In 30 days, Saddam gets his 7 virgins

[VegasGuy]

Iraq court says Saddam should hang in 30 days
Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:00 AM ET

By Mariam Karouny

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An Iraqi appeals court on Tuesday upheld Saddam Hussein's death sentence for crimes against humanity and said he should hang within 30 days.

"The appeal court has approved the death sentence. They (the government) has the right to choose the date starting from tomorrow up to 30 days. After 30 days it will be an obligation to implement the sentence," the head of the Iraqi High Tribunal, Aref Abdul-Razzaq al-Shahin, told a news conference.

Saddam, 69, was sentenced to death on November 5 for crimes against humanity over the killings of 148 Shi'ites from the town of Dujail after he escaped assassination there in 1982.

Saddam's half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bander also received the death penalty for their part in the incident. The court also rejected their appeals.

The court recommended toughening the sentence on former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, who had been sentenced to life in prison over the Dujail killings, saying he should also be executed.

"Amnesty International is very disappointed about this decision," a spokeswoman for the human rights organization said.

"We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Saddam's chief defense counsel Khalil al-Dulaimi told Reuters from Amman: "If they dare implement the sentence it will be a catastrophe for the region and will only deepen the sectarian infighting."

GENOCIDE TRIAL

Saddam is still on trial with six others for genocide against ethnic Kurds in a military campaign in northern Iraq in the 1980s. Shahin said the trial would continue without Saddam.

Many human rights and legal experts have argued that Saddam could not get a fair trial in a country torn by sectarian conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

In the latest violence, bombs killed more than 30 people in Baghdad, including 15 in western Adhamiya district, a Sunni area. Earlier, a triple car bombing in a Shi'ite area killed 16.

The U.S. military reported the deaths of six more American soldiers in Iraq, bringing the U.S. death toll to at least 2,978 -- five more than the number killed in the September 11 attacks.

At least 89 U.S. soldiers have died so far this month, making it the deadliest this year after October's toll of 106, and increasing pressure on President George W. Bush to find a strategy to extricate 135,000 U.S. troops from the war.

Link

-VG

 

[QueEx]

Wonder if a group of Saddam loyalists will attempt a jail break
before the execution takes place? Better still, are there any
loyalists ....

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

VG,

Don't you have to die a Martyr to get those 7 virgins ???

QueEx

 

[VegasGuy]

VG,

Don't you have to die a Martyr to get those 7 virgins ???

QueEx

He killed thousands or kurds. That would qualify him. I hope his virgins are ugly pigs. They promised 7 virgins but they didn't say they would be fine. lol.

-VG

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6212393.stm[/frame]

 

[ronmch20]

If he does hang, he will only be seen as a martyr to many; maybe not deservedly so, but he will be. That can only spell more trouble for the West, and the U.S. in particular. Perhaps if the U.S. still has any influence it might be better for us to drag this out until March when Sadaam turns 70 and by Islamic Law cannot be executed. My guess is wiser heads will not prevail, Sadaam will swing and more innocents will die because of it.

 

[QueEx]

... or, maybe cut a deal with the Sunni insurgents to spare his ass in exchange for them coming to some kind of "settlement table" to move towards resolving the internal conflict. Even if that fantasy was possible, the Shiites/Iranians would be pissed, take it out on the Sunnis (which is what the Sunnis will do to the Shiites if he swings) and we're still be at ground zero.

QueEx

 

[Jim_Browski]

For the record, the 7 virgins are for those extremists who die in their Holy Jihad and not for Islamic dictators such as Saddam Hussein who would have as soon cut Bin Laden's head off as hug him in order to keep Islamic fundamentalism out of the way of his dictatorship....

I'm flummuxed to find a way that a Black man...any man for that matter, could find pleasure in the way the USA invaded Iraq for NO reason, overthrew the government, and puts Saddam on trial for his life....

North Korea told the USA, "We got the weapons...all you can eat," there was an unmarked ship caught coming out of North Korea loaded with missles that were hidden in cement. North Korea DEMANDED they be released not to mention North Korea has been killing US soldiers along the demilitarized zone since the 60's....

What happens to their kook of a leader?

Nothing....

Why is that the case and why are we, as a sheeple, not asking why?

 

[QueEx]

I don't disagree with the idea that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Even assuming that Iraq had or was in the process of making the kind of weapons it was said to have had, I didn't see where Iraq posed some kind of imminent threat that preempted diplomatic carrots & sticks or the U.N. from completing its course in Iraq. I can't say with certainty or with confidence that Saddam would not have somehow teamed with Al Qaeda in a plot against us, but I have to agree that it didn't appear likely because of the major difference in philosophies of Saddam and Bin Laden.

On the other hand, I am in no way flummuxed, as an American, to say that if a country or group poses a real and present danger that cannot be dealt with through diplomacy, through the international community or with appropriate threats and military deployment/movements, appropriate measures ought to be taken, post haste. And, if given the opportunity, I would give those orders with the quickness without any compunction.

Of course, those measures would have to take into account the reasoning, or lack thereof, and capabilities of the foe. I wouldn't and I don't believe any right-thinking person would approach a nuclear foe in the same manner as one would approach a non-nuclear foe. Wouldn't you ???

QueEx

 

[WorldEX]

Wars have been nothing but a cycle for the rich countries to increase their wealth. But in these times, the trap was set perfectly for invasion and the eventually breakdown of the most powerful army of our time. Al-Qaeda created the spark for it all, giving Lessons of wars have never been learned by no nations; Rome fell, Afghanistan has never been conquered by any army. It is only a matter of time for them to march on the American soil. Fearful as it may seen, it will happen soon. If you look what is happening now in that region, it is pure madness. Killing Saddam will only add more fuel to the fire. During all his power dictatorship, Saddam was a puppet of the American government, he fought the Iranians on behalf of USA...I guess he would have been helpful now huh?

 

[Jim_Browski]

On the other hand, I am in no way flummuxed, as an American, to say that if a country or group poses a real and present danger that cannot be dealt with through diplomacy, through the international community or with appropriate threats and military deployment/movements, appropriate measures ought to be taken, post haste. And, if given the opportunity, I would give those orders with the quickness without any compunction.

Now we're reading different books...let alone same pages.

There was no proof that Saddam had nuclear weapons...ties to Al Queda...plans to blow up a building...nothing more than animosity...and for this animosity he, the leader of a sovereign nation, has to lose his life???

Of course, those measures would have to take into account the reasoning, or lack thereof, and capabilities of the foe. I wouldn't and I don't believe any right-thinking person would approach a nuclear foe in the same manner as one would approach a non-nuclear foe. Wouldn't you ???

QueEx

Actually, if I had labled ANY country a member of the "Axis of Evil" I would deal with them the same way...either mash them all out, or be diplomatic with them all.

