[Natoma]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1

Uday and Qusay have been confirmed dead after a fire fight with US troops. Now all we need is Saddam, dead or alive.

[RussSchultz]

I'll reserve my celebration for a few days until the confirmation becomes more confirmed.

[Silent_One]

Interesting. Hopefully this will help alleviate the citizens fears of any chance of the return of the regime. Like you said "2 down 1 to go"

[zurich]

Shrug!

*refrains from making an inflamable comment!*

[epicstruggle]

first, YEAH!!!!!!
second, does anyone have a link to the status of all 52 most wanted. I know we have about 37 captured/killed. And out of top 4 3 have been taken/killed.
third, they have very strong evidence that they were killed. One of the sons had titanium in his leg, and the #4 guys was used to confirm them. Plus you can get preliminary blood samples confirmations, photo id, finger prints. All this COULD be done in a matter of hours.

These 2 should have been caught and tortured for the rest of their lives. Too bad they got the easy way out.

later,

[RussSchultz]

There's something on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html and its in the little side bar.

[epicstruggle]

thanks russ, looks like 34 out of 52 have been taken/killed.

later,

[fbg1]

Good, so when is Bush going to announce again that the war is over?

[Lezmaka]

He never said the war was over. He said something similar to "major combat had ended".

[Willmeister]

Interesting. Hopefully this will help alleviate the citizens fears of any chance of the return of the regime. Like you said "2 down 1 to go"

Citizens of Iraq know Saddam ain't comin' back into power. No way. No how. What they're really afraid of are the thugs who are attacking US troops, who want to drive US forces out, so they can assume power since they have guns and obviously unafraid to use them. That's what Iraqis fear most. Saddamism v2.0. At best, and this is being REAL generous, he might attain the status of minor folk hero...

[Silent_One]

Citizens of Iraq know Saddam ain't comin' back into power. No way. No how. What they're really afraid of are the thugs who are attacking US troops, who want to drive US forces out, so they can assume power since they have guns and obviously unafraid to use them. That's what Iraqis fear most. Saddamism v2.0. At best, and this is being REAL generous, he might attain the status of minor folk hero...

As I said, hopefully this will help alleviate the citizens fears of any chance of the return of the regime
And these links indicate I was right......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3088399.stm

His elder son, Uday, and younger son, Qusay, played such legendary roles in Iraq's iron fist rule that their hold over people continued even while they were at large.
There appears to have been a view among ultra-loyal Baathists that, while all three were alive, there was a possibility that things could be made unbearable for the coalition forces and the old regime could return.

However distant that prospect, it was enough to instil among others the fear of terrible retribution.
Symbolic

They had seen it happen when the regime's forces hit back after the uprisings that accompanied the 1991 Gulf War. While Saddam Hussein remains on the run from the coalition, there could be some Iraqis still unwilling to set those fears aside, or indeed some who would still cling to the notion of his return.
But the killing of his two all-powerful sons is so symbolic that it can only be hugely disheartening for the arch-loyalists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...004168,00.html

As news filtered out in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, last night, the sky erupted in tracer fire. "It's celebration. People have heard about what happened," a US military spokesman said.........

"Iraqis are always telling me that the Iraqi people will never truly believe the regime has changed until they see the bodies. Well, here are two of the bodies," said Peter Galbraith, an Iraq expert and a former US ambassador.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3137895

At a hastily called news conference in Baghdad after four bodies were flown to the Iraqi capital from the Mosul villa, Sanchez said he had "multiple" sources for the identification of Uday and Qusay.

Pressed on how he would convince hesitant Iraqis, he said he would address that issue on Wednesday. U.S forces seem unlikely to relish risking unfavorable comparison with Iraq's former dictator by publishing unsightly photographs.

But Iraqis are a skeptical public after three decades of Saddam's manipulation of the media. With the terror of his rule still fresh, many are reluctant to disown him in public.

[horvendile]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

These 2 should have been caught and tortured for the rest of their lives.

I'll just assume you don't mean that literally.

Too bad they got the easy way out.

Yep, probably missed important intelligence there. Still, this is better than them running free. (My first formulation of that sentence was "Better dead than free" which would have opened possibilities for hilarious quotations out of context!)

[epicstruggle]

@horvendile: Actually i did mean that. I wish we could have spent millions of dollars torturing these two. Creating and perfecting techniques to exact as much pain as they caused the people of iraq. Try to catch some news on how terrible these two were. Saddam even told his oldest son that he was worried that he was becoming too amoral!!!!! This coming from Saddam.

I trully believe there is a God(s) and that they will see to their punishment, but in the very slight chance that their isnt a God(s), then we are justified to make sure to exact pain on the most horrible of people.

later,

[horvendile]

And I truly believe that not using torture is a cornerstone of a modern democratic state governed by law (to all Swedes: What is "rättssamhälle" in English?).
Yes, Saddam and his sons were incredibly bad, but that was one of the reasons for removing them. Lowering oneself to the same low level is not promising. Torture is not even a good way to obtain information.

