BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Killing Saddam's Sons

  
 
Not Here Still
16:51 / 24.07.03
The war has stopped, we are told. What is the status of international law as regards the killing of enemies, no matter how distasteful, in 'peacetime?'

Does the 'end of major combat operations' caveat give The Coalition/ The Authority/ the muthafuckin' Fantastic Four or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays the right to kill as they are still at war legally? (and yes, I'm aware that itself is questionable...)

Or was this, y'know, an assasination? Using helicopter gunships and humvees rather than a sniper?
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
17:34 / 24.07.03
I asked this the other day. I thought that with the cessation of 'war', political figures in the Iraqi regime ceased to be military targets. The precise legalistic logic of the situation may be somewhat unclear, however - I'm not convinced that the US government's actions in this matter or related ones are entirely consistent, either with one another or with some of the treaties to which the US is a signatory. See There is no defense for Guantanamo in today's Guardian:

The attorney general will have been well aware that military commissions that are not independent of the US government (George Bush is head of the US armed forces) cannot satisfy the basic requirement for a fair trial as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14, to which the US is a signatory.
 
 
Baz Auckland
17:55 / 24.07.03
The defense I've heard for killing the sons was that they were fighting it out, and in the end, everyone inside was dead...

...you think it would have made more sense to capture them alive for information and whatnot...

Not that the two of them didn't deserve it, but the papers had a nasty field day with headlines like "Two Down, One to Go!", accompanied by an article stating that killing Saddam and his sons will mean the end of the guerilla war. 'As soon as they get Saddam now, there will be peace in Iraq.'
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:00 / 24.07.03
Although according to The Sun, they were "cowering in a toilet".

Not sure what to think on this one. If it was a big shoot-out, and they just weren't coming quietly, then...

But otherwise...

We are no longer at war with Iraq. We won, apparently.

BUT...

"We" killed these two. In "peacetime". Without a trial. Apparently this is something to be celebrated.

The last couple of years have seen legal/moral boundaries becoming more and more blurred. Here in the UK, the phrases "potential terrorist" and "asylum seeker" are well on their way to equivalence.

It's all bad. I don't really know what else to say.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
19:13 / 24.07.03
Guardian article here - beware, though, the photos are not pretty. Not ghastly, but not pretty.

The brothers' final hideout came under attack from US special forces after a tip-off from the villa's owner, who had given them refuge.

A fourth person in the house, believed to be Qusay's 14-year-old son, Mustafa, was shot and killed by troops storming the house after the missiles had devastated it.

[...]

Nevertheless, the decision to release the photographs is a controversial one: the US military was outraged when Arab television channels broadcast pictures of dead and captured US soldiers during the war.
 
 
alas
00:46 / 26.07.03
Nevertheless, the decision to release the photographs is a controversial one: the US military was outraged when Arab television channels broadcast pictures of dead and captured US soldiers during the war.

You see, when we show pictures of dead Iraqi leaders, it's NOT for psychological purposes. It's NOT the equivalent of putting their heads on pikes outside the city walls . . . It's all for the sake of the average Joe Iraqi, see? see?, to be convinced that these terrible people really are dead. NOT that they could be next if they don't toe our line.

See?
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
13:48 / 26.07.03
It is not an assassination because the US has not declared the war over. Bush and his people have been very ccareful NOT to say the war was over because they know that if they do:

They must release all prisoners
They cannot kill members of the old regime
They have to allow the people of that country to rule themselves

When Bush gave his aircraft carrier speech, a number of legal experts wrote about the convuluted language he used and said it was probably so that they could continue the hunt for Hussein.

Who I believe they will "be forced to kill" as well. Dead men tell no tales, and if any members that high up are captured, it will be hard to keep saying "They don't know what happened to the WMDs."
 
