Saddam's Sons May Have Died in Raid

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Well, ok, maybe not Bush, but Rumsfeld. He deserves it as much as Saddam's sons. Didn't he sell Iraq weapons in the past?

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

WASHINGTON TODAY: Assassination ban still on books but widely ignored

 

GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer   Tuesday, July 22, 2003  

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

(07-22) 22:52 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

 

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

 

Acting on a tip from an informant, the brothers were killed during a six-hour raid Tuesday at a palatial villa in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. They ranked just below their father in the deposed regime. Odai, in particular, had a reputation for brutality.

 

Officials said people inside the villa opened fire first -- but left little doubt what the U.S. troops hoped to accomplish.

 

"We remain focused on finding, fixing, killing or capturing all members of the high-value target list," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition troops in Iraq, announcing the deaths of Odai and Qusai.

 

The ban has been overlooked so often in recent years that some wonder why the administration doesn't simply declare the measure null and void.

 

Earlier this week, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, stated in usually candid terms the administration's disregard for the assassination ban. Appearing on NBC TV's "Meet the Press," Bremer said U.S. officials presumed that Saddam was still alive and that American forces were trying to kill him.

 

"The sooner we can either kill him or capture him, the better," Bremer said. Often in the past, officials resorted to winks and nods or other circumlocutions when asked about U.S. actions that gave the appearance of homicidal intent.

 

Consider President Reagan's response when he was asked whether the bombing of Moammar Gadhafi's residence in 1986 constituted an effort to kill the Libyan leader.

 

"I don't think any of us would have shed tears if that had happened," Reagan said. Over the past five years, U.S.-sponsored assassination attempts have been on the increase. Targets have included Osama bin Laden, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic among others.

 

Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said before the start of the Iraq war that the assassination ban would not apply once hostilities broke out.

 

"People who are in charge of fighting the war to kill United States troops cannot assume that they will be safe," Fleischer said, making clear that Saddam would not be exempt.

 

Bremer says the rationale for going after Saddam now even though he is no longer in power is that he remains a rallying point for supporters.

 

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.

 

EDITOR'S NOTE: George Gedda has covered foreign affairs for The Associated Press since 1968.

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter that whats happened is ILLEGAL.

[Guest EricMM]

I remember hearing that it was possible that Bush got rid of that executive order a long time ago.

 

Considering the times we live in, it's not surprising. And besides, I'd certainly say that they were "resisting arrest." You know, all that shooting and all.

 

Unless you're saying that the two of them didn't deserve to be arrested?

 

Think...

 

*EDIT* Nice edit *EDIT*

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

I remember hearing that it was possible that Bush got rid of that executive order a long time ago.

 

Considering the times we live in, it's not surprising. And besides, I'd certainly say that they were "resisting arrest." You know, all that shooting and all.

 

Unless you're saying that the two of them didn't deserve to be arrested?

 

Think...

 

*EDIT* Nice edit *EDIT*

Well, it was true..that certain person is wiping a certain part of their anatomy with the piece of paper that says Political Assasination is banned..

 

I suppose that I shouldn't be supportive of the ban since it would mean we wouldn't be able to kill Sadam if he's ever caught (if he's not dead already). But to me its just the principle of the fact that the government has ignored the ban for almost 30 years and yet now its ok even though the Ban is still officially on the records. We should go kill Castro now and get that over with as well while were breaking the ban.

[Guest EricMM]

Maybe the ban isn't in place anymore? It was an executive order to begin with, as they say, "Wax on, Wax off."

[Guest Vyce]

Well, ok, maybe not Bush, but Rumsfeld. He deserves it as much as Saddam's sons. Didn't he sell Iraq weapons in the past?

You really are an idiot.

 

Well, I guess it doesn't really matter that whats happened is ILLEGAL.

 

You do realize that they TRIED to capture them alive, don't you? But unfortunately they were not able to do so. If they really wanted them just dead, they would have dropped a Hellfire or two upon them. I saw some speculation on CNN last night that the sons may have even committed suicide.

 

Really, you're sounding as silly as Beast here.

[Guest HartFan86]

Well, their pictures are literally all over the news this morning and it looks like UDay took a pretty nasty shot to the face.

 

I dunno if I'd believe it if I was an Iraqi person, though. I mean, all the shit their minds have been corrupted in the past years...they don't know what to believe.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Something tells me that they would have used tear gas if they were trying to take them alive, not rockets.

[Guest HartFan86]

Yeah...I think it's pretty much mission to kill, despite the unbelivable amount of information we could get from these guys.

[Guest Bosstones Fan]

Yeah...I think it's pretty much mission to kill, despite the unbelivable amount of information we could get from these guys.

They wouldn't have talked. In fact, I think that if we had gone in with the intention of getting them alive, they would have killed themselves.

[Guest TheGame2705]

JMA, there's no universal rule that there has to be complete separation of church and state. It may be in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily make it true. It can still work.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

JMA, there's no universal rule that there has to be complete separation of church and state. It may be in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily make it true. It can still work.

No, it really can't.