Using torture would efficiently ruin any impression that you/we stand for a more civilised world.

Imprisonment for life after a trial in court - yes.
Interrogations - yes.
Torture - no.

[epicstruggle]

who really cares about any information these two might have. Why torture? Maybe some future tyrant will think twice before he/she does anything remotly like they did.

here is a quick search from cnn:

Prisoners were often eliminated with a bullet to the head, but one witness told the London-based human rights group Indict that inmates were sometimes murdered by being dropped into shredding machines. Some prisoners went in head first and died quickly, while others were put in feet first and died screaming. The witness said that on at least one occasion, Qusay supervised shredding-machine murders.

On another occasion, a witness said, an inmate's foot was cut off in a prison torture room while Qusay was present. "The amputation had been carried out with a power saw during his torture under the direct supervision of Qusay," the witness told Indict.

Iraqi exiles say Uday murdered at will and tortured with zeal, and routinely ordered his guards to snatch young women off the street so he could rape them. The London-based human-rights group Indict said Uday ordered prisoners to be dropped into acid baths as punishment.

One defector told Indict that jailed soccer players were forced to kick a concrete ball after failing to reach the 1994 World Cup finals. Another defector said athletes were dragged through a gravel pit and then dunked in a sewage tank so infection would set in.

Your argument of lets not stoop to their level is comemdable, which goes nicely with ghandis (a big hero of mine) philosophy of nonviolence, where a few can kill millions with the right toxins/virus/weapons. Could you have guaranteed that either sons would not have escaped from prision? No, remember pablo escabor, he was the biggest drug dealer in his time. he went to jail, paid the right people off, and just escaped. I only suggest torturing them for a while, maybe a few years. then we can give to lions and tigers in a pit. (one of them used have a tiger who he would use to kill people he did not like.) I like the phrase whats good for the goose is good for the gender.

later,

[Mariner]

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Heard that saying before? Torture for the sake of torture is even worse than what Saddam & Sons were doing - at least their intentions were to instil fear into the people (probably with a soupçon of sadism thrown in as well).

I think it unlikely that any future dictators would think twice about torture/war crimes/pissing off the US, just because they might get tortured themselves if caught. I doubt the mind of a sadistic dictator works in that way.

[epicstruggle]

Why dont we just release all prisoners than too. Since its also wrong to put people into little cages. come on people, ill bet those against torture are more than likely people for abortions. Be honest.

If more of these dictators were tortured, maybe we would have fewer of them. It might instill a bit of fear into them, maybe we will be able to curb their cruelty. I think there should be some high standard before you would even be considered for torture. Hitler, Pol pot, stalin, saddam, the guy from chile caught in england, several african leaders(who have killed millions).

Im sure in your lollipop world, their is no crime. But tell the people who have lost their loved ones in the most terrible of fashions that they should be happy that the only punishment these people should get is a comfy jail cell.

later,

[horvendile]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

who really cares about any information these two might have.

The whereabouts (or at least habits) of Saddam? WMD? Not entirely without interest.

Why torture? Maybe some future tyrant will think twice before he/she does anything remotly like they did.

I partly agree with Mariner here. Fear for international intervention might very well keep some dictators and dictators-wannabees on their toes, but I doubt that a threat of torture instead of lifelong imprisonment would do much difference in that respect. The difference it would make would be to give them the argument that "we" are not better than them - and they'd be right.

Could you have guaranteed that either sons would not have escaped from prision?

But wouldn't this be an argument against prison punishment in general? That possibility always exists, even during the years of torture you suggest. I'm not really familiar with the Escobar intermezzo, but I assume he was very rich, whereas I doubt that U&Q would have much money left. Furthermore, placed in the right prison they would have to bribe a lot of people.

But this is really secondary. If one has the ambition of spreading freedom and respect for human rights, one cannot ever afford torture. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

Edit: Missed epicstruggle's last post (posted while I wrote the above), but I don't think it changes anything.

[epicstruggle]

Id leave it up to the people of iraq to decide. Not the sunnis (saddams people?), but up to the shiates (the ones he has oppressed?) to decide. Im sure they would have come up with appropriate punishment.

btw if you can keep one or two future dictators from being as sadistic, how many lives have you saved? hundreds of thousands all the way to millions.

No prison is 100% fail safe, how about transportation to and from jail to court houses. There is no way you could guarantee that they would be locked up for life. Also these the two sons still have billions of dollars worth of gold and other valueables unacconted for.

later,

[horvendile]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

Id leave it up to the people of iraq to decide. Not the sunnis (saddams people?), but up to the shiates (the ones he has oppressed?) to decide. Im sure they would have come up with appropriate punishment.

That would be almost exactly as the Church during late middle age and renaissance. Oh no, they didn't torture or execute anybody, that was the worldly powers who did that!

btw if you can keep one or two future dictators from being as sadistic, how many lives have you saved? hundreds of thousands all the way to millions.