As we can see, they are still the Axis of Evil for reason specified (?)...nothing changes that.

 

[QueEx]

On the other hand, I am in no way flummuxed, as an American, to say that if a country or group poses a real and present danger that cannot be dealt with through diplomacy, through the international community or with appropriate threats and military deployment/movements, appropriate measures ought to be taken, post haste. And, if given the opportunity, I would give those orders with the quickness without any compunction.

Now we're reading different books...let alone same pages.

There was no proof that Saddam had nuclear weapons...ties to Al Queda...plans to blow up a building...nothing more than animosity...and for this animosity he, the leader of a sovereign nation, has to lose his life???

I think you misread what I said. I think I took care of your comments in my first paragraph. The above goes to "any nation or group" which actually poses a real and present danger to this country (withoug getting into what facts would constitute a real a present danger).

Of course, those measures would have to take into account the reasoning, or lack thereof, and capabilities of the foe. I wouldn't and I don't believe any right-thinking person would approach a nuclear foe in the same manner as one would approach a non-nuclear foe. Wouldn't you ???

QueEx

Actually, if I had labled ANY country a member of the "Axis of Evil" I would deal with them the same way...either mash them all out, or be diplomatic with them all.

As we can see, they are still the Axis of Evil for reason specified (?)...nothing changes that.

First, the label was probably ill advised and, on top of that, we should try to carry on diplomacy instead of not talking to countries we dislike. But the question was whether you would deal with a non-nuclear country, militarily, in the same manner as you would a nuclear one ??? I don't believe that you would. In other words: there are two 5 foot 4 weaklings standing side by side, all other things being equal except one has a 9mm and the other unarmed -- would you walk up and slap either one with the same temerity ???

QueEx

 

[gene cisco]

First, the label was probably ill advised and, on top of that, we should try to carry on diplomacy instead of not talking to countries we dislike. But the question was whether you would deal with a non-nuclear country, militarily, in the same manner as you would a nuclear one ??? I don't believe that you would. In other words: there are two 5 foot 4 weaklings standing side by side, all other things being equal except one has a 9mm and the other unarmed -- would you walk up and slap either one with the same temerity ???

QueEx

Thats the point I was making on BGOL since 2002, sad but it has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars for some shit I had sen from the get go.

The shit makes me feel like

But I do feel blessed that I aint a sheep and can think above the majority of the people given the same information, seems most outside thinkers like me knew it was bullshit from the get go and that north korea was calling america out.............................while bush said the reason to invade iraq was the "9mm" that sodam had pointed at us.

Also this shows the mass racism that still runs deep in america.

Sodam got dicked in the trial, flat out, if he hangs it will only make america and the puppet iraq government look real bad.

AS I said most of the world thinks america is bat shit, we are on a island here, after 9/11 america had all the world behind it and the greedy zionist bush fucked all that up.

Here america sits saying sodam is wrong and it bombs women and children to get to said "target" that threatens the spread of "freedom".

Sodam just did a better job doing what america is trying to do

The state sponsored terror of israel continues to be only defended by one country, america, yet sodam is set to swing. ITs OK for israel to bomb women and children for the slightest of offense but let somebody try to merk sodam and he is wrong for taking the offensive.

He just trying to keep the euro borders america and euro wanted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shit is deep out here, real deep.

Sodam had to be "brutal" to keep shit in check, he is no more brutal than america who holds people in camps without trial just like they accused him off doing. As a 80's child I see to many things that make america resemble the soviet empire they made us fear.

 

[Jim_Browski]

I think you misread what I said. I think I took care of your comments in my first paragraph. The above goes to "any nation or group" which actually poses a real and present danger to this country (withoug getting into what facts would constitute a real a present danger).

You didn't really take care of my comments in your first paragraph, hence my reply/rebuttal. Now there should be definitive guidelines, if not outright laws, that govern if and when a country poses a clear and present danger to the USA because if not then what happens are hypocritical instances of "gunboat diplomacy" where the USA gets to pick and choose who they want to attack according to their foreign policy and not the threat posed by the country in question....

I'm mildly surprised that you, a lawyer, would be so willing to dismiss facts, as they pertain to instances of deadly force/imperialism/deceit....

First, the label was probably ill advised and, on top of that, we should try to carry on diplomacy instead of not talking to countries we dislike. But the question was whether you would deal with a non-nuclear country, militarily, in the same manner as you would a nuclear one ??? I don't believe that you would. In other words: there are two 5 foot 4 weaklings standing side by side, all other things being equal except one has a 9mm and the other unarmed -- would you walk up and slap either one with the same temerity ???

QueEx

Yes, I would slap both with the same temerity or I wouldn't slap either of them at all....

When you pick and choose who you will slap, in this case the unarmed weakling and ignore the armed weakling, it gives the armed weakling more confidence in dealing with you...ESPECIALLY when the armed weakling (Iran, North Korea) has a big brother (Russia, China...in combination!)that has that has the skills/potential to give you a nasty black eye....

The door is now open for Iran and North Korea to talk sh!t...as they have been doing.

 

[QueEx]

You didn't really take care of my comments in your first paragraph, hence my reply/rebuttal. Now there should be definitive guidelines, if not outright laws, that govern if and when a country poses a clear and present danger to the USA because if not then what happens are hypocritical instances of "gunboat diplomacy" where the USA gets to pick and choose who they want to attack according to their foreign policy and not the threat posed by the country in question....

I'm mildly surprised that you, a lawyer, would be so willing to dismiss facts, as they pertain to instances of deadly force/imperialism/deceit....

Do you even know how to engage in discourse without attempting to insult? That last little snide remark makes you appear more childish than the educator, you purport to be.

Nevertheless, no law could ever detail all the circumstances that might arise that would constitute "a clear and present danger". You will always have to rely upon the "collective minds" of those in government to make such a determination of whether the "facts" fit the "law". Of course, there have been instances in the past where our government has either misjudged the danger or acted without regard to it. That, however, is characteristic of damn near EVERY government known to man. Can you name any major power that hasn't done that ??? Over the last 200 years, you should be able to name hundreds; you named Russia and China below -- do they fit your ideal of governments that don't attack according to their foreign policy and not the threat posed by the country in question ???

Yes, I would slap both with the same temerity or I wouldn't slap either of them at all....

When you pick and choose who you will slap, in this case the unarmed weakling and ignore the armed weakling, it gives the armed weakling more confidence in dealing with you...ESPECIALLY when the armed weakling (Iran, North Korea) has a big brother (Russia, China...in combination!)that has that has the skills/potential to give you a nasty black eye....

The door is now open for Iran and North Korea to talk sh!t...as they have been doing.

