Why didn't they try Saddam for crimes against the Kurds before murdering him?

[Mathematician]

The answer may already be found in our history books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm (Not subscribed)

ECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

The article date: 2003.

 

[Majikthise]

Thought to have , not known to have.
Yep, sounds solid as rock to me.

 

[Mathematician]

If you are going to charge someone with genocide and wage a war in the process, you better have facts to support your position -- unfortunately for us evidence points to the Iranians.

Isn't it interesting that neither the Iraqi government nor our own went after genocide first? Why not? Would it hit too close to home and reveal some of this stark evidence? Would it open up old wounds by showing how we messed up in the '80s by playing puppeteer?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Actually, the reason Saddam was charge only with one particular crime was because it would be easy to convict him. This is a relatively untested court system and they wanted things to go smooth.

 

[Mathematician]

Good point, Radio (frubals), but I feel that in particular also contributes to my own belief that the genocide accusations have little merit.

I hope no one thinks I put Saddam on a pedestal for martyrdom, but listening to false rhetoric be pumped out of this administration's mouth is unacceptable.

 

[Mr. Hair]

Why didn't they try Saddam for crimes against the Kurds before murdering him?

Perhaps in part (and only in part) because it would have been perceived to have lent political credibility to, and thus furthered, the cause for Kurdish self-rule under an independent nationstate through legally recognising the Kurds as a separate and distinct geopolitical group, which happens to be something several middle eastern governments (including that of Turkey and Iraq) aren't exactly supportive of?

(I also feel duty bound to point out that technically his death cannot be classed as a 'murder', as it was a state-sanctioned judicial decision that did not violate international laws. I say much the same thing to those who try to claim that abortion is 'murder', you see...)

Actually, the reason Saddam was charge only with one particular crime was because it would be easy to convict him.

*nods*

I suspect such a decision was indeed an attempt to rectify the past mistakes made and difficulties faced during, for example, the recent legal proceedings taken against Slobodan Milošević at the ICC.

 

[BUDDY]

I hope no one thinks I put Saddam on a pedestal for martyrdom

Oh come on now, that is exactly what you are doing. You and all of your ilk do this all the time and when you do, you are trying to put these evil people on a pedestal...in comparison to the US. After all you truly believe that the US is the "Great Satan" and will condone anything to make them look bad. Including putting forth the accusation that the US government "murdered" Saddam Hussein. Don't try to spin it with rhetoric. Say what you mean.

 

[yossarian22]

There is a village somewhere (Iraq I think) where almost every male child was named Saddam.
I think he is already considered a martyr

 

[greatcalgarian]

You mean Sadam was murdered, and not executed lawfully??

 

[Napoleon]

You mean Sadam was murdered, and not executed lawfully??

Consider this:

1. Not a single witness called by the prosecution pointed a finger at Saddam. Instead, they all placed the blame for their suffering on Barzan Ibrahim.

2. Much of the evidence presented by the prosecution revealed that Saddam's henchmen, especially Barzan Ibrahim and the [SIZE=-1]Mukhabarat, disobeyed direct orders from Saddam when committing the crimes and tried to cover it up. For example, Barzan Ibrahim and two Mukhabarat agents murdered a Shiite family, after they were acquitted, and buried their bodies in the desert so that Saddam wouldn't find out. Saddam did find out and sent the Mukhabarat agents to prison. He also declared the victims to be martyrs and compensated their relatives.

3. The documents proved that Saddam signed off on decisions made by the Revolutionary Court. Nothing more.

4. [/SIZE]Chief judge Rizgar Amin resigned because, according to him, the U.S. and Iraqi governments were placing extreme pressure on him to convict Saddam regardless of what evidence was or wasn't presented at the trial.

5. Documents were seized from the defense team by the U.S. and the defense was denied access to documents in the possession of the prosecution.

In short, the decision to hang Saddam had already been made. He wasn't given a fair trial and was therefore not executed lawfully.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Consider this:

1. Not a single witness called by the prosecution pointed a finger at Saddam. Instead, they all placed the blame for their suffering on Barzan Ibrahim.

