Does Saddam Hussein Have A Defense Of Illegal Invasion Of His Country

[PennyMan]

Finally, legal counsel for the President continue to dispute the legitimacy of the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the following reasons:



1. The tribunal is the result of an illegal invasion of Iraq which unequivocally violated international law, namely article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. Attempts to justify this use of force as somehow justified by Iraq’s reaction to UN Security Council resolutions are inconsistent with statements of the majority of both the permanent members of the UNSC and the total membership of this body and are devoid of any legal basis. To satisfy basic principles of justice any court concerned with trials in Iraq that have resulted from the United States’ illegal use of force must be able and willing to try American’s who have committed crimes against peace, including American President George W. Bush.
Here Is The Link http://www.uruknet.info/?p=9016

[tx_dem41]

1. Well, since everything he will be charged for deals with actions that..

happened before the invasion, I say, NO.

[Oversea Visitor]

2. The invasion of Iraq

is illegal. That is how everyone around the world look at it.This will be written in History.

[aMurder.com]

3. It may work

Saddam may go free. The taste of crow is awfully bitter. Maybe he'll tell us where the "WMDs" were all along.

[newyawker99]

62. Hi aMurder.com!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[theresistance]

4. And just think, SH is being tried

for his "crime" of invading Kuwait. What a joke when you think that America invaded Iraq.

[tx_dem41]

5. Yes, two wrongs must make a right.

That's how I was raised. :eyes:

[K-W]

6. And even more of a joke when you consider

that Iraq only invaded Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it. And they had good reason to think so.

[Oversea Visitor]

8. You need

to understand why Iraq invade Kuwait. It is wrong without any doubts.
But look at the reasons, look at who they inform about this intention.
Seriously Iraq wont invade Kuwait if Iraq believe they cant get away with it. Whatever Saddam is I wont call him stupid.

Search for this answer. You may not like what you find.

[K-W]

10. It was a land dispute between tyranical governments.

Iraq had the military, Kuwait didn't. Iraq had heavy diplomatic connections to the west at the time, but he had been progressively losing allies in washington and his relationship with the US was strained because he wasn't agreeing to all of the US's designs for Iraq.

The US determined that he was too independently minded to be an ally and they had Saudi Arabia now, so they didnt really need him. They knew he was going to invade Kuwait and they used it as an execuse to try and remove him in the hopes that a new Iraqi government would be more amiable to US influence. They were ready to go immediately they secured the allies rapidly, they lied to the house of Saud and scared them into moving even closer to the US government. They tried to bomb Saddam out of existance, but it didnt work. Bush wasnt willing to Occupy the country, so he didnt complete the mission. They turned Kuwait back over to thier royal family and setup a tight containment and occupation of air space.

Of course Saddam shouldnt be Invading Kuwait, but in the grand scheme of things in the middle east, it was hardly something to warrent US obsession. But we knew exactly who Saddam was long before then. We funded his military and we diplomatically protected him. Our government was an accomplice in anything that he did.

[tx_dem41]

11. "Saddam shouldnt be Invading Kuwait"

Well, its nice to know that at least someone on here thinks that.

[K-W]

14. Everyone here thinks that.

Its just hard to not get rhetorically close to defending saddam when responding to fallacious and dishonest arguments based upon his offenses.

Its about putting his offense in context and realizing that the answer was never invasion and that the US government is wholly unqualified to militarily fix the problem, and that a military solution is the least preferable solution and most likely was not neccessary.

[tx_dem41]

15. Maybe its just me...

but I have no idea separating the two.

[K-W]

18. It helps to remember

that it is highly unlikely that anyone anywhere thinks what saddam did was OK, so that if it sounds like that, you are probably misjudging thier point of view.

[tx_dem41]

20. Well, I definitely am experiencing some "carryover"..

from a thread earlier this week. It seemed on that one, that many felt that any enemy of *, had to (by default) be an OK guy/gal.

[theresistance]

28. I don't think you're being fair

The point is the US no right going around the world and invading and killing and doing the same things SH and others have done and arresting and trying tinpot dictators like SH whom the US supported in the first place. It's just ridiculous and hypocritical to be obsessed with SH's "crimes" at this point. Further these "crimes" had nothing to do with the reasons for invading. Then to top it off, the US speaks of "morals" and Crusades and whatever propaganda shit they invent to "justify" their own, often worse crimes...