[1] North Korea and Iran have been talking shit since long before bush labeled them the Axis of Evil. While I have said before the Iraq invasion was ill advised -- at the same time I don't think either Iran or North Korea would be talking near as much shit if the U.S. had not become bogged down in the insurgency -- in fact, their asses would be as quiet as church mouses right now. As much as Iraq may have been the wrong thing to do, had the insurgency not developed as it did, the implications in the Middle East and for Iran, Syria orN. Korea would be far different today (even without a subsequent attack on either).

[2] I've read it on these boards numerous times the idea that the U.S. will attack a defenseless nation but not an armed one. Thats nothing but simplistic logic, some of which is borne, in my opinion, from the "someone needs to kick the U.S. ass wish" that some seem to have, i.e., as evidenced by the many, in this country, who felt the U.S. got what it deserved on 9-11.

I would suggest to you that if any country, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, China, you name it, would pose an unacceptable risk to this country that diplomacy, reason, or whatever can not solve, prevent or ease -- then they stand at risk of attack, economically or militarily. On the other hand, we know, just as those I just named do, that some things aren't worth the risk, hence, we have not placed their security in an untenable position and they have not placed our security in an untenable position -- and neither side has attacked the other -- but all sides jostle and poke at each other on the regular.

If North Korea or Iran develops the means and the "apparent will" to place our security in an untenable position neither the Russians or the Chinese will stand as a deterrent to action against them. Why do you think the Chinese and Russians are interested in pulling North Korea back from the brink ??? And, why do you think they do every thing they can to exploit the Iran situation in their favor -- yet still try to keep that situation from evolving into one where the U.S. has no choice but to strike ??? - is the risk worth it to them ???

QueEx

 

[GET YOU HOT]

Look forward to chaos when they excecute him this weekend, its about to go down...

 

[nittie]

I supported the invasion not because Saddam was a threat or involved with 9-11, I felt if removing him would allow lifting the embargo and no-fly zone against Iraq then he should go. Now this war is taking on a surreal deja vu feel, it's almost as if the Bay of Pigs or Iranian Hostage situations are being replayed, I' wouldn't be surprised if Malcom X re-appeared to remind Bush "The chickens have come home to roost". I hope that doesn't happen.

 

[muckraker10021]

<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
So Cheney-<font size="2">Bush</font> has decided to kill Saddam. They will watch it live on closed circuit TV and get a 'boner'. As usual the overwhelming majority of the American people will swallow the "Media of Mass Deception" propaganda about Saddam's demise.

The words "American Empire" or "CIA Asset" or "Coup d'état" will never be heard. The reality that Saddam was sponsored, supported, and sustained by 'American Empire' will never be mentioned on the <s> CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, </s> "Media of Mass Deception".

The hypocrisy of Cheney-<font size="2">Bush</font> calling for a democratic?? Middle -east while they suck the balls of the dictatorial Saudi Arabian king and princes will not be discussed on the "Media of Mass Deception". The hundreds of 'white-women' from eastern Europe & Russia who are sold to Saudi Arabian king and princes to be sex slaves, never to be seen again, will not be discussed.

The fact that “American Empire” cut a deal $$$$$$$$$ with the democratically elected??? - Muammar Qaddafi after he sponsored Terrorism?? will not be discussed; all is forgiven as long as the OIL flows.

What about the democratically elected?? King of Jordan. His $500,000,000. per year US paycheck was recently increased.

And Iran, let’s see, didn’t they have a truly democratically elected secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh who was Time magazines ‘man-of-the-year’ in 1951
<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/images/1951.jpg">.

“American Empire” had him removed from power because he dared ask for a greater percentage of the OIL money. “American Empire” replaced him with an Iranian Saddam, named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah of Iran, whose brutality probably exceeded Saddam’s. The Shah would throw his opponents into lion cages and watch them scream as the lion shredded them into bloody bits. This will not be mentioned on the "Media of Mass Deception"


No the focus will be on <font color="#FF0000"><b>Britney Spears Wearing No Panties</b></font>

Some information below about Saddam that 'truth seekers' should know.
</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>





<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<font size="5"><b>Saddam key in early CIA plot in 1959 </b></font><br><br>
by Richard Sale, <i>United Press Int'l</i><br><br>April 10, 2003<br><br>
U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.<br><br>United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.<br><br>While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.<br><br>In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."<br><br>According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.<br><br>Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.<br><br>Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."<br><br>In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."<br><br>According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.<br><br>Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.<br><br>Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.<br><br>The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.<br><br>"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.<br><br>Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.<br><br>One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."<br><br>In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.<br><br>One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Café at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive."<br><br>But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said.<br><br>Saddam's U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam's American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time.<br><br>In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.<br><br>"We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.<br><br>But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.<br><br>Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.<br><br>A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."<br><br>A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."<br><br>British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."<br><br>Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.<br><br>The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.<br><br>This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.<br><br>A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.<br><br>According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.<br><br>The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy. <br><br>Published by<br><a href="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r"><i>United Press Int'l</i></a>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="3"></hr>

<font size="5"><b>Saddam can never be allowed a fair trial</b></font><br><br>
by Eric S. Margolis, <i>Toronto Sun</i><br><br><nobr>July 31, 2003</nobr><br><br>
If put on public trial, Saddam Hussein would have a field day revealing the embarrassing alliance between his brutal regime and Washington:<!-- blockquote--><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="fonty" align="left" bgcolor="white" valign="top" width="7%">&nbsp;</td><td class="fonttnr" align="left" bgcolor="white" valign="top" width="93%"><br> <b>•</b> CIA's role in bringing the Ba'ath Party to power in a 1958 coup, opening the way for Saddam to take control.<br><br><b>•</b> US, Israeli, Iranian destabilization of Iraq during the 1970's by fueling Kurdish rebellion. Washington's egging on the aggressive Shah of Iran in the Shatt al-Arab waterway dispute, a primary cause of the Iran-Iraq War.<br><br><b>•</b> US secretly urging Iraq to invade Iran in 1980 to overthrow that nation's revolutionary Islamic government.<br><br><b>•</b> Covert supply of Saddam's war machine by the US and Britain during the eight-year Iran-Iraq conflict: biological warfare programs and germ feeder stocks, poison gas manufacturing plants and raw materials. Billions in aid, routed through the US Department of Agriculture, Italy's Banco del Lavoro, and the shady bank, BCCI. Heavy artillery, munitions, spare parts, trucks, field hospitals, and electronics.<br><br>Equally important, the US Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA operated offices in Baghdad that provided Iraq with satellite intelligence data on Iranian troop deployments that provided decisive in the war's titanic battles at Basra, Majnoon, and Faw.<br><br><b>•</b> The murky role played by Washington just before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The US Ambassador told Saddam `the US takes no position in Arab border disputes.' Was this a trap to lure Saddam to invade Kuwait, then crush his army, or simple diplomatic bungling? Saddam could supply the awkward answers.<br></td></tr></tbody></table><br>In short, Saddam was one of America's closet Mideast allies during the 1980's, a major recipient of US military and financial aid. Saddam's killing of large numbers of Kurds and Shia rebels occurred while he was a key US ally. Washington remained mute at the time. When Bush I called on Kurds and Shia to revolt in 1991, the US watched impassively as Saddam slaughtered the poorly-armed rebels.<br><br>Better a bullet-riddled Saddam, or one executed by a military kangaroo court in Guantanamo, or hanged by the new, American- installed `Vichy' Iraqi regime in Baghdad.<br><br>Saddam should be handed over by the US to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague that is currently trying Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and other accused Balkan war criminals. After all, it was Washington that engineered Milosevic's delivery to the Hague, an act for which the US deserves high praise. What applies to Milosevic applies equally to Saddam Hussein.<br><br>In fact, it would be better for the Iraqi leader to stand trial at the newly constituted International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. But the Bush Administration, in one of its most shameful acts, has refused to join this tribunal or cooperate with it.<br><br><center>Published by<br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jul31.html"><i>Toronto Sun</i></a></center>