2. Much of the evidence presented by the prosecution revealed that Saddam's henchmen, especially Barzan Ibrahim and the [SIZE=-1]Mukhabarat, disobeyed direct orders from Saddam when committing the crimes and tried to cover it up. For example, Barzan Ibrahim and two Mukhabarat agents murdered a Shiite family, after they were acquitted, and buried their bodies in the desert so that Saddam wouldn't find out. Saddam did find out and sent the Mukhabarat agents to prison. He also declared the victims to be martyrs and compensated their relatives.

3. The documents proved that Saddam signed off on decisions made by the Revolutionary Court. Nothing more.

4. [/SIZE]Chief judge Rizgar Amin resigned because, according to him, the U.S. and Iraqi governments were placing extreme pressure on him to convict Saddam regardless of what evidence was or wasn't presented at the trial.

5. Documents were seized from the defense team by the U.S. and the defense was denied access to documents in the possession of the prosecution.

In short, the decision to hang Saddam had already been made. He wasn't given a fair trial and was therefore not executed lawfully.

If Sadam was murdered, then shouldn't his murderers be brought to justice?

 

[Napoleon]

If Sadam was murdered, then shouldn't his murderers be brought to justice?

Should they? Yes. Will they? No. The United States always ensures that it's the exception to the rule.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Because another judge would have died, if you ask me, he should not have hada court case, straight to death.

 

[Smoke]

Gene, I suspect you know very well why it wouldn't have been very politic to try Saddam for crimes against the Kurds. It's never a good idea for a government to embarrass the government that's propping it up.

As for justice -- yeah, Saddam's trial was a show trial. The same could be said of the Ceauşescus' trial in 1989. None of them was in much of a position to moan about that, though.

 

[storm2020]

Why were we looking for Saddam anyway? I thought we were supposed to be in afghanistan looking for Bin Laden?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Like the German war trials it is the Top brass who gives the orders who are tried and hung.
Hitler would have been Hung If he had lived. Though as far as is known he did not go in for the personal stuff , he left it to others.
Saddam was mostly in the same position.

 

[Smoke]

Why were we looking for Saddam anyway? I thought we were supposed to be in afghanistan looking for Bin Laden?

I wonder whether catching and trying Bin Laden wouldn't bring things to light that would prove embarrassing for some of our key allies in the Middle East, and even for certain wealthy Americans. It certainly seems like they could have made better progress in six years, doesn't it?

 

[greatcalgarian]

I wonder whether catching and trying Bin Laden wouldn't bring things to light that would prove embarrassing for some of our key allies in the Middle East, and even for certain wealthy Americans. It certainly seems like they could have made better progress in six years, doesn't it?

It will embarass the US, if whatever CIA has done with bin Laden is exposed in a trial.

CNN is quick to brain wash public opinion by this:
CNN.com - Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash - Aug 24, 2006

Answering the following:
Green Left - Cover Story: How the CIA created Osama bin Laden
CRG -- Who Is Osama Bin Laden?
Do you believe Prof Michel Chossudovsky or CNN?

 

[rocka21]

Why were we looking for Saddam anyway? I thought we were supposed to be in afghanistan looking for Bin Laden?

remember that thing called the Gulf War? Saddam signed some little papers with agreements on them , by doing so we STOPPED THE WAR.

If you break the contract you signed, then...... the WAR STARTS AGAIN.

so we had every right to "look" for Saddam.

 

[Bishka]

remember that thing called the Gulf War? Saddam signed some little papers with agreements on them , by doing so we STOPPED THE WAR.

If you break the contract you signed, then...... the WAR STARTS AGAIN.

so we had every right to "look" for Saddam.

So you are behind President Bush 100% and think he did no wrong? I agree, Sadaam was a horrible man, but it's the point that Dubya lied to us. When we first went into Iraq it was under the pretext of looking for WMD. Dubya knew he would not find any and lied to us so he could get in there. I wouldn't have so much problem with it if he started out with, "We are going in to get Sadaam," but that is not what he said. Can you really stand behind a president who lies?