[tx_dem41]

30. I'm really not speaking for the U.S.

I'm thinking of the future sovereign government of Iraq, and THEIR right to prosecute SH (which I surely hope they do).

[Oversea Visitor]

16. Was an Oil dispute

Saddam was demanding that Kuwait companies pay up as per agreements
for the pumping of oil from the oil fields near the Kuwait/Iraq border. They just kept pumping out the oil but refuse to pay. Dispute being going on for years. Finally Saddam chose to invade and US was informed of his intention.

Fact is just a simple NO you cant do that would have solve everything.

[K-W]

21. Yep, and he wouldnt have had the option

if we hadn't let him build up a huge military and strong domestic control.

[Tinoire]

51. I think it went even further back than that

:hi:

I read & think it started when Saddaam nationalized Iraqi oil. Anytime a country nationalizes their resources, they magically appear on the US' sh*t list :shrug: And once on our sh*t list, we manouvered him into invading Kuwait telling him they were wrong to slant drill and that he could go after them. Kind of stinky when you consider that it was the US and the UK that artificially created Kuwait out of Iraq's natural coastline.

====
Saddam Hussein might have constituted a threat that was not a military one. During the cold war Saddam had pursued an independent policy that was not allied exclusively to West nor East. Crucially in 1972 he nationalised the oil company (an unforgivable crime in the eyes of the West—particularly if you are sitting on the world’s second largest proven reserves of oil) and fed the proceeds from rising oil prices into agriculture, health care and literacy projects for the benefit of his own people. 2

At the time of the 1998 air strikes on Iraq the country had been effectively disarmed during eight years of UNSCOM inspections. As former weapons inspector Scott Ritter put it: “Iraq has destroyed 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction. … this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn’t even constitute a weapons program. … Likewise, just because we can’t account for it doesn’t mean Iraq retains it.” 3

But by this time ‘regime change’ in Iraq was the open policy of the US. Clinton had just signed the Iraq Liberation Act which authorised military aid of up to $100 million to opposition groups. Kampfner relates that Blair was getting reports of Iraq obstructing the inspectors but omits Ritter’s testimony that the US used the inspections to provoke the Iraqis in order to provide a pretext for bombing. 4

US and UK planes hit around 250 military targets with supposed ‘pinpoint accuracy’—but there was scant evidence that any of these directly related to the allegedly ongoing WMD programme. The bombings actually provided Saddam with a reason not to readmit the inspectors. “Operation Desert Fox” provided a precedent for an illegal attack without clear UN authorisation—something that would be repeated in many of Blair’s Wars including the attack on Yugoslavia which followed. 5

2 Said K Aburish “Saddam Hussein—The Politics of Revenge”, Bloomsbury, 2000, p.112

The book covers interesting material about Saddam's life, his early life of poverty, how as a student, he became a member of the Ba'ath party and how he and his gang of thugs were used by the party to beat up opponents. At this stage, Iraq was independent and governed by a pro-communist regime. The USA was concerned about Soviet influence in the Middle East and the CIA helped the Ba'ath party to stage a coup and take over the government. Saddam's cousin, Ahmad Hassan Al Bakr, became president and Saddam became the head of security. He used his position to increase his power and influence in the government and the country. He systematically managed to get rid of any persons who posed a real or imagined threat to him. He became deputy president, surrounded himself with people loyal to him, people from his home town, his tribe and his family.
The author does not hesitate to describe all the atrocities that Saddam committed, but he also describes the deeds that made him a hero to the ordinary Iraqis and Arabs in other countries. For instance, in the 70s Saddam nationalised the oil companies, increased production and used the massive revenues to improve the lot of ordinary Iraqi's. He built schools and hospitals, provided education and training, embarked on a massive literacy campaign, improved the lot of women, promoted industry, electrified the country, built infrastructure and brought modernisation and prosperity to Iraq. People even got free TVs and fridges. Not only Iraqi's benefited, Arabs of poorer countries were also offered much needed and lucrative jobs. http://www.capetown.gov.za/clusters/viewarticle2.asp?conid=6106

3 Scott Ritter with William Rivers Pitt, “War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know”, Profile Books, 2002, pp. 24-5

4 Ritter & Rivers Pitt, pp. 51-5

5 See for example, Mark Littman QC “Neither Legal Nor Moral: How NATO’s war against Yugoslavia breached international law”, Committee for Peace in the Balkans, 2000

http://www.variant.randomstate.org/21texts/blairswars.html

[Oversea Visitor]

59. Now

that is the power of knowledge. This is what the Main Media dont want Americans to know.

