Saddam on trial

[KrustyKidd]

Does this look like .........? Could they be one and the same?

A defiant Saddam Hussein appears at hearing in Iraqi court; denies charges

He brushed off the charges, suggesting he had immunity as Iraq's president.

"This is all theatre by Bush, the criminal."

[Lookie]

If Saddam was in Bush's back pocket or vise versa, why would Bush allow a public trial?

[August1991]

My favourite quote:

The charge that he had illegally invaded Kuwait in August 1990 prompted an outburst.

"I can't believe you, as an Iraqi, would say that was a crime. I was president when we invaded Kuwait. I was looking out for Iraqi interests against those mad dogs who had tried to turn Iraqi women into 10-dinar prostitutes."

Vintage stuff.

[Reverend Blair]

It will be interesting to see the stage managing of Saddam. There's little doubt that he's guilty as hell, but many of his actions were tied up with the policies of Reagan and Bush I and the US isn't going to want that to come out. How do they keep him quiet in an open trial?

[Cartman]

Hmmm...I was talking to a political science prof. who told me that there was some evidence that Hussein contacted the US BEFORE entering Kuwait and was given the go ahead to invade only to be sanctioned afterwards. Obviously, the idea here is that the US wanted a reason to invade Iraq. Sounds like conspiracy theory, but it came from a pretty reliable source. Anyone have any kind of info. from this perspective (apart from the well-known Fifth Estate report)?

[KrustyKidd]

I was talking to a political science prof. who told me that there was some evidence that Hussein contacted the US BEFORE entering Kuwait and was given the go ahead to invade only to be sanctioned afterwards.

Some evidence? It's an absolute fact. Ir's more than rumor. Surprised that you supposedly know all about legalities of the war and yet never heard of this crucial anti war argument. US Ambassador Glaspie met with Saddam where it was stated that differences between Arabs were theirs alone. Go to Google, enter Glaspie and Saddam and it will give you more than you ever needed to know.

On the anti war side, it provides a supposed muted permission to invade Iraq. On the rightist pro-war side it shows nothing but a lack of an Ambassador's understanding of Saddam's mind.

His desperation for a way out of the crippling debt that the Iran war left him with, most of it owed to Kuwait, the country that was his answer out of his quandrum distorted any answer he might have gotten from Glaspie. And, he clutched her non commital answer like it was a green light.

The month that followed should have left him with no doubt as to the supposed permission of the US and world. Strong resolutions and a massive troop buildup on his borders and Kuwaits with one objective, get him out. Nothing ambiguious there, Kuwait is not for you.

I do however, firmly believe that this will be a crucial part of his defense for that particular action.

[August1991]

His desperation for a way out of the crippling debt that the Iran war left him with, most of it owed to Kuwait, the country that was his answer out of his quandrum distorted any answer he might have gotten from Glaspie. And, he clutched her non commital answer like it was a green light.

Saddam's invasion was much more complex than debt. Green light? WTF?

Some evidence? It's an absolute fact.

KK, I'm surprised you say this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To say that Geo Bush Snr or the US government implied in any way that Saddam could invade Kuwait without retaliation is simply false. Saddam Hussein knew perfectly well that the Ambassador could not speak definitively on such a serious matter.

There was not even some kind of mixed communication signals, either. There were numerous clear messages between Baghdad and Washington.

There have been various interpretations and spins on the meetings between Glaspie and Saddam. Not surprising given Saddam's personality.

In any case Gulf War I started because Saddam refused to withdraw from Kuwait, not because he invaded it.

----

You will find on the Internet numerous sites purporting to present various transcripts of conversations between Saddan and Glaspie. Do not believe everything you read.

[KrustyKidd]

August, you agreed with me. or else I explained it wrong, one of the other. I saw everything just as you said, with the possible exception that I can see how a guy like Saddam in his position would cling to anything he could to get a feeling of non involvement from the US.

Glaspie

We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

That seems like it is what it is. 'Whatever your problem is, it isn't ours.' Saddam takes it as the proverbial 'green light' and goes for it. Of course, there is that little nagging problem of international law, but who cares right? Not despotic dictators anyhow. Like if he had gotten the same advice from Dr Laura it would have been just as much a green light so where does that mean a damm thing?

[kaper1999]

A kangaroo court is trying to provide the illusion of justice. A nephew of chalabi is running the circus or court if you want to call that name. A us navy admiral in polo t shirt directing the “Iraqi judge” at Iraqi arraignment. It’s hard to say if this is justice or comedy, maybe a lil of both or just one. Why not bring saddam to a us court or the international court. I guess we all know the answer to that. He is not the only criminal who should be put on trial.

[Reverend Blair]

I'd like to see Saddam in an international court. His crimes reached far outside the scope of his own country and there will a lot of ass-covering going on with the trial being held in Iraq.