 
Uncle Heavy
01:34 / 27.07.03
On a side note, does anyone else feel truly disturbed at the willingness of the U.S. public to eat this up with a spoon? Some people actually believe that we've already found WMDs, barely anyone realizes that Afghanistan isn't better off for our being there, the way we kept telling them (until we competely stopped mentioning it, that is), and now we're Achilles dragging Paris' carcass along the gates of Troy? The closer I look at the world and this country, the more I wonder how much the American public can be manipulated and decieved when the information is there, if only they'd LOOK.
 
 
SMS
04:58 / 27.07.03
I suspect that a lot of Americans cannot bring themselves to be the least bit upset that our troops killed Saddam's sons. If the killing (as it was done) were illegal by some international rules, these people would probably conclude that the rules had failed to match up with justice rather than we had done something wrong.

There has been some criticism about not capturing the sons, but the people making the decision thought the consequences of these people escaping (because of our soldiers avoiding lethal force) would be far worse than the alternative.

off topic stuff:
the more I wonder how much the American public can be manipulated and decieved when the information is there, if only they'd LOOK.

At the very heart of America are ideas like "give me liberty or give me death." One criticism of the Wilsonian interventionists could be that they have twisted this into "give them liberty or give them death," which sounds wholly less noble, especially if one believes that people have a right to choose oppression over liberty. However, the notion that living in totalitarian oppression is worse than death makes sense to most Americans, whether they have the courage to act on this basis or not. These people will therefore be sympathetic to the plight of Iraqis with more problems of electricity in their homes, difficulties with medical care, and an increase in crime, but they will still be willing to believe that life is better under U.S. occupation than under Hussein's rule.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:22 / 27.07.03
Are there still rules for how one country declares war on another? Did America follow them in this case, or did George just say "go get 'em?" Isn't America still technically at war with Afghanistan, Vietnam and North Korea?
 
 
SMS
19:58 / 27.07.03
As much as I would like a strict interpretation of the constitution, in which congress makes a formal declaration of war, it is more or less reasonable to say that America's own rules for declaring war are still in place. Congress did give the President the power to start the very specific wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan both. If, in either case, congress had voted the other way, the President's hands would be tied and we could not have fought these wars. I'm sure we are still legally at war (or a near-equivalent) with both. I can't imagine this is the case with either N. Korea or Viet Nam, even if the appropriate official action was not taken to end these wars.

I don't know about international law.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:35 / 27.07.03
I suspect that a lot of Americans cannot bring themselves to be the least bit upset that our troops killed Saddam's sons. If the killing (as it was done) were illegal by some international rules, these people would probably conclude that the rules had failed to match up with justice rather than we had done something wrong.

Yes, well, this is rather the problem. The US seems to believe itself not to be bound by the laws of military conduct, the Geneva Convention and the United Nations charter, when those codes come into conflict with their idea of what consitutes the right thing to do. Problem being that these codes are put into place precisely so that countries do not do what they believe to be the right thing to do with impunity, to the detriment of other nations.

Otherwise, this Uday/Qusay thing seems like a bit of a blunder in some ways. Given the information they might have been able to provide, the US troops seem to have gone to surprising lengths to ensure that they did not survive (the risk of them escaping is not a great argument - if troops with heavy weapons and helicopter support cannot be confident that they will be able to capture 4 men with sidearms, somebody needs to look seriously at their training regimen. A better argument might be that if they had been allowed to shoot themselves dry they might have endangered the lives of US troops, but given the strategic importance of the prize this would be poor tactics). It occurs that, if the allies now believe that the basis upon which they went to war (WMDs) is not in fact a just one - that they risk being revealed as either deluded or deceitful - then they are in the difficult position of having to kill Saddam without capturing alive him or any of his henchman of sufficient seniority to reveal the non-existence of WMDs. Which will be doubly amusing if it turns out that there *are* WMDSs tucked away somewhere after all...
 
 
Fist Fun
10:58 / 28.07.03
There is a new story, as Solitaire Rose mentioned, about the whole avoiding declaration of victory and Geneva convention consequences here.

