading about Jessica Lynch's homecoming. Good for her. My criticisms are directed at the big shots in Washington who did the planning and are making the decisions. Yes, I have criticized Donald Rumsfeld's judgment. I'll be damned if I'm the only one who's criticized Rumsfeld. It's not the same thing as picking on the troops or whatever. Hell, the U.S. government is made up of human beings. It's inevitable that they are going to screw up. All Administrations screw up. Would I criticize Democrats if they were doing the same things? Yes. You bet.
Just wanted to clear up any possible confusion on this.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

they have released the pics of the bodies of Uday and Qusay

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3088011.stm

 

[STING2]

Verte76,

I understand where you coming from on this.

Klaus,

I would have prefered capture to their deaths, because it would be easier to prove they were no longer a threat I think. Unfortunately this was not possible. The sons had every opportunity to surrender. US soldiers started recieving fire from a nearby building from Baath Party members. If the US wanted to just kill them it would have been over in minutes with an air strike. Instead they confronted them for 6 hours.

"Gimme a second - this was speedy?"

It took less than 24 hours from the time the US military was notified of where they were to confront them and end the stand off. It could have happened even faster, but we wanted to capture them, unfortunately that was not possible.

"So again, efficient military - but less efficient guys on the top"

The guys at the top are certainly more efficient than French, German, and Russian leaders. Saddam and his sons would still be in power in Iraq right now if we had followed their plans.

 

[BVS]

they have released the pics of the bodies of Uday and Qusay

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3088011.stm

Is it just me or does this bother anyone else? I know this is probably something this culture is a little more use to than the U.S. but did we have to stoop to this level?