How can the US legally how Saddam prisoner?

[heartsurgeon]

Since there has been no evidence found that Saddam was a danger

Only a liberal could make a comment like this and keep a straight face about it. Do you really believe that? So there was absolutely no reason that the U.N had sanctions on Iraq.

 

[etech]

Hell, the way this is going the liberals are going to have Saddam up for sainthood.

Saint Saddam, he was just a little misunderstood and was actually a great guy. The US is just being a big meanie holding him for trial by the Iraqi people.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Since there has been no evidence found that Saddam was a danger

Only a liberal could make a comment like this and keep a straight face about it. Do you really believe that? So there was absolutely no reason that the U.N had sanctions on Iraq.

We are talking about the US here.

He was not a threat to the US.

He was a threat to his neighbors

 

[etech]

Hitler was only a threat to his neighbors.

Why don't they teach history in schools anymore?

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: etech
Hitler was only a threat to his neighbors.

Why don't they teach history in schools anymore?

So you are saying

hitler = saddam .

that is a bit of a streach even in dream land.

1) saddam doesnt have a industry base like hitler had.
2) hitler was able to use propganda to get his people behind him.
3) germany has much more natrual resources than iraq.
4) germany has a much more of a "professional" army than iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Unquestionably his most egregious act(s) was the thousands of his own citizens that he has murdered over the last 30 yrs. Throw in however many his sons murdered and his secret police and you have all the "authority" you need. Another new low for you Doc. Criticizing the US and Bush while swinging from Saddam's scrotum. Congrats.

Who poisoned your mind, Man?! The main topic was Saddam the War Criminal . . . not Saddam is a general POS . . . including during the period when Rummy was chummy. I do believe I explicity stated . . . hmm let me see.

Arguably his most egregious offenses were committed against Iranians and Iraqis . . . in particular his wanton disregard for noncombatants while attacking opposing troops.

Technically, I believe that counts as war crimes . . . but I certainly agree that Saddam's wanton disregard for people in general is deserving of universal condemnation . . . including during the period when Rummy was chummy. I would stoop to your smegma level but I'm willing to give you a pass b/c I assume the CO2 scrubbers on your boat need replacing.

Oh and just to be clear, brefore you throw your hands and say "who? me?" like you did in the other thread. Purposely "softening" what Saddam did in order to draw some tenuous parallel between Saddams murdering of his own civilians and the non combatants who were killed during the war is what I'm calling you on Doc. It's a bullsh!t argument and you know it.

Let's clear the air, UQ. Saddam is arguably in the top 3 of pure POS heads of state . . . just a shade better than Charles Taylor. The fact that both Saddam and Taylor are no longer in power is an unmitigated good. One was removed with a minimum of bloodshed while the other was removed with intentional bloodshed (and its BS to claim we had no choice). There is no way to purposely "soften" Saddam's crimes against humanity over the past 30 years . . . they speak for themselves . . . just as they did during the period when Rummy was chummy. BUT the calculated killing of innocents which occurred every time Bush ordered the dropping of a couple of JDAMs is still WRONG. Maybe you are comfortable arguing it is less wrong than Saddam's multiple offenses against Kurds of various nationalities, Iranians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqi civilians. Truth is I actually agree but Bush War 2003 was still measurably immoral on some accounts . . . better than most wars . . . yes . . . but nothing to be proud of. Despite this perspective I personally believe US/UK forces and some in the civilian leadership deserve some credit . . . because it could have been worse.

If your distinction between wedding parties in Afghanistan, non-English speaking families in Iraq, or anyone that happens to be in the wrong place when JDAMs or AC-130s come calling and Saddam's regular assaults on basic human decency helps you sleep at night or do your job . . . more power to you. But our government does not have high regard for innocents in this conflict (they certainly showed some regard but not necessarily high regard). Our concern was so low that we refused to estimate civilian deaths and then we insisted that Iraqis not attempt a tally afterwards. Pardon my french , cela est la tarte pure de vache.