<a name="12242003"></a><br><center><hr noshade="noshade" width="220"></center><br>
<font size="5"><b>Rumsfeld backed Saddam <nobr>even after chemical attacks</nobr></b></font><br><br>
by Andrew Buncombe, <i>The Independent</i> [London, UK]<br><br>Dec. 24, 2003<br><br>
Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons.<br><br>The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.<br><br>The criticism in no way changed Washington's wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and "to improve bi-lateral relations ... at a pace of Iraq's choosing".<br><br>Earlier this year, Mr Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration regularly cited Saddam's willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world.<br><br>Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds — particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 — as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.<br><br>But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.<br><br>In March 1984, under international pressure, America condemned Iraq's use of such chemical weapons. But realising that Baghdad had been upset, Secretary of State George Schultz asked Mr Rumsfeld to travel to Iraq as a special envoy to meet Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and smooth matters over.<br><br>In a briefing memo to Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Shultz wrote that he had met Iraqi officials in Washington to stress that America's interests remained "in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq".<br><br>The memo adds: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."<br><br>Exactly what Mr Rumsfeld, who at the time did not hold government office, told Mr Aziz on 26 March 1984, remains unclear and minutes from the meeting remain classified. No one from Mr Rumsfeld's office was available to comment yesterday.<br><br>It was not Mr Rumsfeld's first visit to Iraq. Four months earlier, in December 1983, he had visited Saddam and was photographed shaking hands with the dictator. When news of this visit was revealed last year, Mr Rumsfeld claimed he had "cautioned" Saddam to stop using chemical weapons.<br><br>When documents about the meeting disclosed he had said no such thing, a spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld said he had raised the issue with Mr Aziz.<br><br>America's relationship with Iraq at a time when Saddam was using chemical weapons is well-documented but rarely reported.<br><br>During the war with Iran, America provided combat assistance to Iraq that included intelligence on Iranian deployments and bomb-damage assessments. In 1987-88 American warships destroyed Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf and broke the blockade of Iraqi shipping lanes.<br><br>Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that obtained the documents, told The New York Times: "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s and it didn't make any difference to US policy. The embrace of Saddam and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances."<br><br>Last night, Danny Muller, a spokesman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the documents revealed America's "blatant hypocrisy". He added: "This is not an isolated event. Continuing administrations have said 'we will do business'. I am surprised that Donald Rumsfeld does not resign right now."<br><br><center>Published by<br><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=475931"><i>The Independent</i></a> [London, UK]</center></font>

 

[muckraker10021]

<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
So Cheney-<font size="2">Bush</font> has decided to kill Saddam. They will watch it live on closed circuit TV and get a 'boner'. As usual the overwhelming majority of the American people will swallow the "Media of Mass Deception" propaganda about Saddam's demise.

The words "American Empire" or "CIA Asset" or "Coup d'état" will never be heard. The reality that Saddam was sponsored, supported, and sustained by 'American Empire' will never be mentioned on the <s> CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, </s> "Media of Mass Deception".

The hypocrisy of Cheney-<font size="2">Bush</font> calling for a democratic?? Middle -east while they suck the balls of the dictatorial Saudi Arabian king and princes will not be discussed on the "Media of Mass Deception". The hundreds of 'white-women' from eastern Europe & Russia who are sold to Saudi Arabian king and princes to be sex slaves, never to be seen again, will not be discussed.

The fact that “American Empire” cut a deal $$$$$$$$$ with the democratically elected??? - Muammar Qaddafi after he sponsored Terrorism?? will not be discussed; all is forgiven as long as the OIL flows.

What about the democratically elected?? King of Jordan. His $500,000,000. per year US paycheck was recently increased.

And Iran, let’s see, didn’t they have a truly democratically elected secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh who was Time magazines ‘man-of-the-year’ in 1951
<img src="http://img.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/archive/covers/images/1951.jpg">.

“American Empire” had him removed from power because he dared ask for a greater percentage of the OIL money. “American Empire” replaced him with an Iranian Saddam, named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah of Iran, whose brutality probably exceeded Saddam’s. The Shah would throw his opponents into lion cages and watch them scream as the lion shredded them into bloody bits. This will not be mentioned on the "Media of Mass Deception"


No the focus will be on <font color="#FF0000"><b>Britney Spears Wearing No Panties</b></font>

Some information below about Saddam that 'truth seekers' should know.
</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>





<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000">
<font size="5"><b>Saddam key in early CIA plot in 1959 </b></font><br><br>
by Richard Sale, <i>United Press Int'l</i><br><br>April 10, 2003<br><br>
U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.<br><br>United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.<br><br>While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.<br><br>In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."<br><br>According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.<br><br>Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.<br><br>Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."<br><br>In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."<br><br>According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.<br><br>Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.<br><br>Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.<br><br>The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.<br><br>"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.<br><br>Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.<br><br>One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."<br><br>In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.<br><br>One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Café at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive."<br><br>But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said.<br><br>Saddam's U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam's American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time.<br><br>In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.<br><br>"We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.<br><br>But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.<br><br>Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.<br><br>A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."<br><br>A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."<br><br>British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."<br><br>Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.<br><br>The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.<br><br>This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.<br><br>A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.<br><br>According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.<br><br>The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy. <br><br>Published by<br><a href="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r"><i>United Press Int'l</i></a>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="3"></hr>