Tactically, it does seem strange to just kill them. Politically capturing them alive seems the obvious choice. Perhaps practicalities got in the way. Did the soldiers involved in the shoot out know who was involved? How much political control do you have when everything it comes down to a shoot out?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:17 / 28.07.03
Or were they, in fact, captured beforehand and bumped around a bit by some lovely military folks prior to their execution? If I was questioning them and they had absolutely nothing to say then I'd damn well lie and stage a shoot out as well. Most veterans would agree that it is very, very easy to cover that kind of thing up in a war torn country.

I'm afraid that we can only engage in idle speculation and exactly why it happened only becomes important with regards to the fact that these men never got a trial. Any information of any importance that they would have would probably be outdated by now anyway.
 
 
zarathustra_k
15:51 / 28.07.03
"Isn't America still technically at war with Afghanistan, Vietnam and North Korea?"

Yes the war with N. Korea is still on, no peace treaty. The war with Vietnam is over.
 
 
Slim
01:23 / 29.07.03
Even though I was against the war, I nearly did a jig when I heard that Saddam's sons were dead. If the US is going to go in there we might as well do some good and I see the death of murdering rapists as a good thing. However, I'm sure the US wanted them alive. They without a doubt could have provided a great deal of information. Since they were 2 spoiled rich boys I'm sure they would have turned on their father and told US forces what they wanted to know. Plus, the US wouldn't have to deal with this "Are they or aren't they dead?" bullshit that is currently running around (not that I blame the Iraqis for being cautious).
As for whether or not their killing was an assasination? I'm not sure if there's enough information to make a call either way. I suppose if the military gave them a chance to surrender then it wasn't. If they didn't then yes, I'd call that an assasination. It would be a tremendous PR mistake for the US if they did indeed assasinate these two. How can you fuck up when you're dealing with 2 tremendous bastards like Uday and Qusay? You'd think they'd have learned their lesson with Saddam.
 
 
Fist Fun
07:23 / 29.07.03
I don't think a bloody death without trial is good for the US/coalition though. In fact, if the brothers knew they were going to get caught it might have be in their own interest to end it in a shoot out rather than being captured. If all the allegations of brutality are true it would have been in the US interest to have them on some sort of public trial.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:21 / 29.07.03
How can you fuck up when you're dealing with 2 tremendous bastards like Uday and Qusay?

I think this rather goes beyond that. It's important to examine the effects this has had on our culture. The press has been plastering triumphant photo's of two dead men everywhere and frankly they didn't directly oppress us so we shouldn't have a gleeful reaction to their deaths. Ours is the place of objective observer and we are failing the country that our forces have occupied because our public has not adopted that role.

I can't feel good about any type of public execution and this takes that title. It feels like we're throwing vegetables at the rotting corpses hanging from the castle walls and it's barbaric. You can fuck up by adopting that mentality... I would rather these men had been given a civilised tribunal and were held accountable for their actions against their people. We've marched in to Iraq and occupied a country but this, along with most of the other military action, just proves that the armed forces are not trying to form any kind of government.

Forget what's good for the US/coalition- what about Iraq? When are they going to start to gain some control over their own state?
 
 
fluid_state
00:07 / 30.07.03
It feels like we're throwing vegetables at the rotting corpses hanging from the castle walls

well, yeah. The brutal killing of these brutal killers is something we can all be proud of, isn't it? Death to our enemies, for our God commands it that we may live in our rightful opulence. I think there's a word for that over in the Middle East, actually. When you saw the picture of those two corpses splayed over the nation's objective infomational outlets, didn't you think "That's awesome! That'll teach them not to use violence against us, for sure!". No? strange.
/facetious hat now relegated to corner

You can fuck up by adopting that mentality
I don't think the architects of this conflict feel the same way. Nothing new here, but worth reiterating: If it's not an US vs. THEM state, it's US vs. US. As the divide between right and left, conservative and liberal, moderate and extremist (add any other dualistic paradigm necessary) grows, and the "hearts and Minds" battle in the US itself grows ever more untenable, we'll see a lot more of this. They'll dig up Saddam next, and save Osama for the next big bang.