We really don't know how many civilian deaths there have been, and we don't know how many of them can be attributed to coalition action, as opposed to action on the part of Iraqi armed forces as they defended themselves," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in a BBC interview Sunday.

Historically, the Pentagon has not tried to count civilian casualties and losses resulting from U.S. military action. Military officials have given various reasons for this, citing principally the time and resources involved and the difficulty of separating damage caused by U.S. forces from damage caused by the enemy.

But this time, the Bush administration is facing greater pressure to undertake at least some kind of accounting for what military authorities call "collateral damage." Before and during the war, U.S. officials repeatedly stressed the extent to which American forces were trying to avoid civilian losses by employing precision weapons, computerized target planning and restrictive rules of engagement. More than 70 percent of the bombs and missiles used in this war were either satellite- or laser-guided, according to the Pentagon.

"Because this administration has put so much emphasis on the care that it has taken, it would be very difficult for them to avoid coming to some kind of assessment of how they did in this regard," said Sarah Sewall, who served in the Pentagon during the Clinton administration and now directs a study on civilian suffering in war being conducted under the auspices of Harvard University.

Sewall added that it would be "unrealistic" to expect the Pentagon to come up with "a reliable figure" for civilian casualties given the "size, intensity and speed" of the U.S. campaign. But she said investigating at least some incidents would not only bolster U.S. credibility but also contribute to better military planning next time by understanding the actual effects of particular U.S. battlefield decisions.

One Air Force general, asked why the military has not done such postwar accounting in the past, said it has been more cost-effective to pour resources into increasingly sophisticated weaponry and intelligence-gathering equipment.

"The best way of limiting collateral damage is knowing what you're going after and being able to hit what you go after," the officer said.

He suggested that once the Pentagon started down the track of studying collateral damage caused by bombs, it could lead to endless assessments.

"I do wonder if we're going to do this every time the Army fires an artillery shell or every time a Special Forces soldier fires a 50-caliber" gun, he said.

But he also acknowledged the practical value of validating the Pentagon's damage-control models by counting the number of civilians who died.

"Maybe that's our next task someday -- to try to get that kind of information so that we can feed it back into the process," he said.

Another senior military officer noted that during the 1999 Kosovo war, U.S. military officials developed a computer program to track every weapon employed. This assisted peacekeeping troops who later entered Kosovo, providing them with information about what munitions had been dropped where -- and especially what ordnance may not have exploded. The program has been in use in the Iraq war, he said.

"So we now have a better system of tracking every weapon delivered, and if we go into an area, we can assess what's in there, what the potential duds might be and how we're going to go about cleaning them up," the officer said.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: etech
Hitler was only a threat to his neighbors.

Why don't they teach history in schools anymore?

So you are saying

hitler = saddam .

that is a bit of a streach even in dream land.

1) saddam doesnt have a industry base like hitler had.
2) hitler was able to use propganda to get his people behind him.
3) germany has much more natrual resources than iraq.
4) germany has a much more of a "professional" army than iraq.

I said that both were a threat to their neighbors but to address your comparison since you brought it up.

1) no, but Saddam had access to billions of dollars. He could buy weapons that would make Hitler look like a kid in a sandbox.
2) So did Saddam.
3) nice, but oil in todays economy is a pretty good resource
4) granted but throw in some religious fanatics and you have some dangerous fighters.

The point is the were both dangers to their neighbors. Saddam by continuing his actions that kept Iraq under UN sanction kept the economy of Iraq depressed. That lowered the economy of the entire region. Expand from that premise.

 

[etech]

Nope, there's no reason at all to hold Saddam according to the libs.

libs poster child , Saddam

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
Nope, there's no reason at all to hold Saddam according to the libs.

libs poster child , Saddam

I can put up posters of kids blown to bits by this adventure. The OP was not if there was reason, but if there was LEGALLY cause to do so.

If your argument is that he was bad and the US was stronger that's fine. It is not a legal reason.

There is a saying I see pro war people using.

