Saddam On Trial

[koan]

There was always some speculation that the gassing of Kurdish villages was actually an attack on suspected Iranian forces that was based on bad intelligence. Whether one believes that or not, this is what Saddam's defense lawyers are submitting. Seeing the recent events with civilian casualties and the world's acceptance of "collateral damage" it is a good defense.

American Chronicle, Sept 10, 2006

In Saddam Hussein’s war crimes trial for the 1988 Iraqi “Anfal” campaign that gassed Kurdish villages, his defense lawyers have argued that Iraqi forces were really attempting to strike Iranian forces and the Iraqi Kurdish pesh merga militias that were in and supported by the hamlets. In other words, the lawyers are asserting that the innocent Kurds who were killed were collateral damage in an effort by the Iraqi government to rid its territory of Iranian fighters and their Kurdish allies during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Curiously, this defense sounds similar to Israel’s defense of killing more than one thousand Lebanese and perpetrating widespread destruction of Shi’ite neighborhoods, apartment houses, water services, electrical power stations, ports, factories, roads, and bridges in Lebanon in its efforts to punish Hezbollah. Yet Saddam Hussein is on trial for war crimes and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is still in office.

Of course, rabid supporters of Israel would be horrified at a comparison between a democratically elected leader and an autocratic tyrant. But we are not talking about the selection method for leaders here; we are comparing their specific actions during wartime. Supporters of Israel would also note that the Israelis did not use poison gas in Lebanon. But although chemical weapons provide a grisly death, they kill far fewer people than explosive bombs. Because they have been wrongly included in the ominous sounding category of “weapons of mass destruction” (nuclear weapons are probably the only true, practical weapons of mass destruction), their use implies a war crime from the get-go. That is not to defend Saddam’s use of these area weapons against villages, it is merely to say that the Israelis are no less guilty of committing war crimes by leveling entire villages in southern Lebanon simply because they used conventional bombs to do it.

[Elouise]

It would seem gassing wasn't the altruistic choice for separating the innocents...while finely targeting Iranians...


I think Saddam hired Iranian Lawyers coached by Iraqis....

[koan]

Just as 1 ton bombs aren't the best choice when targeting individual terrorists who can be arrested.

[Gygz]

Originally Posted by koan

There was always some speculation that the gassing of Kurdish villages was actually an attack on suspected Iranian forces that was based on bad intelligence. Whether one believes that or not, this is what Saddam's defense lawyers are submitting. Seeing the recent events with civilian casualties and the world's acceptance of "collateral damage" it is a good defense.

American Chronicle, Sept 10, 2006

In Saddam Hussein’s war crimes trial for the 1988 Iraqi “Anfal” campaign that gassed Kurdish villages, his defense lawyers have argued that Iraqi forces were really attempting to strike Iranian forces and the Iraqi Kurdish pesh merga militias that were in and supported by the hamlets. In other words, the lawyers are asserting that the innocent Kurds who were killed were collateral damage in an effort by the Iraqi government to rid its territory of Iranian fighters and their Kurdish allies during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Curiously, this defense sounds similar to Israel’s defense of killing more than one thousand Lebanese and perpetrating widespread destruction of Shi’ite neighborhoods, apartment houses, water services, electrical power stations, ports, factories, roads, and bridges in Lebanon in its efforts to punish Hezbollah. Yet Saddam Hussein is on trial for war crimes and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is still in office.

Of course, rabid supporters of Israel would be horrified at a comparison between a democratically elected leader and an autocratic tyrant. But we are not talking about the selection method for leaders here; we are comparing their specific actions during wartime. Supporters of Israel would also note that the Israelis did not use poison gas in Lebanon. But although chemical weapons provide a grisly death, they kill far fewer people than explosive bombs. Because they have been wrongly included in the ominous sounding category of “weapons of mass destruction” (nuclear weapons are probably the only true, practical weapons of mass destruction), their use implies a war crime from the get-go. That is not to defend Saddam’s use of these area weapons against villages, it is merely to say that the Israelis are no less guilty of committing war crimes by leveling entire villages in southern Lebanon simply because they used conventional bombs to do it.

A reasonable point but I can't see him getting off ..not with the best defence in the world ..