[KharmaTrain]

63. Kuwait Was Stealing Iraq's Oil

In the late 80's, Kuwaiiti oil companies started drilling sideways across the Iraqi border and tapping into the large pool under that country...of course not telling Iraq. That was a major reason Saddam used to launch that invasion (more proof there he was right than wrong about that).

Of course, and I'm sure someone will post the name April Glaspie on here...the Poppy Bush's amabassador in Baghdad who all but told Saddam we wouldn't do squat to stop an invasion. Guess that was before Poppy found out there was no payoff to the BFEE involved, so he got the Kuwaitti oil back.

I've been questioning when an international court will look into this invasion and what is scaring them. Is this regime that powerful to silence the international community from taking action against a country that obviously and blatantly violated the sovereignty of another nation.

How come it was fine to round up Milosevic and ship him off to the Hague, or try Pinochet, but not Saddam. One would think there's gotta be plenty of "goods" on him now after nearly 2 years of occupying that country that would lead to a World Court conviction. Or, is this regime afraid of something?

I wish this suit luck, but without a major international agency like the U.N. or European Court getting involved, these folks don't have the money and firepower to take on this regime.

[manic expression]

9. And it is a sad joke when you consider that

the US told Saddam that it had no stance in his invasion of Kuwait. Or that our actions with both Kuwait and Iraq led to that very situation.

[tx_dem41]

7. Let the soon-to-be elected Iraqi Government handle it...

dissolve the Tribunal (assuming this trivial defense has any chance in hell of working), and let the sovereign people of Iraq exercise their justice.

[K-W]

12. Im sure there will be a feast of justice after this immaculate election.

[tx_dem41]

13. Well, I believe, that the Shi-ites will have most of the control

after this election. And, they will mete out well-deserved justice on Saddam.

[K-W]

17. If they can find the time while their theocratic regime fights a civil war

against a growing sunni resistance force and a growing force of foriegn fighters. And how the shiite population reacts to 'thier' government retaining ties to the US and does not garuntee withdrawl... and if they do demand withdrawl, what the US does to them.

Not to mention the relationship of the Kurds, who make up a large part of the US controlled Iraqi military and the rest of Iraq.

The best we could hope for is a not so repressive theocracy that avoids civil war and is not entirely beholden to the US government.

If the US retains control, this will start to get a vietnam tone to it, as the government loses credibility with the Shiites and they sympathizes with the militants.

[tx_dem41]

19. Hakim will not be in the pocket of the U.S.

He might be in the pocket of Iran though with SCIRI ties.

Oh, it will be hell after the election, I agree. A well-publicized trial of SH might be considered a possible and beneficial distraction.

I do agree that the Kurds are the wild-card in the whole matter.

[K-W]

22. The US will demand an Iraqi constitution where they retain a role.

They will demand an agreement by which the US controls thier petro dollars. They will demand an agreement that opens thier economy. They will demand an agreement that allows sustained US military prescence.

These things are what the president means whe he says freedom. The administration has proven its dedication to this mission, and that was the mission. The neocon social dream may have failed but the corporate economic mission is still full on and now that we control Iraw's fate they are not going to waste the opportunity to make Iraq a US client state.

So there will start a growing tension between the pull of the US and the pull of the people on the Iraqi government. A tension we see in the many nations where the US has entangled itself. When there is open revolt against the US and the government, this tension is very extreme. If a leader chooses the US, he loses control of his people, a la vietnam. If a leader chooses his people, the US will reshuffel the deck.

[tx_dem41]

23. You might be right about what they demand...

I just don't think they are going to get it. Call me naive.