If the law is on your side, argue the law
If the facts are on your side argue the facts.
If neither is, then yell like hell.

 

[etech]

But I'm not the one yelling to set him free, your side is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech
But I'm not the one yelling to set him free, your side is.

Is it? No one I know is yelling to let him go. I have no doubt some fringe elements are. They are not on "my side". I DO see "your side" trying to legally justify something that is not a legal issue. Some on "your side" argued that we should turn the middle east to glass. I can extend your statement to apply so all those who were for this war really wanted to kill hundreds of millions with a preemptive nuclear strike.

Personally, I could have shot him and not blinked.

You want to imprison or kill the man? Go for it. Don't pull a rule of law argument. Just do it.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Since there has been no evidence found that Saddam was a danger

Only a liberal could make a comment like this and keep a straight face about it. Do you really believe that? So there was absolutely no reason that the U.N had sanctions on Iraq.

What does being a "liberal" have to do with this topic?

 

[Wolfdog]

The US government is the biggest hipocrit of them all. They have signed so many treaties and doctrines and then gone back on thier word whenever it suits thier needs. This has gone on well into the past and is still taking place today. The dozens that were signed in good faith with the native americans, only to use military force to eradicate them. The use of thier power to illegally detain the Neo japaneese during WWII. Denying them the same very rights that the country was built upon. The detaining and exportation of peoples that have committed no crime or could be tied to terrorism only to be tortured in mid eastern nations. Even when they are not a US citizen. Expressly seen as the canadian that flew through our airport and was detained without justification, and sent overseas to be tortured. The US had no right to do that, yet it did. Even with the most recent debacle over the treaty we signed with Russia back in the cold war. You know the one that stated that we would NOT build a missle defense system. It was swept by the wayside since it didn't suit the US's needs anymore. So when it comes down to it, Mr nonelect Bush lied to the country outright and proliferated the destructive power against a country who couldn't defend themselves. Instead of unarming his WOMD that are nonexistant, it turned in to this crap about "Iraqi freedom". I have a really hard time with the argument that he was executing thousands of people, when the same exact thing has gone on right here in the US. How many people has the US executed that never got a fair trial? Quite frankly there is absolutely no difference. Look to fixing our own nation before pulling crap overseas. The US has abided by these one sided ethics for so long that it is sickening. When the US does it, it is morally just. When everyone else does it they are evil and need to be obliverated. When it comes down to it the world court really only has the jurisdiction to ensure a fair and just trial for Saddam. If you think that that will happen then think again. The US seems to hate the thing of fair and just trials. It has turned into a nation where money buys a trial. Instead the US has become a nation that wants to overthrow governments when they don't sway thier way.

 

[etech]

wolfdog,

Do the people of Iraq have the right to try Saddam?

Why do you think only the world court would have that right?

As for pulling out of the treaty made with the USSR. The USSR does not exist anymore. There was a mechanism in the treaty for pulling out of it. Either way, condidtions in the world change and your refusal to admit that just means you are another of the blind US bashers that populate the web.

Have a nice day.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Since there has been no evidence found that Saddam was a danger, how can the US legally hold him prisoner? Or is this another example of "might make right"?

This man has broken many many many international laws. Did it ever occur to you that by throwing out the inspectors THE FIRST TIME he was renegging on the terms of surrender and thus we were still at war?

He never stopped violating the terms of surrender from day one. No fly zones were violated and weapons were fired almost monthly. Why does it have to have anything to do with the current situation?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: etech
The US is temporarily in control of Iraq. Saddam is guilty of crimes in that country. The US as the current legal presence in Iraq can hold him until a civil presence in Iraq is ready to accept custody of him and place him on trial.


Dr Smooth are you trolling or do you really like Saddam that much or do you just hate the US?

No I am not trolling. I do not hate the US. I do not "hate" Bush. I find it curious that you would ask that. Appartently questioning the actions of the US is considered by some people to be an unpatriotic act.