<font size="5"><b>Saddam can never be allowed a fair trial</b></font><br><br>
by Eric S. Margolis, <i>Toronto Sun</i><br><br><nobr>July 31, 2003</nobr><br><br>
If put on public trial, Saddam Hussein would have a field day revealing the embarrassing alliance between his brutal regime and Washington:<!-- blockquote--><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="fonty" align="left" bgcolor="white" valign="top" width="7%">&nbsp;</td><td class="fonttnr" align="left" bgcolor="white" valign="top" width="93%"><br> <b>•</b> CIA's role in bringing the Ba'ath Party to power in a 1958 coup, opening the way for Saddam to take control.<br><br><b>•</b> US, Israeli, Iranian destabilization of Iraq during the 1970's by fueling Kurdish rebellion. Washington's egging on the aggressive Shah of Iran in the Shatt al-Arab waterway dispute, a primary cause of the Iran-Iraq War.<br><br><b>•</b> US secretly urging Iraq to invade Iran in 1980 to overthrow that nation's revolutionary Islamic government.<br><br><b>•</b> Covert supply of Saddam's war machine by the US and Britain during the eight-year Iran-Iraq conflict: biological warfare programs and germ feeder stocks, poison gas manufacturing plants and raw materials. Billions in aid, routed through the US Department of Agriculture, Italy's Banco del Lavoro, and the shady bank, BCCI. Heavy artillery, munitions, spare parts, trucks, field hospitals, and electronics.<br><br>Equally important, the US Defense Intelligence Agency and CIA operated offices in Baghdad that provided Iraq with satellite intelligence data on Iranian troop deployments that provided decisive in the war's titanic battles at Basra, Majnoon, and Faw.<br><br><b>•</b> The murky role played by Washington just before Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The US Ambassador told Saddam `the US takes no position in Arab border disputes.' Was this a trap to lure Saddam to invade Kuwait, then crush his army, or simple diplomatic bungling? Saddam could supply the awkward answers.<br></td></tr></tbody></table><br>In short, Saddam was one of America's closet Mideast allies during the 1980's, a major recipient of US military and financial aid. Saddam's killing of large numbers of Kurds and Shia rebels occurred while he was a key US ally. Washington remained mute at the time. When Bush I called on Kurds and Shia to revolt in 1991, the US watched impassively as Saddam slaughtered the poorly-armed rebels.<br><br>Better a bullet-riddled Saddam, or one executed by a military kangaroo court in Guantanamo, or hanged by the new, American- installed `Vichy' Iraqi regime in Baghdad.<br><br>Saddam should be handed over by the US to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague that is currently trying Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and other accused Balkan war criminals. After all, it was Washington that engineered Milosevic's delivery to the Hague, an act for which the US deserves high praise. What applies to Milosevic applies equally to Saddam Hussein.<br><br>In fact, it would be better for the Iraqi leader to stand trial at the newly constituted International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. But the Bush Administration, in one of its most shameful acts, has refused to join this tribunal or cooperate with it.<br><br><center>Published by<br><a target="_blank" href="http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jul31.html"><i>Toronto Sun</i></a></center>

<a name="12242003"></a><br><center><hr noshade="noshade" width="220"></center><br>
<font size="5"><b>Rumsfeld backed Saddam <nobr>even after chemical attacks</nobr></b></font><br><br>
by Andrew Buncombe, <i>The Independent</i> [London, UK]<br><br>Dec. 24, 2003<br><br>
Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons.<br><br>The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made "strictly" in principle.<br><br>The criticism in no way changed Washington's wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and "to improve bi-lateral relations ... at a pace of Iraq's choosing".<br><br>Earlier this year, Mr Rumsfeld and other members of the Bush administration regularly cited Saddam's willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people as evidence of the threat presented to the rest of the world.<br><br>Senior officials presented the attacks against the Kurds — particularly the notorious attack in Halabja in 1988 — as a justification for the invasion and the ousting of Saddam.<br><br>But the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels.<br><br>In March 1984, under international pressure, America condemned Iraq's use of such chemical weapons. But realising that Baghdad had been upset, Secretary of State George Schultz asked Mr Rumsfeld to travel to Iraq as a special envoy to meet Saddam's Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, and smooth matters over.<br><br>In a briefing memo to Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Shultz wrote that he had met Iraqi officials in Washington to stress that America's interests remained "in (1) preventing an Iranian victory and (2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq".<br><br>The memo adds: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."<br><br>Exactly what Mr Rumsfeld, who at the time did not hold government office, told Mr Aziz on 26 March 1984, remains unclear and minutes from the meeting remain classified. No one from Mr Rumsfeld's office was available to comment yesterday.<br><br>It was not Mr Rumsfeld's first visit to Iraq. Four months earlier, in December 1983, he had visited Saddam and was photographed shaking hands with the dictator. When news of this visit was revealed last year, Mr Rumsfeld claimed he had "cautioned" Saddam to stop using chemical weapons.<br><br>When documents about the meeting disclosed he had said no such thing, a spokesman for Mr Rumsfeld said he had raised the issue with Mr Aziz.<br><br>America's relationship with Iraq at a time when Saddam was using chemical weapons is well-documented but rarely reported.<br><br>During the war with Iran, America provided combat assistance to Iraq that included intelligence on Iranian deployments and bomb-damage assessments. In 1987-88 American warships destroyed Iranian oil platforms in the Gulf and broke the blockade of Iraqi shipping lanes.<br><br>Tom Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that obtained the documents, told The New York Times: "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980s and it didn't make any difference to US policy. The embrace of Saddam and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances."<br><br>Last night, Danny Muller, a spokesman for the anti-war group Voices in the Wilderness, said the documents revealed America's "blatant hypocrisy". He added: "This is not an isolated event. Continuing administrations have said 'we will do business'. I am surprised that Donald Rumsfeld does not resign right now."<br><br><center>Published by<br><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=475931"><i>The Independent</i></a> [London, UK]</center></font>

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4"><center>
Lawyers Petition U.S. for Temporary Stay of Execution

</font size></center>


[frame]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122900142.html?referrer=email[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Iraqi-Americans pray for Saddam's death</font size></center>

Director of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational
Center, Imam Husham Al-Husainy, speaks
about the impending execution of Saddam
Hussein in Dearborn, Mich., Friday, Dec. 29,
2006. Al-Husainy, from Iraq but now living
in Dearborn, claims to have family and friends
who were killed during Hussein's reign. The image
opposite Al-Husainy is of Ayatollah Mohammad
Baqir al-Hakim, a Shia Muslim leader in Iraq who
was killed in 2003 during the war in Iraq. (AP
Photo/Amy E. Powers)


By KRISTIN LONGLEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

DEARBORN, Mich. -- A group of Iraqi-Americans gathered late Friday at a mosque in anticipation of Saddam Hussein's execution, praying for the death of the former Iraqi dictator as drivers outside honked horns in celebration.