IF the election is reasonably executed (granted a big IF), there will be a great deal of support from within (as in Repubs) this country (and obviously outside the country) for the US to withdraw with few or no strings attached.

[K-W]

26. The US doesnt take no for an answer.

Unless it has no other choice. The US already overthrew the IRaqi government for not agreeing with them, why wouldnt they do it again?

[tx_dem41]

31. Domestic reaction. n/t

[K-W]

34. Yah, just like we quickly pulled out of vietnam.

You overestimate the power of anti war movements.

[tx_dem41]

36. I don't overestimate the power of anti-war movements.

Since I am not talking about the opinions of people that have always been anti-war. I am talking about the opinions of pro-war Republican hawks, led by McCain, Hagel, and Lugar.

[K-W]

41. It depends on how the war goes.

It would have to get pretty severe to garner enough of an outcry for individual republicans to take on the organization that keeps them in power.

[Oversea Visitor]

29. The fact

is once Iraq is pump dry no one will want it. It be crave out and split among the countries in middle east.

[thebigidea]

24. they'll have nothing after this "election"

its just a holding pattern until next year's "election" - all throughout 2005, we'll hear how things will really calm down at the next election... when things will REALLY be sovereign and stuff.

and we'll get the same excuses concerning increasing violence.

There isn't a sovereign government, there's just some drapes hanging over Negroponte & Company... a fig leaf that says "makin' good progress" on it.

[tx_dem41]

25. Yes, I know that the people that win this election..

are charged to write a new Constitution in preparation for the next election.

Its just my opinion, that after this election the cat will be out of the bag, and * and company will never be able to get it back in.

[thebigidea]

27. yeah, sure. Freedom is on the march. makin good progress. democracy.

what a bunch of unadultered bullshit they keep shoveling.

Its just my opinion, but you shouldn't be eating it. You'll get worms or something.

Do you honestly believe Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will be letting Iraqis call the shots for anything but the color of garbage trucks when they need 14 permanent bases?

Do you honestly think they won't be bending the rules to stuff the place full of as many compliant Allawi-types as possible?

[tx_dem41]

32. Please point out...

where I am "eating" any bullshit. My future prediction is decidedly the opposite of *'s desires. If * truly wanted to keep a thumb on Iraq, he never should have talked-up these elections (Note, that they are now definitely not talking-up these elections).

[thebigidea]

33. not talking up these elections? what cable channels are you watching?

Bizarroworld Newschannel? All of his minions have been babbling about the great promise of these idiotic elections for months. Historic, blahblahblah, freedom on the march, blah blah blah.

as far as bullshit goes, I'd say believing these elections are anything but a cruel joke would count.

[tx_dem41]

35. You obviously haven't noticed that during the Holiday period...

the administration starting issuing statements downplaying the impact of next week's elections. Why? Because they know that one of their henchmen will NOT win.

Maybe, the problem is that you are listening to cable news.

[thebigidea]

38. absolute nonsense. Their main spokesman, just a few days ago:

MR. McCLELLAN: There are many hopeful signs that we are seeing about advancing freedom in the world. We've seen elections take place in Afghanistan. We've seen elections take place for a new Palestinian president. And we are seeing elections move forward in Iraq. For the first time, the Iraqi people are going to be able to choose their leaders. This is a historic --

Q At a very heavy price.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- this is a historic moment for the Iraqi people, and we are there to support them in those efforts.

CSPAN is the wrong cable network, then?

And what do you mean "one of their henchman won't win"?

Of course one of their henchman will win. MANY of their henchman will win. Its a proportional thing... this isn't one guy they're voting for... power will be spread throughout dozens of groups, many of them being frontgroups for us... the combined power of these bullshit candidates will outweigh the few actual non-exile, non-CIA Iraqis that get in.

And then they'll elect Allawi or somesuch next year to be the official figurehead.

[Disturbed]

43. The Shi'ites will be in control.

Al Sistani will insist that a few Sunnis will be included to avoid Civil War in Iraq. The Insurgency will continue but after the election it will be cast as evil doers, terrorists and the U.S. Forces will stay to defend the new Democratic Republic of Iraq for another 4 years at least.

[K-W]

37. lol, the elections were ALWAYS a part of Bush's plans.

