Note to readers in Irish America: another bad case of collusion this week, eh?

international | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Saturday July 26, 2003 15:27

by rooster

I'm talking about US forces working hand in glove with a paid informer who led them to the sons of Saddam.

And wasn't that a clear cut case of "shoot to kill"?

Many in the international community are asking, "why were these men not taken alive?" Surely if the US wanted them alive, for afterall, they held much information on Iraqs WOMD (or lack of them).

When the US wanted Manuel Noriega for trial they put the compound he was in under siege, so when Uday and Qusay opened fire and the forces withdrew, why the hurry to open up with their weapons and level the compound?

Why not take out the floodlights and the rock music seal it off and starve them out? Or perhaps the decision was taken higher up the chain of command that these men should be assasinated in order to prevent them ever taking the stand as this would prove that the reasons for starting the war were completely fabricated.

Does this also call for a full independent inquiry?

save preference

Comments (5 of 5)

Colatteral damage

by Jim Monaghan

Mon Jul 28, 2003 15:58

A 14 year old boy died. That was murder. Others are dieing because trigger happy American troops appear to just shoot everyone on sight in their hunt for vice presidents Chaneys old friend Sadaam.

Well i guess

by lone gunman

Sun Jul 27, 2003 16:39

That they were always sending others off to be mayrters for Dad or Ol Bin Liner. So it was their turn.Payback is a Bitch!!

My guess is that they wouldn't want to be taken alive

by Seáinín

Sat Jul 26, 2003 21:06

tried for war crimes and executed or (far worse) lingering in prison. Call me a romantic but the phrase 'they'll never take me alive' springs to mind.

Don't weep for Ooter n' Kooter, all of Iraq is celebrating.

Noriega

by iosaf is going to play a devil's advocate like character.

Sat Jul 26, 2003 16:20

was indeed a very famous victim of psychological war fare techniques we have suspected have been used on battlefields many other times.
constant unsettling Rock Music, and bright light and seriously big sub bass woofers. However the really important thing that Rooster has appeared to have forgotten/overlooked is the nature of the compound Noriega was in.

It belonged to the Holy See as the Vatican state is reffered to in diplomatic and devil's advocates circles.

Noriega was in some ways exercising two ancient rights. One is "common" the other enshrined in international law.
1. the right to sanctuary. Many cases have since the medieval period established a "common law" right to stay in a church without being removed. Quasimodo did so. Lots of people have done so, in Ireland in the last eight years there was even a case of someone avoiding or delaying arrest by taking "sanctuary".
2. the internationally enshrined right to take refuge in a consular or diplomatic mission. That site being considered the sovreign territory of the state.

The US/CIA operation to remove Noriega came very close to constituting an attack on the right to seek "asylum" in a consul or embassy. It could and indeed some day might be considered by the international comunity to have been an instance of low intensity "war" between the USA and The Vatican. The head of state of the Vatican is the Pope. He visited Ireland in 1979 and listened to rock music for less than fifteen minutes in Galway.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Note to readers in Irish America: another bad case of collusion this week, eh?

Comments (5 of 5)