We've marched in to Iraq and occupied a country but this, along with most of the other military action, just proves that the armed forces are not trying to form any kind of government.

Nah, it just "proves" that before a government can be set up, a lot more bodies will have to be hung from the walls. It's not about actually creating a government. It's about people believing that good has been done, and sadly, the only way we've been trained to see good is in the context of those hanging bodies.

sorry, I cant seem to get the bitter and cynical hat off today.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:18 / 30.07.03
Actually we seem to be agreeing on all except the last point but I'll address a little before I get to that-

I don't think the architects of this conflict feel the same way

It's quite clear that the architects of this conflict don't actually know what they're doing, what they're aiming for or why they're doing it. This isn't a one man mission, it's getting increasingly complicated and that is precisely what's been wrong with it. They may feel that the mentality is right but party politics is involved and that's when the barbarism gets really dangerous.

They'll dig up Saddam next, and save Osama for the next big bang.

Osama? I doubt they'll ever catch him even when the hype about the guy picks up again.

it just "proves" that before a government can be set up, a lot more bodies will have to be hung from the walls. It's not about actually creating a government. It's about people believing that good has been done

Okay. Basically I think that's all complete toss. Mostly because I think there is absolutely no intention on the part of the US military to set up government at all. That's been detailed through their actions again and again since Baghdad was taken. There's been nothing law abiding about the way they've been treating the Iraqi's.

As for people believing good has been done- well I'm in Britain and I think the view's about 50/50 wrt those pictures. It's very important to separate the actions of government, military and press here. I think all three are at fault because they've allowed those pictures to be released nationwide to every single newspaper. They're working as a war machine and there should have been more criticism directly accompanying the images in the newspapers. I actually don't think the motivation is important at all. The effect of those pictures matters but there are striking matters linked to this and it just so happens that the governance of Iraq is right at the forefront and the very fact these images have been released and subsequently published is indicative of the relationship that our leaders and 'representatives' have to this conflict.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:26 / 30.07.03
Okay. Basically I think that's all complete toss. Mostly because I think there is absolutely no intention on the part of the US military to set up government at all. That's been detailed through their actions again and again since Baghdad was taken. There's been nothing law abiding about the way they've been treating the Iraqi's.

I think the coalition intend to set up a government, but a government in the administration sense of the word rather than in the sense of an elected parliament or similar cameral body; and a government which will reduce Iraq to a client state, not even so much of the US, but of the military-industrial corporations (c.f. the contracts handed out without any competition to British and American companies for the 'rebuilding' process). I suspect that the strategic value and resources of Iraq will lead to this process being managed rather better than it was in Afghanistan. However, this does not mean that it will be anything other than a government imposed on the people (I expect that there will be an elected chamber, but doubt whether it will have any real power in the face of international corporations and trade regulations. It is also likely to be packed, probably with former dissident exiles. Meanwhile the structure of the Ba'ath regime is likely to be retained, if only because to set up something else would require far too many resources from the coalition).
 
 
fluid_state
01:12 / 01.08.03
Pretty much in total agreement with the last two posts, actually.
Mostly because I think there is absolutely no intention on the part of the US military to set up government at all. and I think the coalition intend to set up a government, but a government in the administration sense of the word rather than in the sense of an elected parliament or similar cameral body being pretty much the same thing. What I had wanted to express in regard to those pictures, is that enough people see those pictures (or similar), and the perception will be that progress is being made in the region, regardless of the conditions in Iraq. It's being played as a fight to save the Iraqis from themselves and their Homegrown Bad Guys; the client state can't function while soldiers are dying there, and we won't report it as a "government" until said client-state is safe.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:33 / 01.08.03
Sorry to just cut'n'paste here, but for some reason I can't cut'n paste the whole Times Online article, but...

as regards intentions in Iraq...

the fuckers don't have clean water right now, and we're already arguing about who sells them mobile phones?