I don't think Iraq is a signatory to the ICC though. I know for sure that the US is not. Even if they both were signatories, the convention is clear...a country gets first shot at their own criminals.

As for the Glaspie go ahead for the invasion of Kuwait. I think that Saddam honestly thought that he had permission from his American masters. He was still basically a puppet of the US at the time, he went and asked permission, he thought he had it because he was told that the US would stay out of it.

I think that permission likely came from the White House through Glaspie or was the standing policy. Diplomats do not make decisions like that on their own.

I don't think it was some conspiracy within the White House though. I think that it was likely a misunderstanding of the effects of allowing such an invasion. Kuwait was screaming that they thought the US was their friend and the Saudis were making noise that they might be next. They told the US to leash its pitbull.

[caesar]

Cartman; There is lots of evidence to show that there may be a lot of truth in what you have heard.

I can give you lots of web sites but first try a search for Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General (Johnson ) assistant attorney general (Kennedy)

There is evidence that the "gassing of the Kurds" that is attributed to Saddam was actually an accidental gassing; during the Irag / Iran war when both sides were attempting to gas each other. According to the American War College the gas that poisoned the Kurds was actually from Iran> The two sides were using different gases. Mind you at that time Iraq and Saddam were American allies.

The truth; who knows????

[Michael Hardner]

An addendum:

In Septemer 1990, Gladspie told the New York Times:

"We didn’t think he’d take all of Kuwait."

Hermes Press

[KrustyKidd]

See Rev, this is how rumors are started. You state what is known by all, that you

think that Saddam honestly thought that he had permission

which is an accepted observation that is made from the official transcripts of the meeting. And then, make a completely false statement by changing this assumption into something which there is no proof or indication thereof.

I think that permission likely came from the White House through Glaspie or was the standing policy.

Seeing as how up until yesterrday you were not even familiar with the particulars of this event, what factual evidence have you come up with in the past eighteen hours that turns this from an Ambassador's poor wording to a conspiracy that goes to the top of the US government and becomes 'standing policy?

Permission?

She told Hussein that Washington had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait," a statement, she said later, she regretted.

[August1991]

In Septemer 1990, Gladspie told the New York Times:

"We didn’t think he’d take all of Kuwait."

I have never seen any evidence that she ever said such a thing.

All of the transcripts of the conversations between Glaspie and Saddam were compiled and released by the Iraqi government and then published by The New York Times in September 1990.

The State Department has not released any talking notes from these meetings (an American notetaker would have been present).

Everyone is welcome to speculate on these matters for fun and profit.

It is absolutely absurd however to suggest the US encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait. The fact of the matter is that almost everyone thought Saddam was bluffing.

Incidentally, Glaspie is Canadian. She was born in Vancouver.

[Reverend Blair]

See Rev, this is how rumors are started.

Which part of "I think" did you not understand, Krusty?

[KrustyKidd]

I think that permission likely came from the White House through Glaspie or was the standing policy.

The part where the 'permission' is the non-fact and the 'I think' is the supposed rationale for the non-fact appearing in the manner it did.

[Reverend Blair]

"I think" implies nothing but conjecture on my part. That's why I put it in. Are you saying that my opinion implies fact?

[KrustyKidd]

I assumed that English was your first language. Sorry.

I think that permission likely came from the White House through Glaspie or was the standing policy.

The actual problem is not 'I think' I thought I made it clear that that was the reason why you posted this. Because you thought something. Hence, the rationale for the statement. Anyhow, the problem is not you thinking but rather the insertion of 'that permission' into the sentence when it is only an understood permission if your name is Saddam Hussein who really wanted a signal or any kind that he would not be beaten to a pulp if he iinvaded. Hence, 'I think' is fine. However, scince there is no acceptance of permission being fact, why do you portray it as such suddenly? And sc ince it is not fact, how can it come from the White House throgh Glaspie or be the standing policy?

You are in the habit of throwing stuff out and assuming that it will be accepted as fact. It is a debating trick of huckters. you tried it with the 'illegal' statement and you are trying it again here. Prove how this was permission. Otherwise, leave it for what it is widely understood to be, a major gaff by a politician.

[falling leaf]

Reverend Blair

I'd like to see Saddam in an international court. His crimes reached far outside the scope of his own country and there will a lot of ass-covering going on with the trial being held in Iraq

I agree with you Reverend Blair. The Amercians should have gone in because he was a threat to his own people.

The UN and other countries should have agreed to stop him.

What he did to his own people was a war crime., just like Hitler .

He should be tried in the international courts.

[August1991]

He should be tried in the international courts.

Don't you think this is something the Iraqi people should decide? They have already seen too much of their country's fate determined by outsiders. Surely they should be now free to determine this question in their own way.