 

Provide one example of a thriving, open society that is church-based, and I'll be absolutely shocked.

[Guest mach7]

Not sure if anyone has seen them yet, but apparently photos of their bodies have been released.

 

Pretty gross...

 

[the link to the photos is in the middle of the page]

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Why were these pics posted on a website? Do they think people enjoy seeing dead bodies? This is downright disgusting.

[Guest mach7]

Why were these pics posted on a website? Do they think people enjoy seeing dead bodies? This is downright disgusting.

No doubt. But it's The Associated Press. It's news.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

Not really news. The news was the guys were killed. No pictures required.

[Guest Downhome]

Making these pictures available is a must. All Iraqi's both here, and in Iraq, who have any feelings and hopes of these men returning to power must see their dead bodies. Otherwise, it's only our word against their hardcore beliefs, and in their culture (well, most cultures), hardcore beliefs override whatever anyone "says".

 

I'm not all for showing them on TV over and over again, and posting the pictures just for the hell of it. Still, they need to get out there for people to see. Their deaths is a vital part of this war.

[Guest Vyce]

Something tells me that they would have used tear gas if they were trying to take them alive, not rockets.

The 2nd floor, where they were located, was essentially a bunker.

 

The walls alone were at least a foot or two thick.

 

The assault lasted something like 4 hours. If they had just wanted them dead initially, it would have been a lot quicker than that. I'm sure there came a point where they just said screw it and decided to finish them off, but not initially.

 

But let's play devil's advocate - if the intention was to kill....

 

.....what's the fucking problem?

 

Granted, we MAY have been able to get some intelligence out of them (far from a given), but other than that, they're not worth keeping alive.

 

Don't hit me with any of that NY Times editorial bullshit about how we've robbed Iraqis of the opportunity for justice against them either. These two got what was coming to them.

 

With Idi Amen about ready to kick it in Saudi Arabia, it is a GOOD season for death.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

I don't think many people take joy in seeing a dead body, even if they are evil.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Chrissakes, shut up. I've just about had it with your disgusting combination of treason and wishy-washy weak-kneed faux naivete.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

 

Rumsfeld SHAKES HANDS with Saddam in the 80s.

 

(CNN) -- Twenty years ago, the U.S. government was building ties to Saddam Hussein's government -- not trying to overthrow it.

 

In the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration sent then-private citizen Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to improve relations. Rumsfeld is now the U.S. secretary of defense.

 

Saddam's regime was using much of Iraq's burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people. It even won UN humanitarian awards for its literacy programs.

 

Amatzia Baram, a professor at the University of Haifa, said Saddam's administration improved the nation's infrastructure, such as roads, electrical grids, hospitals, water systems and -- to an extent -- women's status. "However, all this came at the -- at the expense of personal freedoms," he said.

 

To the United States, Iraq's secular regime was an important counter-balance to Iran, where anti-American passion mixed with radical Islam had led to the overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah.

 

"In the 1980's, our Arab allies in the region and our own assessment convinced us that Iraq might be a new kind of moderate Arab leader, that [saddam] could be brought into the moderate Arab camp," said New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler.

 

Favoring Iraq over Iran

When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 over a border dispute, the United States tilted toward Saddam -- secretly supplying intelligence to hit Iranian positions.

 

The relationship with Iraq was severely tested after Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and even gassed rebellious Kurds in the northern part of the country.

 

"Congress reacted, the public reacted, and this made it all the more complicated for the United States to continue its, its secret assistance to the Iraqi military," Tyler said.

 

 

In 1981, the Israeli Air Force bombed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. 

 

 

Meanwhile Iraq had begun a secret program of its own: nuclear weapons. In 1981, Israel bombed and destroyed a nuclear reactor near Baghdad believed to be the foundation of the weapons program.

 

Both the United Nations and the United States denounced the preemptive strike. But the Israeli attack was only a temporary setback.

 

Iraq went on a multi-billion dollar buying binge, purchasing components for building a nuclear bomb from Western companies eager for cash.

 

Khidir Hamza headed Iraq's nuclear weapons program before defecting in 1994. He says Iraq used the cover of scientific research to purchase nuclear-related equipment.

 

"And you tell them you need equipment for research, and they tell you, "What kind of research?" And you make up a story," he said. "A good one.We are scientists; We can make good stories, and they buy it. They buy the story and they sell us the equipment."

 

Turning against Saddam

It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, that the United States turned against Saddam. Iraq was now seen as big a danger to U.S. interests as Iran.

 

 

After the Gulf War, the first Bush administration believed Saddam Hussein would be overthrown from within Iraq. 

 

 

"Now the same fear was being projected on Iraq -- that he was an alarming, threatening leader in the region who was out to grab the oil weapon and use it against the West," Tyler said.

 

The resulting Persian Gulf War ended Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but the U.S forces did not go all the way to Baghdad to overthrow him.

 

President Bush, the father of the current president, feared that expanding the mission would destroy his international coalition because the goal of the U.N. resolutions backing the armed conflict focused only on removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

 

"We could have rode into Baghdad in 48 hours, and then all hell would have been broken loose," former President Bush said. "And we would have been standing alone making a martyr out of a defeated brute and tyrant, Saddam Hussein."

