Was Saddam Sons' Killing 'Legal'?

[dArKeR]

 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.

The brothers were killed during a six-hour raid Tuesday at a palatial villa in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul by U.S. forces acting on a tip from an informant. 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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/23/iraq/main564717.shtml

Where is the evidence used to issue a warrant? Where is the evidence to be used in the trial?

I swear, you've all gone insane! The GOP Christian leaders and GOP media Corps. have lead our country to the Valley of The Shadow of Death!

Why can a society empathize with a movie like Gladiator but have no idea on the difference of wrong and right in living world history?

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/

[osaMABUSh]

1. How about removing the bodies - war crime?

OK, even if the killings were legal, what about removing the bodies to some undisclosed location? Seems to me that this is a war crime for tampering with corpses and showing disrespect to the remains of those conquered.

[IndianaGreen]

2. You don't butcher POWs

Saddam's sons would have been POWs under the Geneva Convention. They can still be tried for crimes, but you can't execute them without due process and a fair trial.

[J B]

3. Why do you think Bush didn't declare the war over, people?

Think a little!

Since the US is still in a State of War, killing the enemy's leaders is allowed under international law. When Bush declared Mission Accomplished, he explicitly did not declare the "state of war" over. That, as far as he's concerned, makes the killings perfectly legal.

[Bluerthanblue]

4. a question about the legitimacy

would killing the Bush twins be ok-

i'm VERY troubled by the news that supposedly the 14yr old grandson of Saddam was also killed-

and Bush says this is wonderful?????

[indictrichardperle]

5. no its not legal

killing the 14 year old grandson doesnt make me want to wave the flag either :mad:

I digress, i still think this whole thing is Bullshit, a badly needed publicity stunt.

[Herschel]

6. I celebrate the death of these animals

The suffering they brought on their own people was horrific. It was a good thing.

[dfong63]

7. a bad precedent

and in what court were these "animals" convicted?

if we go around killing people without trials, without due process, without evidence, without even a formal indictment, then who's to say we aren't "animals" too?

who's next on the list of these "animals"? you, me, your friends or family?

[Herschel]

9. Please!

This is obvious. Who can sympathize with them. Their deaths are welcome, trial or no.

[IndianaGreen]

12. You are contradicting yourself with what you said about Israel

Israel does not celebrate and dance for terrorists. They arrest and try them. That is the difference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=2134&mesg_id=2134&page=#2147

If it is a good deed to "arrest and try" terrorists, instead of killing them first and then "celebrate and dance", why are you applying a different standard to America?

Why is it morally permissible to support two contradictory views simply because America is the law-breaker?

We take Israel to task when she violates international law, so why should we give America a pass when it does far, far worse than Israel ever did in Southern Lebanon or in the Occupied Territories?

At least Israel can make a claim that they need some of the Palestinian land for security reasons, but can America make the same claim about Iraq? I didn't so!

[stanwyck]

14. You're wrong

Putting them on trial would have served the world better. If we are truly fighting terrorism, capturing these men could have given us much needed information. From what I've about them, they were cowardly men who probably would have given up crucial information quickly. The mythology of Americans is that we're better than this. Even when faced with horrific adversaries, we don't descend to sub-human behavior. We have superior force. We could have taken these men and imprisoned them. Your celebration of death is base and immoral. You diminish the best of what being an American means.

[dArKeR]

16. You're the kinda guy I imagine is the Head of Torture for some

Fascist countries in South America!

[dArKeR]

17. You must be a Southern Baptist of the Robertson kind, I've never met

a blood thirsty Jewish person in my life! (It's a factual statement because I've never met Sharon)

[IndianaGreen]

10. Then you should celebrate Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan's death

For the suffering that Kissinger brought to the people of Chile and Vietnam, and for the suffering that Reagan brought to El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Grenada, etc.

Your point of view contradicts Jewish ethics. Shame!

[XNGH]

11. Death

I don't believe that anyones death should be reason to celebrate

[Lexingtonian]

20. define "civilized", please

in this particular context. Contrast with "barbaric".

There is such a marked coincidence of being 'pro-Israel' and being Manichaean these days, btw. And I thought Judaism was all about not falling for occultism's scheme of the world. I guess neo-Zealotism would be a more accurate label than 'pro-Israel'....

[GRClarkesq]

8. What is the penalty for violating an EO?

Anyone know?

The prohibition in question is an Executive Order signed by President Ford. I assume any later President could change it at will, bot noone has bothered.

If Clinton's Tomohawk strike on OBL had worked, would that have violated the same EO?

[dflprincess]

13. I'm not sure.

I think the EO only applied to heads of state. OBL was (is) not a head of state so I don't think it would have violated the EO.

[Julien Sorel]

19. The EO prohibits 'political assassination,' which this is.

It's easy to look at the death of these guys, with the media trumpeting what monsters they were, and saying it doesn't matter if their killing was 'legal' or not. But there sure has been a lot of the 'ends justify the means' rationalizing going on lately, and it's disturbing. The hindsight excuse for the entire Iraq war is now that Saddam was evil, so the war was OK. Never mind that we went to war based on a different premise -- all's well that ends well. In a society that is supposed to be based on the rule of law, that mind set is dangerous.

[wtmusic]

15. Might makes right

When are we going to capture * and his henchmen?

[VolcanoJen]

18. Dupe... locking

Please continue discussion by posting in the original, earliest thread on this topic, which can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=30277&mesg_id=30277&page=

Thanks!
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator