BS: Saddam should be charged or released

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 07:46 PM

I suspect that this is the paragraph that Bobert misunderstood:

For instance, you quoted Bobert as saying: "First we invade Iraq because it was going to drop a nuclear warhead on us," and make this response: With Bobert, attention to detail and fact are not strong suits. The statement made by him above is not correct.

Peter K (Fionn) was quoting Teribus in this paragraph, but I can see how Bobert might have mistakenly thought that Peter K was addressing Bobert in his (Peter's) own words.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 08:40 PM

My sincere apologies, Peter.

Lexdexia strikes again... and thanks, CarolC for the assist...

Sorry, again, Peter. When I'm wrong on somethin' I'll be the first to own up to it...

(Boberts face reddens in embarassment as he looks down at his shoes as if they put him up to it...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:46 AM

Bobert,

Dr. Mohammed AlBaradei, the Director of the IAEA, in general, certainly believes all that "spin", in relation to the potential threat posed:

<
ElBaradei said terrorists could get their hands on nuclear materials
The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, Mohammed ElBaradei, has warned of a "race against time" to stop terrorists procuring nuclear materials.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency was speaking at a US conference hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He endorsed the influential think tank's new arms control plan.

Under the plan, major nuclear powers would be expected to make concessions in the interests of global security.

We are actually having a race against time which I don't think we can afford

The IAEA director warned there was a real danger of uranium or plutonium falling into the wrong hands.

"We are actually having a race against time which I don't think we can afford," he said.

"The danger is so imminent... not only with regard to countries acquiring nuclear weapons but also terrorists getting their hands on some of these nuclear materials, uranium or plutonium.

"So the sooner that we start, the better for everybody involved."

'Dirty bomb'

The nuclear watchdog chief's message was picked up by the US Senator Sam Nunn, a security expert.

Mr Nunn told the BBC that the security of nuclear material in Russia was a key concern.

He said the biggest challenge was to have US President George W Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin put the issue to the top of their agenda.

Mr Nunn was instrumental in last month's unveiling of a multi-million dollar initiative to stop extremist groups from building so called "dirty bombs" with nuclear material.

Governments around the world are becoming increasingly concerned about nuclear proliferation particularly since the revelations, in February of this year, that the Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan had passed on nuclear secrets to a number of countries.

'Tipping point'

One of the authors of the Carnegie Endowment's plan, Joseph Cirincione, said the world was at "a nuclear tipping point".

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent in Washington, Jonathan Marcus, says the Carnegie plan is certainly ambitious in scope.

It argues that all current nuclear arms control problems need to be put into a single pot and handled together.

Everyone - both the nuclear haves and have-nots - have to be seen to make concessions if all are to gain.

But our correspondent says other experts in Washington are not so sure.

Political capital, they say, is limited and needs to be focused on individual proliferation, problems like that between India and Pakistan or the continuing uncertainties surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.>> Source BBC News.

Now go back to the period September 2001 to September 2002, in which time the US was urging the UN to take some form of action to ensure that Iraq could not reconstitute it's programme directed at acquiring nuclear weapons. That is when the US and the UK evaluated such a threat to exist. What was said immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq still remained valid if Saddam Hussein was left in power, irrespective of UN sanctions (which were proved, by UNMOVIC, to have been largely in effective), or by the UN inspections themselves. You, and others on this forum, may have felt that it was worth taking that chance. Fortunately the leaders and governments of our respective countries viewed the situation differently.

On the subject of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. The Commission charged with investigating the circumstances leading up to those attacks has just recently come out with the statement that Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. My point was that within days of those attacks happening, way back in September 2001, the current US administration came out, in very explicit terms, with exactly the same statement.

CarolC, the justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 stems from the FACT that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire terms agreed at Safwan.

On Saddam Hussein's future, he could possibly be extradited to Kuwait to stand trial for the abduction, kidnap and murder of over 600 Kuwaiti citizens and other foreign nationals on various dates between August 1990 and May 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 06:05 AM

No problem, Bobert - I just hope Gareth didn't hurt himself jumping on a bandwagon that wasn't there.

Teribus said above: You, and others on this forum, may have felt that it was worth taking that chance[with Iraq]. Fortunately the leaders and governments of our respective countries viewed the situation differently.