I might have agreed if I thought that would be the effects of preventative torture. As it is now, losing the moral high ground just isn't worth it. Having the moral high ground is all what liberating the world is about, isn't it?

No prison is 100% fail safe, how about transportation to and from jail to court houses. There is no way you could guarantee that they would be locked up for life. Also these the two sons still have billions of dollars worth of gold and other valueables unacconted for.

I don't really think this part of the discussion is particularly relevant, and I'm not sure I understand your argument. Do you suggest that we do away with prisons altogether, because they're not 100% safe? And would your torture chamber be 100% safe? How about transportation to the torture chamber?

[epicstruggle]

what im saying is that if your rich (think millions to billions) you have a very good chance of escaping/bribing your way out of prison. However if your going to be tortured for a year or two, then your killed. Well thats only a year or two that they would have to do anything.

Btw ask the mothers and fathers of the millions who died in rawanda, congo, liberia, and other african countries, how its nice that the US has the moral high ground when the rulers/dictators of these countries will never see justice. Also in the slight case that anyone of them ever sees the inside of a jail cell, thats so many times better than the average life of some on in africa. Theyll get food, shelter, medicine. Whereas the people who already have suffered will starve to death.

later,

[horvendile]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

Btw ask the mothers and fathers of the millions who died in rawanda, congo, liberia, and other african countries, how its nice that the US has the moral high ground when the rulers/dictators of these countries will never see justice.

But that is not because of lack of torture. That is because of lack of intervention.

Revenge is not cause enough for democratic societies to indulge in torture.

Also in the slight case that anyone of them ever sees the inside of a jail cell, thats so many times better than the average life of some on in africa. Theyll get food, shelter, medicine. Whereas the people who already have suffered will starve to death.

I can't help thinking that the solution to that would be to improve the conditions in Africa, not make them worse in jail.

[epicstruggle]

i guess will just have to agree to disagree. You think people who torture, kill, rape thousands if not millions should sit in nice little cells for the rest of their lives. I think they should feel some of the pain they inflicted upon the people they ruled over and then be put to death.

later,

[Clashman]

For all those in favor of torture...

Ask, and ye shall recieve:

Amnesty: Iraqis Complain of Torture by U.S. Forces
Wed Jul 23, 5:08 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis detained by U.S. troops have complained of torture and degrading treatment, Amnesty International said Wednesday.

There were also reports of troops shooting detainees, the London-based human rights watchdog said in a report based on interviews with former prisoners of the Americans across Iraq (news - web sites).


Amnesty staff heard complaints that included prolonged sleep deprivation and detainees being forced to stay in painful positions or wear hoods over their heads for long periods.


"Such treatment would amount to 'torture and inhumane treatment' prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and by international human rights law," Amnesty said.


U.S. military officials were not immediately available to comment on the report.


Amnesty staff gathered testimony from former detainees around Iraq and from relatives of some still being held.


The organization made several requests to visit detention centers but were denied access by U.S. forces that have struggled to impose law and order since the invasion which toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in April.


"Detainees continue to report suffering extreme heat while housed in tents; insufficient water; inadequate washing facilities; open trenches for toilets; no change of clothes, even after two months' detention," Amnesty said.


Amnesty has said thousands are held in prisons run by U.S. troops. They include Abu Ghraib, one the most feared jails under Saddam, and Camp Cropper near Baghdad's airport.


The human rights group said it had received several reports of cases of detainees who have died in custody, "mostly as a result of shooting by members of the coalition forces."


Amnesty said 22-year-old Alaa Jassem was killed when soldiers fired on detainees during a riot on June 13 at Abu Ghraib. Demonstrators threw bricks and poles at the soldiers.


"According to eyewitnesses, Alaa Jassem was in a tent when he was shot. Seven other detainees were wounded," Amnesty said.


Other allegations reported by Amnesty included the case of Saadi al-Ubaydi on the morning of May 14, when two U.S. armed vehicles crashed through the stone wall surrounding his home.


"Several soldiers forced their way in and beat him with their rifle butts. He ran out of the house to get away from them. Soldiers shot him a few meters away and he died immediately," the report said, citing witnesses in Ramadi.


Many Iraqis complain troops use heavy-handed tactics that humiliate householders when conducting weapons searches.


"There continue to be many reports of members of the coalition forces engaging in house searches and damaging or destroying property without justification," Amnesty said.


"There are also numerous reports of confiscation of property, including large sums of money, upon arrest."

[horvendile]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

i guess will just have to agree to disagree. You think people who torture, kill, rape thousands if not millions should sit in nice little cells for the rest of their lives.

How diplomatic

I mean, I could formulate it as
"I guess we'll just have to disagree. You think that
a) US and/or international law should act just as badly as sadistic dictators
b) Since prison staff is so corrupt, rich convicts should be tortured"

But I won't

Seriously though, this has disturbed me. Is this common reasoning? Therefore I'll try to start a poll (never done that before, we'll see if I can figure out how to do it!) and see how it turns out.