Dave Alwatan wore an Iraqi flag around his shoulders and flashed a peace sign to everyone he passed at the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in this suburb of Detroit, a city that has one of the nation's largest concentrations of people with roots in the Middle East.

"Peace," he said, grinning and laughing. "Now there will be peace for my family."

Alwatan, 32, said Saddam's forces tortured and killed relatives that were left behind when Alwatan left Iraq in 1991. He was among about 40 men who gathered at the Islamic center.

The center's director, Imam Husham Al-Husainy, said members prayed for Saddam's death. Outside, traffic slowed as people drove in circles around the mosque, honking horns.

Meanwhile, some local Arab-American leaders warned that Saddam's execution would increase violence in Iraq.

Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News and chairman of several Arab-American groups, said the former dictator's death sentence was one more casualty in a war that has killed thousands. He said it will not end the power struggle among Iraqi religious groups.

"The execution might bring some amusement and accomplishment to the Bush administration, but it will not help the Iraqi people," Siblani said. "The problem we're facing in Iraq is going to multiply."

Rauf Naqishbendi, 53, an Iraqi Kurd who moved to the U.S. in 1977, said he was pleased that Hussein was being executed, but lamented that it will not bring back family members who he said were gassed by the dictator's henchman in 1988.

"Psychologically the execution is good news, and people will feel that justice has been served," said Naqishbendi, who lives a few miles south of San Francisco. "But the reality is that it's not going to bring back my family members who he killed."

Naqishbendi followed Hussein's trial closely and said it pained him to watch Hussein rant throughout the proceedings.

"If it wasn't for this tyrant, the Iraqi people wouldn't have to suffer the tragedies now under way," he said.

Siblani, who is also affiliated with the Congress of Arab American Organizations and the Arab American Political Action Committee, said Iraq will "disintegrate" even further after the execution.

The Detroit area's Iraqi community includes a group of Chaldeans, who are Catholic, Arabs and Kurds. Many from Iraq fled their homeland during the rule of Saddam.

Joseph Kassab, executive director of the Chaldean Federation of America, based in the Detroit suburb of Farmington Hills, said his humanitarian organization is against the taking of human life. But, he said, the world must reflect on Saddam's execution, "so we never again relinquish our destiny to tyrants like him."

Imad Hamad, director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Dearborn, said Saddam's victims were celebrating his impending death, but their happiness was laced with uncertainty about the future.

"Those who have been direct victims of Saddam, they cannot help but celebrate," said Hamad, who is originally a Palestinian from Lebanon.

"The joy would have been complete if we were to see the healthy Iraq, the united Iraq, the safe Iraq," he added. "Then everybody would be jumping up and down, celebrating."

---

Associated Press writers David Runk in Detroit and Jason Dearen in San Francisco contributed to this report.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_US_Iraqi_Reaction.html

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/10/18/CU2005101801150.html?referrer=email[/frame]

 

[Jim_Browski]

Do you even know how to engage in discourse without attempting to insult? That last little snide remark makes you appear more childish than the educator, you purport to be.

Considering that you are supposedly a lawyer it would seem that facts. ANY facts, would be in order in such a clear cut case of imperialism/capital punishment....

Then again, facts were never neccesary in such cases...only the inheritance that White men believe in and have passed on to their melanin infused proteges....

Nevertheless, no law could ever detail all the circumstances that might arise that would constitute "a clear and present danger".

Untrue....

That's like saying there is no law that permits one from killing in self-defense and there is no difference in killing in self-defense and wanton murder....

There is a difference in the central goverment run by Saddam Hussein and the "central" government run by the Ayatollas in Iraq and the "death squads" of each of the three ethnic groups that are running around the streets are a testament to that difference....

You will always have to rely upon the "collective minds" of those in government to make such a determination of whether the "facts" fit the "law". Of course, there have been instances in the past where our government has either misjudged the danger or acted without regard to it. That, however, is characteristic of damn near EVERY government known to man. Can you name any major power that hasn't done that ??? Over the last 200 years, you should be able to name hundreds; you named Russia and China below -- do they fit your ideal of governments that don't attack according to their foreign policy and not the threat posed by the country in question ???

I'd like you to name a country that either Russia or China has invaded, removed it's leader, put the leader on trial WITH JUDGES WHO WERE TRAINED 2 WEEKS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, and summarily hanged.

[1] North Korea and Iran have been talking shit since long before bush labeled them the Axis of Evil. While I have said before the Iraq invasion was ill advised -- at the same time I don't think either Iran or North Korea would be talking near as much shit if the U.S. had not become bogged down in the insurgency -- in fact, their asses would be as quiet as church mouses right now.

Oh really?

You are talking about the same Iran who kidnapped American hostages???

You are talking about the same North Korea who was caught shipping weapons out of the country, and demanded that those weapons be released?

As much as Iraq may have been the wrong thing to do, had the insurgency not developed as it did, the implications in the Middle East and for Iran, Syria orN. Korea would be far different today (even without a subsequent attack on either).

And you base this on?

[2] I've read it on these boards numerous times the idea that the U.S. will attack a defenseless nation but not an armed one. Thats nothing but simplistic logic, some of which is borne, in my opinion, from the "someone needs to kick the U.S. ass wish" that some seem to have, i.e., as evidenced by the many, in this country, who felt the U.S. got what it deserved on 9-11.

Simplistic and hypocritical....

I would suggest to you that if any country, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, China, you name it, would pose an unacceptable risk to this country that diplomacy, reason, or whatever can not solve, prevent or ease -- then they stand at risk of attack, economically or militarily. On the other hand, we know, just as those I just named do, that some things aren't worth the risk, hence, we have not placed their security in an untenable position and they have not placed our security in an untenable position -- and neither side has attacked the other -- but all sides jostle and poke at each other on the regular.

What is an unacceptable risk and how does Iraq fit that description and how DOESN'T North Korea, Iraq, China, and Russia fot that description?

If North Korea or Iran develops the means and the "apparent will" to place our security in an untenable position neither the Russians or the Chinese will stand as a deterrent to action against them. Why do you think the Chinese and Russians are interested in pulling North Korea back from the brink ???

Because both countries stand to make a mint by doing business with the USA, especially China which is why Nort Korea can do pratically whatever it wants short of an outright attack and nothing will be done...but that doesn't make it righteous, especially in the case of Saddam.

 

[QueEx]

Considering that you are supposedly a lawyer it would seem that facts. ANY facts, would be in order in such a clear cut case of imperialism/capital punishment....

Then again, facts were never neccesary in such cases...only the inheritance that White men believe in and have passed on to their melanin infused proteges....