I must say his method of assessing risk looks somewhat arbitrary and irrational. Everything he quotes from the Carnegie Endowment conference is as things are now, or at least as they were yesterday. So is the world one jot safer because Saddam is out of the equation? For all that Teribus says, the fact is that when Iraq was invaded it posed no credible threat to anyone. That's not as Saddam would have wanted it, obviously, but that's what he'd been reduced to by the earlier war, the inspections and sanctions regimes and the no-fly zones.

Meanwhile Pakistan barely raps the knuckles of a national hero who spreads nuclear-weapons knowledge like confetti. But that's all right, because Pakistan is a safe, stable, dependable ally (as well as having been rescued from democracy by a military coup).

As for what to do with Saddam, that the problem exists at all is entirely down to the arrogance of successive US admins which have held out against the ICC.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:53 AM

Peter,

Two questions for you:

At what stage, in your criteria, would you evaluate something as posing a threat that would compell you to act against it?

When are you going to launch your campaign for the release and reinstatement of Saddam Hussein as the elected Iraqi Head of State?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:39 AM

Teribus, I suppose I'd feel compelled to do something if a threat started to look like a promise. Of course, if there were more than one threat in that category, I'd have to prioritise.

I would not want to see Saddam reinstated any more than I'd want to see Pinochet or Suharto reinstated. I'd settle for him being handed to the Iraqi state when it regains sovereignty, or to an international tribunal or - like you say - to the Kuwaiti government. If you want to read into this that I think his capture was worth all the bloodshed, mayhem and destabilisation of the territory, and justified the illegal invasion of Iraq, then I expect you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:55 AM

CarolC, the justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 stems from the FACT that Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire terms agreed at Safwan.

And which document gave the US the authorization to attack Iraq? Like I said, it isn't possible to uphold a UN resolution by violating a UN resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 11:25 AM

Here's an update on how the US says it intends to deal with the question of what to do with Saddam:

U.S. to Give 'Legal' Custody of Saddam to Iraqis

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:05 PM

CarolC,

A ceasefire agreement is exactly that - i.e. Antagonists agree to cease hostilities provided that certain agreed conditions and actions are adhered to. Should either of the antagonists renege on what they have agreed to do, then the conditions of the ceasefire have been broken and hostilities may recommence.

By the bye, what UN resolution was broken to uphold a UN resolution?

Peter,

Taken in terms of threat evaluation, with regard to defence of a sovereign state, your stated threshold, "I'd feel compelled to do something if a threat started to look like a promise", would be too late by far, even judging by the standards of the early 20th century.

To those who hammer on about the "legality" of the recent war in Iraq, with regard to the title of this thread. If "legality" is your over-riding concern, then be fully prepared to accept that if you consider the war to have been illegal, then "legally" Saddam Husein IS STILL President of Iraq, and Head of State, and that any other Governing Council, Interim Government, call it what you will is illegal. If "legallity" is your over-riding concern then start campaigning for his immediate release and reinstatement as Head of State - Then live with the consequences of that action - There's one thing I'd be pretty certain of - there's not many in Iraq would thank you for it.

IMO, under the circumstances prevelant at the time, the Government of the United States of America was fully justified in acting as it did, and it matters not one jot to me whether there are any on this forum who support that view. But one thing that can be assertained from the answer I got from Peter, and I believe he answered honestly, were he the leader of the nation, responsible for it's defence and security - that nation would see the "mushroom cloud" - the one being looked after by George W Bush will not, purely because he, his administration, security services and armed forces can be relied upon to act in a timely manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:10 PM

Am I the only one who has tried the thread title with the 're' changing verbs and thought what sense that could give?

Saddam should be recharged or leased

Could I lease him just for an hour for my next argument with...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:39 PM

A ceasefire agreement is exactly that - i.e. Antagonists agree to cease hostilities provided that certain agreed conditions and actions are adhered to. Should either of the antagonists renege on what they have agreed to do, then the conditions of the ceasefire have been broken and hostilities may recommence.

By the bye, what UN resolution was broken to uphold a UN resolution?

The agreement was between Iraq and the UN. Not Iraq and specific member-nations. Therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide what to do if Iraq was not in complete compliance with the agreement, not the perogative of any member-nations acting outside the authority of the UN.

The US violated the terms of Security Council resolution 1441, ostensibly to enforce the terms of Security Council resolution 1441. At least that is the case if, as you say, the US's justification for attacking Iraq was its non-compliance with Security Council resolution 1441.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM

CarolC - 22 Jun 04 - 01:39 PM,

I think you are wrong on a number of points there.

"The agreement was between Iraq and the UN. Not Iraq and specific member-nations."

I don't believe that that is the case. The ceasefire agreement is signed between the combatant parties - Not the UN - that is why at Safwan representatives from all combatant nations attended.

"Therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide what to do if Iraq was not in complete compliance with the agreement, not the perogative of any member-nations acting outside the authority of the UN."

Again not so. If the ceasefire agreement is broken ANY of the combatant parties who were part of the ceasefire agreement can take action as they see fit.

"The US violated the terms of Security Council resolution 1441, ostensibly to enforce the terms of Security Council resolution 1441. At least that is the case if, as you say, the US's justification for attacking Iraq was its non-compliance with Security Council resolution 1441."

It was Saddam Hussein who was in contravention of the terms of Security Council Resolution 1441 (Five 'Material Breaches' if memory serves me correctly) - As 1441 was purportedly Saddam's final last chance and he blew it, the ceasefire signed at Safwan was considered by the US to be null and void - the ceasefire agreement at Safwan and UNSC Resolution 1441 are two seperate things.

The US then acted as it declared to the UN it would do, to put the matter of Iraqi disarmament beyond doubt in the interests of the security of the United States of America, it's allies and it's national interests and the interests of it's allies.

I believe that had 1441 stood on it's original unaltered text, there would have been no war. On the Security Council the French and Russians delayed to get the original text watered down and to give Saddam time, had they not done that Saddam would have known what would follow, and he would have complied in full. As it was Saddam fully believed that he could give UNMOVIC, the same run-around he'd given UNSCOM for 7 years, then suceed in getting the UN sanctions lifted and go back to business as usual. In fact from the lessons that anyone could learn from 9/11 (An act that Saddam Hussein was unique as a Head of State in applauding) it could be emulated, and developed upon, with every UN sanction still in place.

There was no way GWB was going to let Saddam do that - for very good and sound reasons - you may not be able to see them - I certainly can.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:10 PM

Well, T-Bird, we are making progress...

It would seem that we are now both in agreement that the Bush administration was wrong in implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

And I would guess that we are in agreement that though letting nuclear weaponss get in the hands of terrorist would be very, very bad that Iraq wan't seriously pursuing nuclear weapons.

(And parentheticaly speaking, you might even remmber that in the months prior to George Tenet being penciled in as Bush's "fall guy" that he and others in the CIA publicly stated that they warned the Bush administration not to play the "nuclear" card in selling the invasion...)

So, again, when we look at the "Big Three", AlQuida connection, mushroom clouds and WMD, it would appear that meybe we're down to you just hanging on to the WMD card for sentimental reasons or manybe you're ready to free yourself from the burdens of hanging onto that bit of smoke and mirrors for a single reason for invading Iraq: "Saddam was a bad man."

Well, I can live with that because he was and still is a bad man. But I can't agree with killing over 20,000 people and seriously injuring upwards of another 100,000 people because we were mad ar one "bad man". It just doesn't seem like good foriegn policy to me. (Plus I'm sure that God takes a dim view of such behavior.)

Now I am not going to be a Saddam apologist either. Yes, he a bad man and now that the US has blundered into the quagmire in Iraq and has Saddam under lock and key, I would say that's probably a good place to keep him.

Speaking of bad men, I am very concerned that upwards of 2,000,000 folks with die this summer in Sudan and I don't hear Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz or Pearle pounding anydrums for intervention in what looks like one heck of a case of genocide. So, maybe, T-Bird, since you are all wise in these matters, you could explain their silence on this one?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:06 PM

There were three cease-fire arrangements following the 1990-1991 Gulf war. UNSC Resolution 686, the Safwan Accords, and UNSC Resolution 687. The terms of the Safwan Accords have never been formally published. The Safwan Accords:

"Refer to the cease-fire agreements made between allied military commanders and iraqi officers, under the provisions of Resolution 686, above. On March 3 1991, the U.S. commander, U.S. Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, and other allied commanders met with Iraqi offecers at the town of Safwan in southern Iraq and agreed on several matters: return of prisoners of war, removal of mine fields, and procedures to prevent any further outbreaks of fighting between Iraqi and allied forces. The Safwan Accords also provided for a temporary cease-fire line, with the understanding that allied forces would remain in sourthern Iraq until a permanent cease-fire agreement came into effect."

That permanent cease-fire agreement was UNSC Resolution 687, "which established a formal cease-fire and imposed a number of long-term requirements on Iraq."

So UNSC Resolution 687 is the agreement that Iraq would have been in violation of, along with Resolution 1441. The Safwan Accords were superceded by Resolution 687, the terms of the Safwan Accords were never formally published, and from what I have been able to see of the things they covered, they became obsolete after Resolution 687 was adopted. So again, it was a UN resolution that Iraq was in violation of, not the Safwan Accords, and therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide how Iraq's violations of the relevant UNSC Resolutions should be dealt with.

Report for Congress

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 08:01 PM

Oh, wise up Teribus. That "Iraqis wouldn't thank you" card was overplayed long since. Any time a bomb kills innocent Iraqies, who do the civilian bystanders pelt with bricks? Why, those nice friendly Americans who have restored Iraq to such peace and tranquility by removing Saddam. Correction: those arrogant and abrasive troops who carry on Saddam's work at Abu Ghraib, and can't even maintain a decent electricity supply.

I can see that this pre-emptive-strike idea has really caught your imagination, Teribus. But if you're going to play that game, let me ask again: was Iraq really the logical starting point? Really? And don't you think the pre-emptive strike approach puts a certain onus on the aggressor to make sure that the intelligence on which it acts is reliable?

Re the legalities: It's a bit late to turn the clock back, Teribus. Countless people (literally countless) have been killed and many other serious consequences have flowed from the pursuit of Saddam. Releasing him now would add insult to injury.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 08:04 AM

Peter K (Fionn) - 22 Jun 04 - 08:01 PM

OK Fionn, I'll wise up. Regarding that "Iraqis wouldn't thank you" card. Overplayed long since? Well, let's see - I'd be prepared to say that for every Iraqi you can find to say that they would welcome the return of Saddam Hussein, I would find a thousand who would say exactly the reverse.

As to who gets pelted with bricks any time a bomb goes off. It's the same in Iraq as it was in Northern Ireland. In the latter case the population would have been safer, and more of them would be alive today, if instead of pelting the police/security forces and emergency services, they had pelted those actually planting the bombs.

With regard to a decent electricity supply - you obviously must believe that a decent electricity supply existed under Saddam's rule, which it didn't - here are some facts and figures:

Pre-war supply - 3,300 to 4,400 megawatts per day
October 2003 - 4,518 megawatts per day
June 2004 - 4,300 megawatts per day
Target - 7,000 megawatts per day

Up to 3,400 megawatts per day generator POTENTIAL is offline every day due to scheduled maintenance, breakdown and sabotage.

In Southern Iraq, output now actually exceeds demand.

In both Northern and Southern Iraq electricity supplies are stable and far exceed pre-war supply.

"Pre-emptive strike philosophy", as a means of defence, has been a reality for over forty years. As we have already established that you would do nothing until a "threat becomes a promise", it is logical that you should not subscribe to the idea of pre-emptive strike as you could not defend yourself even by employing that strategy. You have already allowed your enemy the advantage of being better prepared than you, and fully capable of withstanding any attack you may make.

In answer to your question, "..was Iraq really the logical starting point?" - In view of the Iran/Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait and UN inaction with regard to Iraqi compliance and disarmament - Yes it was.

Intelligence is rarely ever 100% reliable - The intelligence relating to Iraq in the early autumn of 2002 was credible enough to convince the UNSC to adopt and pass 1441 unanimously. That intelligence was not solely supplied by the US and UK, in relation to Iraqi WMD the most compelling evidence was presented by two UN sources, UNSCOM and the IAEA.

As already agreed, Saddam Hussein will be released from US custody and released into the custody of the new Interim Government of Iraq, he will be charged with crimes against the Iraqi people, tried and sentenced if found guilty. There is, of course, the possibility that in the course of that trial, Saddam Hussein could be found not guilty, in which case he would be released, preferably amid great publicity in the Kurdish North, or Shia South, and allowed the freedom to walk home, so that the thronging masses of Iraqi people could be given the opportunity to cheer him on his way.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 10:43 AM

Not sure I believe those numbers, T. But they sound awful nice.

Legal custody of Hussein transfers to the Iraq gummint this week, we are told. Physically, though, nothing changes.
These guys have a talent for thsi kind of shell game -- juggle the signficance around, but leave the ground truth intact... sheeshe, what talent!


S