July 31, 2003

Arab mobile operators barred from bidding for Iraq network
From Ben Smalley in Dubai and Dan Sabbagh in London



MOST Arab and European telecoms companies have been barred from bidding for lucrative contracts to provide mobile phone services in Iraq.
A clause in the bid document, limiting companies where a government has a big stake, effectively tilts the tender process in favour of US and British firms, including Vodafone and the recently disgraced WorldCom.

So far, it is US companies that have dominated the general contracts awarded as part of the postwar reconstruction of the Middle East country. In April the US construction giant Bechtel was named as the prime contractor in rebuilding Iraq. Halliburton, the oil services group once led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, won the job of reconstruction of the oil fields.

Despite once describing the tender process as an “open competition”, Iraq’s ruling Coalition Provisional Authority, which is conducting the auction, states in a bid clause: “No government shall directly or indirectly own more than 5 per cent of any single bidding company or single company in consortia.”

The mobile telephone licences are among the most profitable contracts to be offered. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, mobile phones were banned to all but senior officials who were hooked up to a special network.

The contract clause rules out the two companies keenest to win one of the three regional licences on offer. Last week Batelco, of Bahrain, and MTC, from Kuwait, opened up unlicensed services in Baghdad, only to close them after warnings from the provisional authority that they were in breach of the law.

Both companies have substantial state shareholdings, as does almost every main telecoms group in the region. Europe’s second and third biggest operators, T-Mobile and Orange, are also controlled by companies in which a government is the largest investor.

Rashid Al-Snan, regional operations manager of Batelco, said: “I don’t know what they are trying to do with this strange condition, but this is not an open competition.” The company is forming a bid consortium to get around the rule.

US and British phone companies do not have government shareholdings, although it is unclear if they will bid. Vodafone said yesterday it was “considering its position”.

A potential bidder is WorldCom, which now trades under the name MCI. It is currently providing a private mobile service to US military personnel in Iraq, even though it does not operate mobile networks anywhere else in the world.

Although the state of the Iraqi economy is very fragile, the falling cost of equipment makes it feasible to create a profitable mobile network with as little as 100,000 customers. Earnings could grow substantially over time if significant numbers of Iraq’s 17 million population sign up.

The licences are to be granted for an initial duration of two years, although there is the possibility of renewal and extension countrywide. Bidders for the licences are due to meet coalition officials at a conference in Jordan today.

That's fucked up. Not just that Arab operators are effectively barred, just that it's an issue at all.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
13:03 / 01.08.03
Nothing like a good war to bring out the vultures.

Backtracking slightly, I don't see that the validity of whatever form of government Iraq ends up with has anything to do with the decision to publish those photos. It's simple propaganda, a symbol of how good and righteous the invasion is by showing how it stamps out "evil". Even if the coalition had reached this point with only the best of intentions at heart (which I don't see as utterly impossible), the temptation would still be strong to use the photos to convince any doubters that today is better than yesterday.

As for the decision itself, I've not decided. No, displaying hunting trophies is not particularly civilised, and parading heads on spikes won't encourage much objectivity. Having said that, there's a lot to be said for reminding people of the brutality of war. Not to mention visibly disposing of the monsters under the bed.

Not that I believe for one second that they could not have been captured alive. "S" is for Siege...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:45 / 01.08.03
I don't see that the validity of whatever form of government Iraq ends up with has anything to do with the decision to publish those photos. It's simple propaganda

Nothing in this kind of situation is simple propoganda. The release of those photos was indicative of the rest of the war and the approach towards the level of freedom that Iraq will eventually gain. The military's fucking everything up and thsoe photos show just how badly they're doing.

