US Officials Tried to Postpone Saddams Hanging

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Chief_Joseph, Jan 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I don't think there was going to be much chance of anything else happening. Face it - both the campaign and the trial have been a complete shambles. For the latter, I think we, the West, were always going to be a loser anyway. However, I agree that we haven't helped internal matters and divisions, mainly because of some utterly stupid policies implemented after the initial invasion.

    Note for self before next invasion.

    Rather than invade on a wave of populist propaganda, work out cause and effect before hand, HAVE A PLAN and for God's sake make sure you have a robust exit strategy before you do anything stupid.......
  2. It kind of p1sses on that rather silly theory that the Americans were steamrolling the execution through as soon as possible doesn't it?

    Why is it that some people always assume the worst of the Yanks and give them no credit for having any brains or conscience at all? It's just a twisted form of self-flagellation that helps no one.
  3. It's a little thing called "spin", and whether it's right wing or left wing, it's helping spin the world out of control
  4. If they were that incensed and concerned, they were offered a chance to at least delay.


    Petitioner Hussein's application for immediate, temporary stay of execution is denied,'' U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said after a hearing over the telephone with attorneys.

    The argument was 'no jurisdiction'

    Kollar-Kotelly said U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere in another country's judicial process

    Good thing she got 'courts' in there, because as regards the US not having jurisdiction to interfere , Guantanamo rather lends the lie there.

    If the they really wanted to interfere , they could have. but Al-Sadr , his allies and those easily corrupted Iraqi politicians are running the show now.

    This nonsense is coming out now, as I previously suggested would happen. the decision to drop him, is not as popular as was hoped.

    Even the Qatari press is saying it's a shambles.
  5. When?
  6. When the US courts were petitioned over the seizure of assets civil lawsuit. I believe it happened on Thursday or Friday?
  7. Seems very odd to me that someone can expect a civil action in one country to affect a criminal action in another. Something about 'sovereignty' I think.

    But then 'sovereignty' one of those current buzzwords that people use with gay abandon to knock America, but ignore the concept when it works against them.
  8. I find this statement rather hard to believe. The US has been calling the shots since it "approved" the Dawa dominated Government. Mr al-Maliki’s revenge (not justice) only seeks to prove what a brutal, backward and sectarian divided country Iraq is. This will encourage Sunni`s to sit at his Government, NOT.

    Only one person had any dignity on this embarrassing day, and that was Saddam Hussein. A real PR cock up and a foriegn policy disaster which the US could have averted but instead, chose to allow Iraqs amateur lynching squad their moment of bloodlust and revenge in the belief that this would somehow quell the frequency of insurgent attacks.

    An embarrassing day for "democracy and world freedom".
  9. If the Bible is to be believed we ARE heading for Armageddon. Better brush up on your Revelations Chief 8)
  10. Mac, if the US was calling the shots, don't you think that Saddam would have been slipped a little 'something' that would have ensured he went to the gallows quivering with paranoia and crying like a baby? That would have given the Allies what they wanted, the man totally discredited and shown to be a blubbering coward during his final moments. It would have been simple to administer as he was in US custody up until the last minute and would have ensured he went to his death with no respect from anyone.

    So tell me, why didn't it happen?
  11. I don`t believe that the US "electorate" would wish to see an individual quivering with paranoia and crying like a baby whether it is caused through chemical or physical torture.

    There has been enough bad PR with Guantanimo Bay "detention without trial" camps and alleged abuses of inmates, Abu Ghraib et al that any inference of abuse and torture by the US would leave them open to world critisism for being less than civilised as well as an internal revolt within both Houses, as this war aint got the publics` support anymore.

    Perhaps there was a hope that Saddam Hussein would "crack" in the final moments prior to death, and that the execution would be carried out by the "puppet Government" in a quiet and dignified way.

    Unfortunately, a huge miscalculation has taken place on both counts. Lets face it, foreign policy successes within the US administration are few and far between.

    I can`t tell you the exact reasons why this backfired so catastrophically, and if I could I would be working as one of the Senior Foriegn Policy Advisors.

    What I can tell you is that this whole farce has not only shown huge divisions within the Iraqi political system, but has also highlighted the huge divisions within the Allies in the fundamental approach to "democracy" building in a former dictatorship.
  12. A lot of crimes Saddam Hussein committed have been left unanswered and justice has not been served. What was the basis of the Iran Iraq war?, what misleading information was supplied by the US encouraging this dictator to "invade" Kuwait to name but a few. Sources of supply to arm his military machine with chemical munitions etc.

    I believe that a lot of these questions were left unanswered as both Britain and the US have been complicit in the crimes he committed. If this case was carried out in the International Criminal Court in the Hague, both Britain and the US would also be called to account. Perhaps this is why the US failed to put up any protestation for his release to execution.

    I do hope that prior to the Allied invasion, documents were "squirrelled" away (awaiting the appropriate moment to release) showing the true extent of US and UK involvement in his ascension and continuation in power. This in no means will exonerate his repulsive crimes, however, it may show the extent of Allied involvement and the lengths Governments will go to, to secure the Middle Eastern oilfields.

    Edited for carp spellig
  13. No Mac, what it shows is that the Americans had no say over what happened to Saddam once they handed him over and the Iraqi government did it their way. If the Americans did have control over the execution it would have been choreographed like a Hollywood musical, Saddam would have been crying, it would have been quietly dignified and Iraqi politicos would have said all the right things as the rope went tight. The fact that these things didn't happen and that it went so wrong from an American perspective, proves the process was out of their hands.

    I have no doubt that the Americans wanted him dead and it was a nice convenience that the Iraqis insisted on executing him, but that is as far as it went. The bloke's record meant that he would have swung for any one of millions of murders that he committed and that he was never going to be tried for all of them (it would have taken about 200 years). The Americans knew that he was doomed regardless of what they did, so why get involved? The fact is that they obviously didn't; Saddam was tried and executed by Iraqis, it as simple as that.
  14. He was tried and sentanced by an Iraqi institution, but lets face it, the execution was carried out by a rogue militia.