 

After the Gulf War, U.S. officials believed Saddam would be overthrown internally.

 

 

Bush warned the U.N. that the U.S. is prepared to deal with Iraq with or without U.N. support. 

 

 

"After the Gulf War, I went around and talked to a number of very senior Bush administration officials, some of whom are in the new Bush administration, and they all assured me Saddam Hussein would fall in six months, because that was the basic take in the American intelligence community," said New York Times military affairs reporter Michael Gordon.

 

Now the second President Bush is pushing hard to remove Saddam from power.

 

"The American people know my position," he said. "And that is that regime change is in the interest of the world."

 

But after all these years, why now threaten war? The Bush administration believes that in a post-September 11 environment, threats must be dealt with pre-emptively, according to CNN Senior White House Correspondent John King, who has covered the administration since it came into office.

 

"Everybody knew on September 10th Osama bin Laden was a threat to the United States and its interests. He was not dealt with decisively. Look what happened. That is the president's policy now. See a threat, deal with the threat or pay the price ... and Iraq is test number one."

 

Over the summer, the administration stepped up its case for a preemptive attack, with President Bush outlining the new doctrine for pre-emptive attacks in a commencement speech at West Point.

 

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," Bush said.

 

But prominent members of the president's own party balked. Texas Rep. Dick Armey, a member of the House Republican leadership, said the United States should just let Saddam bluster.

 

"As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack of resources against him," Armey said.

 

Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser during the first Bush administration and mentor of current National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, warned against a "go-it-alone" strategy in the Wall Street Journal.

 

"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Scowcroft wrote in the September 15, 2002, edition on the Journal's editorial page.

 

Lawrence Eagleburger, who also served in the first Bush administration, also spoke out, saying the nation need answers before any war against Iraq.

 

"How long do we stay? How much does it cost? What does it do to our conditions within that part of the world? What kind of a regime do we put in his place? How long does it last if it seems that we are the ones that put him in his place?" Eagleburger said during a September 25 interview on CNN's "Late Edition." "I think there are any number of complex questions that simply haven't been examined."

 

With pressure from critics mounting, the Bush administration took its case to the United Nations. In a September 12 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Bush said the UN risked the possibility of becoming irrelevant if it didn't enforce its own resolutions against Iraq.

 

The president also warned that if the UN did not stand up to Saddam, the U.S. would.

 

"By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand," he said. "And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."

 

Bush's speech was well-received but support for his approach remains divided. Great Britain has been very supportive, as have other European nations. But Germany is opposing a war in Iraq and many Middle East countries have voiced doubts as well.

 

Link To Article

[Guest EricMM]

MB we've all heard this shit before.

[Murmuring Beast 0]

True shit though. Gang up on me, but I'm telling the truth here.

[Guest Some Guy]

From what I've seen and heard the American troop swere shot at and retreated not once but twice. Then they got pissed. They couldn't penetrate the two panes of bullet proof glass with their ground weapons, they called in a helicopter gunship and still couldn't get through and then called in somethign called TOWs, which are apparently anti-tank weapons and got through. Then they went in and the 14 year old shot at them and they put him down. I'm sure they would have loved to take them alive but it wasn't going to happen and they were well prepared for it.

 

BTW Tyler, are you more likely to surrender to four troops while you're in what amount to a bunker or 200 troops and helicopter gun ships? There's strengh in numbers, didn't you have a cop tell you that in grade school before Halloween?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What in the holy fuck are you blithering about now?

 

Go back here, please.

[Guest Powerplay]

True shit though. Gang up on me, but I'm telling the truth here.

And Jacque Charaque(sp? I'm writing this pretty quickly) gave them a nuclear reactor and I believe still has a picture of him and Saddam in his office. You can forgive him but not Rumsfeld? At least one of them has helped correct his mistake.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Chirac, you non-world-leader's-name-spelling-knowing bastard.

 

Everyone has made their mistakes in regard to Saddam, and the past seems to be only convenient when you're making an argument for yourself. Let's focus on the present and discover that we've got ourselves into a huge mess; let's discuss the fact that we went into battle parading Iraq as a threat, but they weren't. Let's discuss the fact that we're now justifying it with humanitarian reasons, but we refuse to do the same thing in other countries.

 

Let's not discuss pictures on French peoples' walls.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

One of the brothers was in charge of something like the Republican Guard, and the other another group. So they where commanding officers in the Iraqi Army, so they were legal targets.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Only one was a leader of a militant group, leading "Saddam's Mujadeen" if my spelling is correct.

[Guest DrTom]

But let's play devil's advocate - if the intention was to kill....

 

.....what's the fucking problem?

Precisely.

 

Our intention should have been to kill them. Our intention should be to kill anyone associated with the Hussein regime. We need all those miserable bastards pushing up daisies before we can try and establish some kind of sensible government for the Iraqi people. Ties to the past need to be cut, especially ties as poisonous as those to Saddam.