Having said that, there's a lot to be said for reminding people of the brutality of war.

Unfortunately the only people who will be reminded of that are the ones who were protesting before the damn thing even began and they hardly need to be told that war is brutal!
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
16:09 / 01.08.03
Indicative, yes. Indicative of the utter lack of respect for basic tenets of international law, human rights, etc, etc. Showing how the coalition will stamp out anything that endangers their "mission" and/or soldiers, even though the utterly voluntary nature of the invasion (voluntary on our side, of course) would suggest the coalition was/is willing to risk it's people to get the job done. "The job" ostensibly being the liberating of a people, blah, blah, blah, bringing our fair and just western ways to the rest of the world.
Indicative of all these things, and more, but not inextricably linked.

A minor distinction, perhaps, but all I'm saying is that the publishing of the photos doesn't prove *anything* about the coalitions intentions for the new government, assuming they bothered to plan that far ahead.

Will the photos teach anyone anything other than the west's "Join or Die" message? I'd like to think so. Call it naive and rampant optimism. People have to understand the consequences of their decisions before you can affect those decisions. I don't see much difference beteen these photos and vivisection shots, no matter how triumphant the headline above it.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:01 / 01.08.03
On the mobile phone issue, it is amusing to note that one member of the US house (I'm afraid I cannot recall whether he was a congressman or a senator) argued that GSM, the standard used in almost all Arab nations and not by Qualcomm, one of the major employers in his state, should not be used for the new Iraqi mobile phone network. Because it was French. Ahem.

Amusing the second is that the US military were deeply unhappy about showing pictures of Uday and Qusay in this manner, because they felt it was disrespectful to those still identified as combatants, and was overruled by the civilian leadership of the DoD. That is, the US military was dragooned into acting as the conscience of US action in Iraq. This is so fucked up as not to be even funny.
 
 
Hieronymus
00:37 / 02.08.03
And par for the course for Rumsfeld's father-knows-best shenanigans. There's been a long and well charted feud between the military and the DoD.

Gotta agree with the soldier from the 3rd Infantry Division. I'm all for seeing Rummy's resignation too.
 
 
bjacques
02:27 / 02.08.03
Actually, times being what they are, the Hussein Brothers (in death they look like the Smith Brothers of cough drop fame) have their heads on a pike, but it's left to others
Give it a bit of time. Even Saddam Hussein buys the farm (a live Saddam would be embarrassing), enough people will be pissed off to make things hot for the occupiers for years to come. The guiding ethic of the US government is to enforce the "free market," i.e. "to the winner, the spoils." On the one hand, to reward Bechtl and Halliburton and, by way of reinforcement, to put the PNAC ideology into practice. Current plans are for Iraq to become the nucleus of MEFTA, the Middle East Free Trade Agreement. If they think Iraqis are pissed off now, wait until they see that liberation means shit jobs for the majority. Even now the guerrillas are doing the things rightwing militias used to dream of doing when Clinton was president. They don't need Hussein to coordinate their attacks, not when guns and ammo are easier to get than fresh water and the Americans are easy targets (hardly anyone's shooting at the British troops). It'll be interesting to watch.

As for MCI, their fortunes in Iraq are in doubt. After recent revelations of long-distance pricing irregularities (just gaming the system, really), MCI are barred from bidding on new federal contracts until they do another accounting review to prove their innocence. Also, while in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, MCI, as Worldcom, dumped their wireless business as a money loser.
 
 
bjacques
02:33 / 02.08.03
whhops/

"it's up to others to throw the rotten tomatoes. And Bush is lucky in his choice of enemies. The obligation to treat them fairly is outweighed by their sheer repulsiveness, in the public mind, and rough justice has been done. Arguing otherwise among non-liberals is a waste of time, and Bush (or Rove) knows it.
 
  
Add Your Reply