Bruh, you keep trying to inject imperialism and Iraq into this. Here was my main point from several posts above:

On the other hand, I am in no way flummuxed, as an American, to say that if a country or group poses a real and present danger that cannot be dealt with through diplomacy, through the international community or with appropriate threats and military deployment/movements, appropriate measures ought to be taken, post haste. And, if given the opportunity, I would give those orders with the quickness without any compunction.

Of course, those measures would have to take into account the reasoning, or lack thereof, and capabilities of the foe. I wouldn't and I don't believe any right-thinking person would approach a nuclear foe in the same manner as one would approach a non-nuclear foe. Wouldn't you ???​

As you will note, my comments are not directed at any country, group or person. It's simply my philosophy, in brief, and <u>not based on in particulary fact pattern</u>. I've already stated ten damn times that I don't think Iraq is where we should have gone. Why do you keep ignoring that? And, why do you insist upon arguing from insult, is that your best shot? Please stop acting all bitch-emotional. If you can't conduct contructive dialogue without doing that, then we don't need to do this, Brother.

Nevertheless, no law could ever detail all the circumstances that might arise that would constitute "a clear and present danger".

Untrue ...

That's like saying there is no law that permits one from killing in self-defense and there is no difference in killing in self-defense and wanton murder....

You're out of your league man.

The law of self defense DOES NOT describe what is or what isn't self defense in any particular case. Self defense is determined by the FACTS in each particular case. What is or is not self defense is determined by a judge (if its a bench trial) or by a jury. What one jury finds as self defense, another judge or jury may disagree. There is simply NO LAW which describes or proscribes what is and what isn't, self defense. Its a factual determination and, in many cases, no two judges or juries may see it the same way.

As I pointed out to you before: NO LAW could ever detail all the circumstances that might arise that would constitute "a clear and present danger". Just like the law of self defense, what is or isn't a clear and present danger has to be judge on the facts of each case.

You will always have to rely upon the "collective minds" of those in government to make such a determination of whether the "facts" fit the "law". Of course, there have been instances in the past where our government has either misjudged the danger or acted without regard to it. That, however, is characteristic of damn near EVERY government known to man. Can you name any major power that hasn't done that ??? Over the last 200 years, you should be able to name hundreds; you named Russia and China below -- do they fit your ideal of governments that don't attack according to their foreign policy and not the threat posed by the country in question ???

I'd like you to name a country that either Russia or China has invaded, removed it's leader, put the leader on trial WITH JUDGES WHO WERE TRAINED 2 WEEKS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, and summarily hanged.

I see you failed or refused to answer the questions I posed. When you do, I will answer these you asked. I know, thats such a silly way to discuss something, but when you simply lapse into ignore, thats what I have to do.

BTW, ever heard of Czechkoslovakia?

As much as Iraq may have been the wrong thing to do, had the insurgency not developed as it did, the implications in the Middle East and for Iran, Syria orN. Korea would be far different today (even without a subsequent attack on either).

And you base this on?

Simple. The U.S. doesn't become bogged down in Iraq, it has all of its resources to project anywhere whenever. After having smashed the shit of Iraq as it did, if the insurgency doesn't develop, which can arise with an occupation, N. Korea and Iran would clearly know that the same wrath could drop on their asses. With the insurgency, they both know that we don't have either the clear ability or the clear will to deal militarily with them, right now -- but, that could change, as matters progress.

I would suggest to you that if any country, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, China, you name it, would pose an unacceptable risk to this country that diplomacy, reason, or whatever can not solve, prevent or ease -- then they stand at risk of attack, economically or militarily. On the other hand, we know, just as those I just named do, that some things aren't worth the risk, hence, we have not placed their security in an untenable position and they have not placed our security in an untenable position -- and neither side has attacked the other -- but all sides jostle and poke at each other on the regular.

Simplistic and hypocritical....

Truth is sometimes, that way.

I would suggest to you that if any country, N. Korea, Iran, Russia, China, you name it, would pose an unacceptable risk to this country that diplomacy, reason, or whatever can not solve, prevent or ease -- then they stand at risk of attack, economically or militarily. On the other hand, we know, just as those I just named do, that some things aren't worth the risk, hence, we have not placed their security in an untenable position and they have not placed our security in an untenable position -- and neither side has attacked the other -- but all sides jostle and poke at each other on the regular.

What is an unacceptable risk and how does Iraq fit that description and how DOESN'T North Korea, Iraq, China, and Russia fot that description?

Stop acting dumb man. You must know that what is or isn't an unacceptable risk depends upon the facts and risks in each case. If you don't know that, then we shouldn't be having this conversation.

QueEx

 

[Jim_Browski]

Bruh, you keep trying to inject imperialism and Iraq into this. Here was my main point from several posts above:

On the other hand, I am in no way flummuxed, as an American, to say that if a country or group poses a real and present danger that cannot be dealt with through diplomacy, through the international community or with appropriate threats and military deployment/movements, appropriate measures ought to be taken, post haste. And, if given the opportunity, I would give those orders with the quickness without any compunction.

Of course, those measures would have to take into account the reasoning, or lack thereof, and capabilities of the foe. I wouldn't and I don't believe any right-thinking person would approach a nuclear foe in the same manner as one would approach a non-nuclear foe. Wouldn't you ???​

As you will note, my comments are not directed at any country, group or person. It's simply my philosophy, in brief, and <u>not based on in particulary fact pattern</u>. I've already stated ten damn times that I don't think Iraq is where we should have gone. Why do you keep ignoring that? And, why do you insist upon arguing from insult, is that your best shot? Please stop acting all bitch-emotional. If you can't conduct contructive dialogue without doing that, then we don't need to do this, Brother.

Let me begin by saying that I seriously doubt that I'm your Brother in any measurable sense of the word....

With that being said, I will direct you to exactly how a bitch acts....

A bitch says one thing and tries to cover their asses with eloquent conjecture that obviously isn't based on fact as you have already alluded to facts meaning nothing to you...a lawyer.

A poster called you on this earlier on another post and you said something to the effect of, "No, you are imagining things."

You would know if I insult you because I wouldn't hide behind metaphors. I would straight up disrespect you and giggle when you wave your "banned" mallet over my head....

You're out of your league man.

The law of self defense DOES NOT describe what is or what isn't self defense in any particular case. Self defense is determined by the FACTS in each particular case. What is or is not self defense is determined by a judge (if its a bench trial) or by a jury. What one jury finds as self defense, another judge or jury may disagree. There is simply NO LAW which describes or proscribes what is and what isn't, self defense. Its a factual determination and, in many cases, no two judges or juries may see it the same way.

Earlier you show yourself to be an ambulance chaser by not "getting into facts about what constitutes a clear and present danger", yet now you want to try to go community college on me by accenting the word "FACTS"?