I wonder why no one has talked about this. The legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to the US. No evidence has been found that this threat existed. Then on what legal basis does the US have for invading Iraq, a sovereign country, and holding its leadership in detention?

The only justification I can come up with is might is right. The US is the most powerful country in the world and it can do whatever it wants. The people have justifified this by saying that Saddam murdered this people and attacked his neighbors. State sponsored capital punishment is not an uncommon practice. Ask our neighbors to the south how they feel about being influenced by the US.

 

[etech]

You're right, the US should set him free in the middle of Baghdad after publicizing his release well ahead of time.


Problem solved.

 

[LongCoolMother]

what do you suppose they should do? let him roam free? i say kill him.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

I wonder why no one has talked about this. The legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to the US. No evidence has been found that this threat existed. Then on what legal basis does the US have for invading Iraq, a sovereign country, and holding its leadership in detention?

actually evidence has been found but it is minimized. as far as legality i beleive the human rights violations are enough...i think somehwere in the UN charter it is illegal to round up dissdents, shoot tens of thousands of them and bury them in mass graves. if it is not then milosevec should get his job back too.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

I wonder why no one has talked about this. The legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to the US. No evidence has been found that this threat existed. Then on what legal basis does the US have for invading Iraq, a sovereign country, and holding its leadership in detention?

actually evidence has been found but it is minimized. as far as legality i beleive the human rights violations are enough...i think somehwere in the UN charter it is illegal to round up dissdents, shoot tens of thousands of them and bury them in mass graves. if it is not then milosevec should get his job back too.

And that matters to us why? It didn't matter in the 1980s and it didn't matter in the 1990s.

 

[maddogchen]

Guys guys guys, its very simple how we can hold Saddam a prisoner.

He's being held for ordering the attempted murder of former President Bush. You guys don't remember that? how after the gulf war the US foiled a plot to kill Bush Senior and found out it was ordered by Saddam? He should be tried and executed in Texas for that

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

I wonder why no one has talked about this. The legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to the US. No evidence has been found that this threat existed. Then on what legal basis does the US have for invading Iraq, a sovereign country, and holding its leadership in detention?

actually evidence has been found but it is minimized. as far as legality i beleive the human rights violations are enough...i think somehwere in the UN charter it is illegal to round up dissdents, shoot tens of thousands of them and bury them in mass graves. if it is not then milosevec should get his job back too.

And that matters to us why? It didn't matter in the 1980s and it didn't matter in the 1990s.

the first comment is very telling...as for the second, you are right. it did not matter, the UN did not want to do anything about it then, and it did not this time and the US committed the sin of showing the UN is what does not matter.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: etech
The US is temporarily in control of Iraq. Saddam is guilty of crimes in that country. The US as the current legal presence in Iraq can hold him until a civil presence in Iraq is ready to accept custody of him and place him on trial.


Dr Smooth are you trolling or do you really like Saddam that much or do you just hate the US?

No I am not trolling. I do not hate the US. I do not "hate" Bush. I find it curious that you would ask that. Appartently questioning the actions of the US is considered by some people to be an unpatriotic act.

I wonder why no one has talked about this. The legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq is that Saddam was a threat to the US. No evidence has been found that this threat existed. Then on what legal basis does the US have for invading Iraq, a sovereign country, and holding its leadership in detention?

The only justification I can come up with is might is right. The US is the most powerful country in the world and it can do whatever it wants. The people have justifified this by saying that Saddam murdered this people and attacked his neighbors. State sponsored capital punishment is not an uncommon practice. Ask our neighbors to the south how they feel about being influenced by the US.

Since you are back, go ahead and fix the thread title

 

[glugglug]

Since when has the legality mattered on anything the Bush Regime did?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Guys guys guys, its very simple how we can hold Saddam a prisoner.

He's being held for ordering the attempted murder of former President Bush. You guys don't remember that? how after the gulf war the US foiled a plot to kill Bush Senior and found out it was ordered by Saddam? He should be tried and executed in Texas for that

But could the US legally go to another country and arrest him there?