Saddam Hussein Executed

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Wow, I did not know that any coalition forces (who are covered by order 17 as I quoted above and so immune to Iraqi justice) were being accused of ethnic cleansing, gassing kurds, invading Kuwait, crushing kurdish and shia rebellions, massacring the Barzani tribe, or even killing religious leaders, but hey, if you think troops have committed the same crimes as what Saddam and his cronies have been charged with, that's up to you.
Or are you suggesting that Margret Beckett (MP for incompetance) believes that our troops have committed the same crimes as Saddam and his cronies?

Well Murder is murder, and war crimes are war crimes.

Or are YOU saying murder by a British or American soldier doesnt count and should not be classed i the same league of murder as Saddam hussein?

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think its simple. You are against the death penality but are glad Iraq has had its own justice.

i dont think its simple at all damien as if you oppose the death penalty (in all cases as blair said) then you cannot at the same time agree with the iraqi justice system, or at least its use of the death sentence. you may agree that its good that he has been tried in iraq under iragi law, but not the sentence.

the justice system itself has not been universally acclaimed either though i dont doubt the verdict is correct, or at the least just.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

i dont think its simple at all damien as if you oppose the death penalty (in all cases as blair said) then you cannot at the same time agree with the iraqi justice system, or at least its use of the death sentence. you may agree that its good that he has been tried in iraq under iragi law, but not the sentence.

the justice system itself has not been universally acclaimed either though i dont doubt the verdict is correct, or at the least just.

Well I am against the death penalty. But I am not upset he is going to die. I also think its good that he was brought to justice even though I do not agree, in principle, with the method.

[Mr Angry]

Tell me Xaccers, do you get a worse hanging depending on the number of victims or is it the case that "our" murders are less reprehensible than his murders?

As has been evidenced and remarked upon in this thread your defence when cornered is to twist words, create strawmen and play to the gallery. I've no wish to engage you in this type of behaviour.

It strikes me, and I'm sure others, as somewhat bizarre the sanctity and reverence with which you hold the innocent victims of Hussein yet, at the same time, the innocent lives lost for "freedom and democracy" in Iraq hardly merit a mention on your part. Why are you not seeking justice for them? Oh, that's right, it's a war, something you've no actual experience of, but better still it's "our" war - against oppression and genocide (irony or what?).

Two wrongs do not make a right and remember, those soldiers on trial for murder and rape were out there murdering and raping in your name.

Margaret Beckett has no idea what she is talking about - many of her parliamentary colleagues have already expressed their concerns publically over her inexperience and her appointment to the post. The Labour party opposes the death penalty and condemns other "less civilized" countries for employing same when it suits them. In this case it doesn't so they backslap and congratulate one another on the deposing and subsequent pending execution of Hussein.

It will be interesting to see if the gassed Kurds, dead Kuwaitis, murdered Shia and Barzani tribesmen get their "Iraqi justice" but some how I suspect Hussein will have long shuffled of this mortal coil in a flurry of democratic Iraqi justice expediency before they see their day in court.

I've stated previously that I have no real wish to argue with you any further on this matter and I suggest, with all due respect, that we leave the facts as they are.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Tell me Xaccers, do you get a worse hanging depending on the number of victims or is it the case that "our" murders are less reprehensible than his murders?

As has been evidenced and remarked upon in this thread your defence when cornered is to twist words, create strawmen and play to the gallery. I've no wish to engage you in this type of behaviour.

It strikes me, and I'm sure others, as somewhat bizarre the sanctity and reverence with which you hold the innocent victims of Hussein yet, at the same time, the innocent lives lost for "freedom and democracy" in Iraq hardly merit a mention on your part. Why are you not seeking justice for them? Oh, that's right, it's a war, something you've no actual experience of, but better still it's "our" war - against oppression and genocide (irony or what?).

Two wrongs do not make a right and remember, those soldiers on trial for murder and rape were out there murdering and raping in your name.

Margaret Beckett has no idea what she is talking about - many of her parliamentary colleagues have already expressed their concerns publically over her inexperience and her appointment to the post. The Labour party opposes the death penalty and condemns other "less civilized" countries for employing same when it suits them. In this case it doesn't so they backslap and congratulate one another on the deposing and subsequent pending execution of Hussein.

It will be interesting to see if the gassed Kurds, dead Kuwaitis, murdered Shia and Barzani tribesmen get their "Iraqi justice" but some how I suspect Hussein will have long shuffled of this mortal coil in a flurry of democratic Iraqi justice expediency before they see their day in court.

I've stated previously that I have no real wish to argue with you any further on this matter and I suggest, with all due respect, that we leave the facts as they are.

What has any of that got to do with demoralising our troops which is the comment you made?
You metioned order 17 yourself, so you are well aware that they are immune to Iraqi prosecution, however as you know, that does not mean they are totally immune to prosecution, as demonstrated by the cases involving several soldiers accused of abusing and murdering Iraqis, and most notibly the abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib.

---------- Post added at 20:45 ---------- Previous post was at 20:37 ----------

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

Well Murder is murder, and war crimes are war crimes.

Or are YOU saying murder by a British or American soldier doesnt count and should not be classed i the same league of murder as Saddam hussein?