There is no "Law of Self Defense" on the books. With there being no law of self-defense on the books, the judgement call is with the judge and jury with the right of appeal in effect for misjudgements. There is a system of checks and balances in place that uses some recorded precedent as a basis for their decision.

The USA, in your eyes, need not follow these guidelines just because they come to an incorrect decision such as the case in Iraq....

Who is the judge in instances where the USA blatently lies to the global public in order under the guise of "self-defense"?

The crux of the matter that you seem to want to dance around by saying, "We shouldn't have been in Iraq but if I were Bush I would have done the same thing," is that there is no judge, no court of appeals, when the USA feels threatened...and no need for one because the USA has all those bases covered.

As I pointed out to you before: NO LAW could ever detail all the circumstances that might arise that would constitute "a clear and present danger". Just like the law of self defense, what is or isn't a clear and present danger has to be judge on the facts of each case.

Yes, it could....

Congress would have to have the stones to outline what a clear and present danger. Things such as EVIDENDCE (I know...you don't care about this either) should be presented to Congress before they decide military action is needed.

The mistake Congress made the first time is not wanting to look un-patriotic by observing proper protocol and calling Bush on the carpet on his claims of WMD's. Instead they gave him a blank check which in turn became a covenient method of employing the executive order 12333 by doing as you do..or you doing as they do when the US government says, "We didn't kill Saddam, the Iraqi people did.

This is an exerpt of an online article written in 1998 in the Washington Post:

"The Bush administration, according to former officials, debated but never agreed to focus on doing away with Saddam Hussein specifically in Operation Desert Storm planning because "there was a hope or belief that Saddam would be swept away . . . that he could not survive the wrath of his own military in wake of his defeat in Kuwait," according to Richard N. Haass, who was on the National Security Council staff at that time.

Saddam Hussein's efficient handling of the post-Desert Storm rebellions in both the northern and southern parts of Iraq "changed the dynamic," Haass said, and the remaining Republican Guard forces stood by him in order to keep themselves in power."​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/keyplayers/saddam021598.htm

You will always have to rely upon the "collective minds" of those in government to make such a determination of whether the "facts" fit the "law". Of course, there have been instances in the past where our government has either misjudged the danger or acted without regard to it. That, however, is characteristic of damn near EVERY government known to man. Can you name any major power that hasn't done that ???

No, I can't name a major power who has done that and because I can't name a major power doesn't mean that it's just the cost of doing business when you are a major power....

Over the last 200 years, you should be able to name hundreds; you named Russia and China below -- do they fit your ideal of governments that don't attack according to their foreign policy and not the threat posed by the country in question ???

I don't care enough about Russia and China because they aren't the ones who are lying about WMD's in order to kill a man....

I respect those two countries named more than the USA because they have the stones to flat out just destroy who they want to and say, "I did it because I wanted to," as opposed to saying, "He was going to hit me so I hit him first," when the world knows it's a lie...well, at least some of us.

I see you failed or refused to answer the questions I posed.

Actually, I ignored the questions posed because they were identified as red herrings.

When you do, I will answer these you asked.

They are answered and I need your answers to the questions I asked no more than I need the answer to 2+2....

BTW, ever heard of Czechkoslovakia?

Yes, ever heard of the rise of Nazi Germany?

What began the rise?

Simple. The U.S. doesn't become bogged down in Iraq, it has all of its resources to project anywhere whenever. After having smashed the shit of Iraq as it did, if the insurgency doesn't develop, which can arise with an occupation, N. Korea and Iran would clearly know that the same wrath could drop on their asses. With the insurgency, they both know that we don't have either the clear ability or the clear will to deal militarily with them, right now -- but, that could change, as matters progress.

Iraq was still reeling from the first Desert Storm and still wasn't on it's feet from the Iran War, so let's not even sit here and act as if the USA actually went into a country with the fourth largest active military...first if the reserves are taken into account and actually wrecked shit. There are no nuclear weapons of note in North Korea that would reach past Japan, but the USA doesn't want to go in there and leave with a black eye.

Iran...who cares.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

Stop acting dumb man. You must know that what is or isn't an unacceptable risk depends upon the facts and risks in each case. If you don't know that, then we shouldn't be having this conversation.

QueEx

No, stop acting like a big bully who is actually a little bitch....

If the USA is going to act on a country that presents a clear and present danger then Iran should head the list.

They would sell a bomb to Al Queda 10x faster than Saddam would have.

 

[GET YOU HOT]

No no no, North Korea should head the list. Since we are already there, why not invade Iran, soon...?

 

[nittie]

Because China is North Korea's biggest backer and we owe China about 4 trillion, not to mention those 30,000 American troops that would die if N Korea chose to invade S Korea. Forget about Iran too because their friend Saudi Arabia has enough dirt to send half the U.S. senate to prision.

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/31/wexecute31.xml[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

<font size="4"><center>
'They killed him, is that possible?' Abu Hamza, a muscled
Sunni insurgent in his early thirties asked in disbelief. 'I still
can't believe it,' he continued, resting his head on his palm.
The TV channel repeated the scenes many times, cut before
the actual execution moment and followed by television scenes
of jubilant Shia men and boys dancing, accompanied by patriotic
songs. 'Those Shia, they killed him on the day of the Eid just to
humiliate us,' said Abu Hamza.
</font size></center>


[frame]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1980557,00.html[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

DEBKAfile Exclusive:

<font size="5"><center>Saddam Hussein’s execution was a stage
in the newly-crafted Iraq strategy Bush
has promised to unveil in the New Year </font size></center>

DEBKAFile
January 1, 2007, 11:29 AM (GMT+02:00)

The strategy, already in the works, was first revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 283, Dec. 22. It hinged on the cooperation of two key national religious figures: the most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, and the Sunni cleric with the most influence on the Sunni Arab insurgency and the Baath, Sheik Hares al-Dari, head of the Sunna Scholars Council. The plan as conceived by the US president is not contingent on engaging either Iran or Syria.

The next stage, possibly the toughest, is to bring a form of stability and security to Baghdad, for which an infusion of troops will be required, followed by the partition of Iraq into three semi-autonomous Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni regions. Baghdad will serve as the federal capital. Its key role will be the administration of Iraq’s oil resources. Oil revenue will be distributed equitably to all three regions by a higher oil authority, whose members will not be Iraqis but Iraqi federal government appointees backed by the national army.

These arrangements which depend largely on the continuing cooperation of the two clerics are intended to pave the way for the orderly exit of US forces from Iraq.

(Picture: US soldiers in the northern oil city of Kirkuk. Under the new Bush plan, US units will control the oil city and its oil fields to fend off a Kurdish grab)

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3689

 

[QueEx]

=

<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6221751.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6221751.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[QueEx]

<IFRAME SRC="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6233951.stm" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6233951.stm">link</A>

</IFRAME>