War criminal wants to put fellow war criminals on trial

Well, I think even though he is a despicable war criminal, Sadam has a point.

Interesting question who is the biggest war criminal, Sadam, Bush or Blair.

I'd say, Sadam, though just because this is the case, does not mean the other war criminals should get away with it. My logic is that though they all have ordered war crimes and caused mass death, it seems Sadam is probably most likely to have engaged in killing and torture personally.

 

Interesting indeed. For all you people out there that just want to pander to the Chicken Hawk Bushism way of life, you have to be able to at least admit that according to international law, which the US does subscribe too, that Bush and Blair are war criminals.


If this ever were to actually make it to the world court it would be an absolute riot to see Bush dance and bullsh!t his way out of ever showing his face or answering to charges set forth.


You take into account that the US has indeed practiced Torture at Gitmo, Abu Ghriab. Has used illegal weapons and have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens of a sovereign nation. Wow the implications could be HUGE!

 

Liberals siding with Saddam....can't say that's a first!

 

so did rummy and a bunch of other war wackos

 

They can't do that to our war criminals, only we can do that to their war criminals. Somebody needs to get them a copy of the rule book so that learn to play fair.

 

That's funny. Of course, the suit will never be taken seriously, though he's got a point. It reminds me of when Castro offered us election monitors when we had our fiasco in Florida.

 

Actually neither Gitmo nor Abu Ghrab are the types of incidents for which leaders are tried. In addition, those at Abu Ghrab are being punished domestically, which is the remedy of choice according to 'international law.'

What illegal weapons? Please back up this charge.

 

well they certainly broke international law by invading a country illegally.

i dont know if that classifies as war crimes. but certainly its breaking the law.

 

unless your Team America.

 

I never respond to bigtexx because I think he’s pathologically dishonest and manipulative, but this was just so funny I couldn’t pass it up. I guess it’s not all that funny when you think about it though. I believe Reagan was selling Saddam the chemicals he used to gas his own people at this time too, and I believe that they were supplying both sides in the Iran Iraq war with weapons. It doesn’t get much more immoral than that.

 

links?

Let's try to keep the insults out of the D&D. K?Thx!

 

It’s not an insult. It’s a comment on the way you post, like your comment in this thread for example. I’m sure you knew that “conservatives”, as you like to partition the world, have had very close ties with Hussein in the past, and yet you try to imply that liberals have “sided with him.” I think that’s a dishonest and manipulative statement.

 

texxx, if every single liberal on this board spent a month together huddled in a bunker, we couldn't come up with an insult more horrible than suggesting that you want Saddam Hussein or those terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 to win. I'd recommend thinking about that and then shutting the hell up.

 

Only lowest ranked MPs were tried as scapegoats. That's a slap on the wrist.

DU for sure. Strong cases can also be made against cluster bombs and Willy Pete.

 

People claim that DU is illegal on the basis of radioactivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is considered depleted because as much of the radioactive stuff that can be taken out is taken out. DU is less radioactive than yellow cake and even the ore that is mined directly from the ground! (7/10^ths the radioactivity of uranium ore) It is what they mix weapons grade uranium with in Russia to make it safe.

There is no way it can be considered an illegal radioactive weapon. Claiming so is a scare tactic of the worst kind, capitalizing on the fact that uranium and radioactivity go hand in hand in people's minds.

As someone who claims to have an engineering degree I can't help but believe you know this.

We have not signed the white phosphorus treaty so there's nothing illegal there. Cluster bombs are only illegal if used on civilians targets. I am not knowledgable enough to comment on this subject.

While I generally agree with your viewpoint here, lying or being deceptive to make it seem more solid or urgent does nobody any good. When you do you fall prey to the same 'end justifies the means' thinking that led to Iraq.

 

Exactly, there's a fundamental distinction to make. DU is not illegal. The US and Europe have used DU as a weapon. DU functions as an anti-armor weapon. Essentially, DU bullets self-sharpen as it drills through armor and consequently is the most effective weapon we have at piercing heavy armor. There isn't a treaty that explicitly bans or places any regulations on its use. There isn't even a treaty that prohibits the use of nuclear weapons, let alone weapons that give off minimal levels of radioactivity.

Now the US hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the health effects of DU. 99% of the studies cited by the administration only examine the effects of skin or indirect contact with DU rather than the ingestion of DU particles that occurs if one is near a place in which DU was used. There are plenty of questions that have not been answered regarding the side effects of DU. But that doesn't make this a nuclear or even a radiological weapon. Hell the European Union uses tungsten bullets that also generate a limited amount of radioactivity (although much less than DU) but that doesn't make those radiological weapons either.

 

For clarification, here is some data on toxicity of uranium and a couple of other everyday substances that quickly came to mind.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for uranium of 0.6 µg/kg of body weight per day.

The same organization has set a TDI of 3.5µg/kg of body weight per day for lead.

The TDI for ethylene glycol, the primary substance found in radiator fluid has been tentatively set at 0.05 µg/kg of body weight per day.

It is accurate to characterize Uranium a chemically dangerous substance but not as an excessively or abnormally dangerous substance. There has been much more than 6x the mass of bullets with lead cores shot in Iraq. I see nobody has taken up the cause of lead toxicity to date. Nobody has marched outside the UN demanding that the US stop using radiator fluid.

 

Good points made by several. The radioactivity is low level. However, the picture on depleted uranium is muddled. There appear to be unresolved questions on the longer term hazards associated with the chemical toxicity of the dust formed when such a shell penetrates tank armor, particularly with regard to a higher rate of cancers amongst veterans and misformed births. But there is very little scientific literature in the public domain to support either position. The WHO was supposed to do a study on this, but I;m not sure where this stands.
However, the United Nations Human Rights Commission does consider depleted uranium use to be "illegal". The US and the UK do not.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
Legal status of military use
In 1996 and 1997, the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, passed a resolution to ban the use of depleted uranium weapons. The Subcommission adopted resolutions which include depleted uranium weaponry amongst "weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction, ... incompatible with international humanitarian or human rights law." (Secretary General's Report, 24 June 1997, E/CN. 4/Sub.2/1997/27)

According to the UN, the resolutions in 1996-97 were passed because the use of DU in ordinance breaches several international laws concerning inhumane weapons: it is not limited in time or space to the legal field of battle, or to military targets; it continues to act after the war; it is "inhumane" by virtue of its ability to cause prolonged or long term death by cancer and other serious health issues, it causes harm to future civilians and passers by (including unborn children and those breathing the air or drinking water); and it has an "unduly negative" and long term effect on the natural environment and food chain.

 

Unless you can prove that it was anything but then that's the proper outcome.

DU is absolutely NOT illegal, neither are cluster bombs or WP.

Subcommitte resolutions are not binding in any way, and it is not appropriate or accurate to claim that such a resolution make DU use 'illegal.' Cluster bombs and wp are not illegal - please refer to the many threads already on this subject where even the most vehemently anti-US-interventionists are willing to admit as much.

As for the legality of the intervention itself, that is in dispute but hardly a settled matter.