Margret Beckett is quoted as saying:

It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice

As I said, I don't know of any of our forces who've been accused of those such crimes.
If you know different, then please do tell, exactly what was the rank of the forces involved in invading Kuwait for instance?
As MrAngry has mentioned, order 17 grants immunity for coalition forces etc from Iraqi prosecution, to protect them from trumped up charges, however that does not mean they are immune from coalition prosecution.

[hatedbythemail]

bit o/t (well a lot but i'm bored now ;-) ) but if we had the death penalty stefan kisko would be dead and 31 years later someone else wouldn't have been arrested on suspicion of murder: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/cri...cle1959045.ece

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

ps. if the un deems the invasion of iraq as illegal, are deaths caused by it war crimes or just ordinary crimes because an illegal war isnt a war but an act of terrorism? all very confusing.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

ps. if the un deems the invasion of iraq as illegal, are deaths caused by it war crimes or just ordinary crimes because an illegal war isnt a war but an act of terrorism? all very confusing.

Interesting that the coalition haven't been brought up on this "illegal" activity don't you think?

With the breach of the UN resolutions, the ceasfire at the end of GW1 is negated so that war started up again.
Therefore the war itself was not illegal.

Incidently, remind us again how that march you hold so dear would have removed Saddam from power if it had been successful?

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What has any of that got to do with demoralising our troops which is the comment you made?
You metioned order 17 yourself, so you are well aware that they are immune to Iraqi prosecution, however as you know, that does not mean they are totally immune to prosecution, as demonstrated by the cases involving several soldiers accused of abusing and murdering Iraqis, and most notibly the abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib.

Post #192 sentence three specifically elaborates on the demoralizing comment which I made.

"If what Ms Beckett was saying had an ounce of truth about it then you can rest assured that those coalition forces who have witnessed the harder edge of Iraqi justice first hand would think twice the next time they pick up a weapon about what, if any, immunity they might be afforded in the event that they are accused of such crimes."

Nowhere, despite the phrasing of your question which brought about the above answer did I "..suggest(ed) that her statement that its right that Saddam should face Iraqi justice will demoralise our troops".

Her statement was ""It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people* should face Iraqi justice."

* therein there is no specific reference to Saddam Hussein. One can therefore assume that "those accused", in much the same way as the royal "we" is employed, would encompass all of "those accused".

Order 17 was an agreement brought about under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority (no longer an executive power since the formation of the Government). Since July the Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie has been voiciferous in his objection to the continuance of Order 17 and has stated "There is no way we can accept CPA Order 17 anymore." His argument, which has been gaining creedence in the Iraqi parliament over the last three months, is that Iraqi justice cannot be seen to be fair and impartial for Iraqis when coalition troops are afforded the comfort blanket of their own national justice system in preference to same . Hardly a rocket science debate.

Beckett's comment has thrown fuel on an already smouldering fire of discontent amongst ordinary Iraqis, security personnel and parliamentarians.

I am already hearing that there have been requests for clarification from quarters much closer to the conflict than us (hence my posting on the matter).

As I said, I'm done with this.

[punky]

Its catch-22.

If you say the Iraqis shouldn't have their own way, then you're enforcing your own values on them which apparently is why they are p***ed off (nothing to do with a 1,300 year old grudge.)

If you say the Iraqis should have their own way, then you're barbaric and medieval.

Either way, you're screwed. Must check The Guardian at some point to see which way I am supposed to think.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Her statement was ""It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice."

Which was reported in the quote from Ramrod as in response to the fact that Saddam has been sentanced to death, therein a specific reference to Saddam and therefore the crimes he has been accused of.

You spend WAYYYYY to much time thinking about this stuff.

Evil Man, soon to be dead man. Simple!

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which was reported in the quote from Ramrod as in response to the fact that Saddam has been sentanced to death, therein a specific reference to Saddam and therefore the crimes he has been accused of.

Xaccers, do you not think she could just as easily have opted for your version and said "It is right that Saddam Hussein, accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people, should face Iraqi justice."

The fact is she didn't - and people on the ground in the thick of operations want to know why, exactly.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Xaccers, do you not think she could just as easily have opted for your version and said "It is right that Saddam Hussein, accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people, should face Iraqi justice."

The fact is she didn't - and people on the ground in the thick of operations want to know why, exactly.

Perhaps because it was easier to put it the way she did than name the individuals in saddam's regime who are also being tried, along with their individual charges?

Write to her and find out for them, although I suggest you don't use the title I gave her, MP of incompetence might make your correspondance go astray as there are so many in the goverment who could answer to that title!

[punky]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Xaccers, do you not think she could just as easily have opted for your version and said "It is right that Saddam Hussein, accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people, should face Iraqi justice."

The fact is she didn't - and people on the ground in the thick of operations want to know why, exactly.

I must need my head testing for wading in on this... But my interpretation of it is that she was referring to others in the Saddam administration who were complicit in the human rights abuses. Posthumous charges for his sons, charges for generals and below, etc.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Either way, you're screwed. Must check The Guardian at some point to see which way I am supposed to think.

you'll be confused. they tend to publish a range of pro and anti war commentaries ;-)