Look around the world, this is what the US likes. It likes republics structured in the form of being representative but where the US retains constitutional influence and a military presence. They will take friendly dictators, but they much prefer quasi representative oligarchies.

[tx_dem41]

39. And they will get neither from this election.

When America wakes up to two Shi-ite led countries bordering each other in the M-E, it will be a shock (why I don't know) to many of *'s "base".

[thebigidea]

40. the only thing these guys will have power over will be file cabinets

the poor saps won't have a shred of power.

[tx_dem41]

42. Just, remember what happened in Najaf.

And multiply it by 1000's.

[K-W]

45. Just remember vietnam, panama, saudi arabia, iran, columbia, chile...

Yes the US is on the edge of losing it in Iraq, but they havent lost it yet. They can still pull this out without anything near a public outcry against US imperialism while retaining control over Iraq's government throughe economic control and military intimidation and reliance.

[tx_dem41]

47. I'm not saying they can't.

Just things will be a lot different on February 1st.

[thebigidea]

48. as charmingly naive as Ti Jean over there

the increased attacks will be spun as "attempts to derail the fledgling democracy."

thousands will continue to die, everything in sight gets privatized.

nothing will be different, except maybe there will be a few more targets.

[K-W]

49. No, absolutely nothing will be different.

Shiite leaders who the US feels they can work with will win power. They will quickly draft a US approved constitution and the US will be in the same role but they will be militarily supporting what they will call a constitutional democracy.

[tx_dem41]

53. Which Shi-ite leaders would you be talking about.

Al-Sistani and Hakim are both on record as saying they want the U.S. out (and I'm not talking about an "overnight" withdrawal).

[K-W]

55. We are the ultimate law in Iraq, and that isnt changing.

We are occuping the country for goodness sake. They have very few options.

[tx_dem41]

57. Yes, all colonial powers feel that way at some point. n/t

[K-W]

44. You are talking about an unprecedented shift in US foriegn policy.

Yes, it is one possibility that even with the new Iraqi government we cant get our forces out and the war keeps getting worse, or something else happens and everything goes crazy in Iraq. But if they can back themselves up so that they have an Iraqi government in front of them and get America's attention away from Iraq, they can avoid reaching a critical mass of dissent.

The disaster in vietnam didnt end US interventionism, it just pushed it further underground and dissuaded them from overt military action until enough time had passed.

Why on earth would this be different?

[tx_dem41]

46. One answer...

Prime Minister Hakim does not equal President Thieu.

[K-W]

50. Then the US will replace him.

You are arguing that the most powerful nation in the history of the world is going to just give up after everything theyve poured into this effort just because one man stands in thier way?

[tx_dem41]

52. If you believe that Hakim represents "one man"...

...then I don't know where to go from here (except home...its getting late, guys! :-) )

[K-W]

54. The US owns Iraq now. they are not going to hand it over to anyone

without a fight.

They obviously think the election will produce a regime that will play ball with them, but if it doesnt they will shift it around. And if the government succeeds in breaking away the US will support a coup. And because we are by far the strongest military power in Iraq, we will have absoluty no problem doing it.

Choosing the people over America is considered an assualt on freedom. Did you not hear Bush's inaguarl speech?

[tx_dem41]

56. You forget the role that Iran plays in all this.

We can't fight an "insurgency" in Iraq and Iran at the same time. Ain't (and can't) gonna happen.

[thebigidea]

60. spoken like someone in the reality-based community.

unfortunatly, the neocons do not have a PO box there.

[tx_dem41]

61. Well, thanks for making the distinction.

I'm honored.

Its been a good one, guys (you and K-W). But, its time I start getting home. G'night.

[Sir Jeffrey]

58. Now, if you consider that an illegal force...

deposed the leader of a sovereign nation, the question then becomes under what standard shall he be tried? The Islamic Code of Sharia? Nope, since Islamic Law does not recognize war crimes or war criminals. US law? How can it, since the US has handed over sovereignty (yeah I know its bullshit but still). International Law? I am unaware of any provision in the Iraqi COnstitution granting their judiciary power to try international disputes or criminals, especially since the overthrow.

If you haven't seen this link, Chomsky discusses what a fair trial for Hussein might look like. It's a bit off topic but a good read:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0125-06.htm