UK insists it will boycott trial if Saddam faces death penalty

[Lori Price CLG]

UK insists it will boycott trial if Saddam faces death penalty

Britain's near-total support for the United States' policy in Iraq is about to break down over the question of whether Saddam Hussein and other senior members of the Baath party should face execution.

Last week, the Foreign Office slipped out a warning that the UK will boycott the upcoming trial of Saddam if there is any risk of the former dictator being put to death.

The Government's legal advisers are also grappling with the intractable legal dilemma of what to do with former high-ranking officials now held in British-run jails.

<snip>

[markses]

1. As well they should

No State has the right to kill.

It is as simple as that.

[SandyUSA]

2. Will Saddam live to see a trial?

Most likely something unfortunate will happen to Saddam before a trial can take place. Or the trial will be arranged in such a way that it will not be public. A freely talking Saddam is the last thing Rumsfeld and other Bush (ex-Reagan) administration officials want to have happen. He has to be silenced, or he will be revealing many dark secrets about their promotion and then demotion of him.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi SandyUSA!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Wonk]

3. No need to even have the death penalty on the table in this case

since he's dying of cancer anyway and might not even live long enough for there to be a verdict in the trial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/908930.stm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36550

(snip)

Doctors who examined Hussein after his capture near his hometown of Tikrit reportedly made the fatal diagnosis. Allegations Hussein was stricken with cancer appeared during the military campaign in Iraq last year, when one of his private doctors, residing in Syria, claimed he suffered from cancer.

[SandyUSA]

5. Why believe cancer reports?

The BBC article is dated Monday, 4 September, 2000. Considering that was 4 years ago, and was only "reported" by sources that may be questionable, why should we have believed it then or believe it now? And who are these doctors that examined him after his capture and said he has a terminal condition? Is Saddam being held in a medical facility and being offered chemotherapy or any other treatment or pain relief? Whether he has cancer or does not have cancer, the war-mongers in Bush's administration do not want to see Saddam ever have a chance to tell in detail about their past ties to him. Somehow there will be no public trial. If an announcement comes that he has died from cancer, indeed, are we supposed to believe it is a fact or perhaps more likely just another lie?

[Wonk]

7. Welcome to DU. You're right (imho) about the BFEE not wanting Saddam

to have a chance to testify about what he knows.


As to the cancer thing, I posted those two links because:
a) it's been widely reported for years, and
b) the second link indicates it's been confirmed since his capture.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Saddam+Cancer
~168,000 results

[SandyUSA]

8. The issue is WHO reports or confirms -- liars or not?

Hi Wonk, Thanks so much for the welcome.

My point is not an argument but an observation because I used to believe most of what was reported or confirmed in news items. Then a few times I had some firsthand info about a topic and was amazed at the errors. That was some years ago. Still, I went on accepting a lot of offical say-so because the wording in the articles was so clever and did not make it obvious that the claims had no real independent substantiation. Gradually I learned to take these articles apart better and have at least some doubts most of the time, especially lately when it is anything coming from Bush sources.

Also at Google, there is this one about reports he died in 1999:

WorldNetDaily: Saddam's 'double' trouble
... Moslem al-Asadi, a doctor living in exile in Iran, said he believes the real Saddam died in 1999 from cancer. "The real Saddam died ...
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31718

Then we have the same internet source saying oh no, he is reported still alive, but he is dying instead of already dead:

WorldNetDaily: Does Saddam have cancer?
... OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM Does Saddam have cancer? Kuwaiti daily says illness
diagnosed after capture Posted: January 12, 2004 1:00 am Eastern ...
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36550

So, which is it, or is the truth something altogether different? We cannot know because we are being fed whatever the Bush administration wants us to believe. Saddam will show up dead, it will be confirmed that it is from cancer, but WHO "confirmed" it?

[AP]

4. Another reason it's important that a European nation is there at all.

And probably part of the reason they're there...

[markses]

6. You're defending Blair's involvement of Britain in this fiasco?

I know you positively drool over Blair, AP, but this is really a bit much. European powers need to be there so that the US doesn't go mad dog? Is that a real argument? Would Bush have been able to do this at all without Blair on board? I mean, really now.

[AP]

11. If this stops America from killing all the witnesses who might be able to

explain what really happened over there, it might be useful.

And it's not just this, the European countries involved will be the difference between this being an imperialist romp for the US and the possiblity of stopping creeping fascism all over the ME and Europe.

[daleo]

9. Off topic, but it would be nice to see Thatcher sideswiped by the trial

I am sure she had her mitts in there, when Reagan and Rummy were providing Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons to kill Iranians with.

[SandyUSA]

10. Speaking of Thatcher and Saddam

From SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE GULF WAR:

The Bush (George the Elder) administration's declared goal was to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqis. That was the mandate provided by the United Nations. And that was all that the Muslim members of the coalition desired. Bush ended the Gulf War with Saudi Arabia and Egypt calling for its quick end. King Faud of Saudi Arabia was unconcerned about the welfare of the Shi'ite minority living in the south of Iraq and close to his border. Nor was he concerned about the Kurds in the north of Iraq. Faud and Mubarak of Egypt wanted an Iraq as big as it was before the Gulf War began, and they wanted an Iraq ruled by another Sunni Muslim, and if this were Saddam Hussein so be it.

Margaret Thatcher, no longer Prime Minister of Britain, was to speak of her surprise at the war being ended the way it did. She was to say that when "dealing with a dictator, he has got not only to be defeated, well and truly, but he has got to be seen to be defeated." She added that "Half measures never work, you've either got to do the job properly and show the world you're serious so they better not let it happen again." Her successor, John Major, supported Bush's ending the war when he did, and he was to continue defending it in the years ahead.

-----

Lots more detailed info about how the US and other western powers sponsored and promoted Saddam and provided him with weapons, even when they knew he was committing atrocities with them, is at this link:

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch36.htm