Extrajudicial murder is a sign of a desperate despotic regime

Amnesty International has already slammed the Bush regime for the killing of Afghan prisoners by "blunt trauma" while in custody. It's already pointed out the horrid conditions leading prisoners on Guantanamo to attempt suicide. Now the Bush regime has manufactured the murder of Saddam Hussein's sons and grandson to stop us from talking about "Niger, Niger, Niger...."

As to the murder of Saddam Hussein's sons and grandson, it seems to me as if we learned from the PNAC neocon warmongers that when a nation tortures and murders its political enemies instead of according them justice and a trial, that justifies the invasion of the country and the deposing of its leadership. As such, he's invited *more* extra-national attacks on our country, either by nation-states or by independent actors - making us even *more* unsafe, not that he gives a rat's ass about our safety.

Bush's insistence on murder, whether for revenge or for taking care of loose ends, instead of ensuring that even the most allegedly wicked people get a fair trial, puts him in the same throne that we were supposed to hate President Hussein for. Because none of the weird stories surrounding the Hussein brothers ever had to stand up in court, this opens up (even more than was already opened by the "Anti-christ Administration") the potential for *anyone* to become a target of a concerted campaign of lies and innuendo, leading to a lynching in the public opinion, and a nonjudicial execution of sentence by the military or some other arm of the executive branch.

Hamdi and Padilla are already citizens who have been stripped of their rights by this method of guilt by innuendo. The British and Australians held at Guantanamo who are threatened with a nonjudicial death sentence if they refuse to confess should remind everyone of the bizarre "Inquisition" nature of this twisted and perverse, pathetic excuse for an administration the neocons have spawned (everyone should consider stories we've all heard of "witches" who were proven innocent by drowning or being crushed by stones - if they'd have survived, they'd have been supernatural, and hence would have been burned as a witch). Bush's "execution without trial" means of eliminating competition in Iraq to the continued occupation and annexation of Iraq and its resources is only one example, therefore, of the total lawless nature of his continued dictatorial overthrow of justice, liberty, and freedom in our nation and the rest of the world.

Torture and lawless murder, products brought to you by Bush, Incorporated. Remember, it's only bad when someone else does it.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

I don't care about the two creeps, but would much rather have had the US put them on ice until the Iraqis themselves could try them and do their own justice. I don't know of any evidence that they did anything wrong to anyone but Iraqis.

It seems like nobody is even concerned that Bush & Co are completely lawless. If the Allies felt they had to put the Nazis on trial, then there should be some sort of international laws applying now. I guess I don't have anything intelligent to add to this, but the way that everything seems so lawless now and so many Americans are thrilled and gloating just wigs me out.

I agree, it's just inviting more attacks and making the US look tyrannical and unstable. It's a disaster.

Further evidence of the way this ugly, degenerate administration is dragging our nation and the world back to the dark ages.

First, he inflames the hordes to incite them to hate enough to approve any sort of violence he trots out in front of them. Then he misuses the military, sending them in to slaughter thousands of innocents in a far-away country to dominate their natural resources. Then, when he runs into trouble, he violates his enemies and trots out their gruesome and hideous dead bodies, in violation of every sort of agreed international norm, treaty, and good common decency.

These are sick, sick people.

I'm really interested in forensics, and some of the most convincing evidence in identifying "john doe" bodies is when they take x-rays of the skull and do overlays over photos from life. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to spot when it matches and when it doesn't! They could have released x-rays of both, and headshots (from life) of both...not bloody, and waaay more convincing!

But these awful (as in bloody, and as in useless for ID purposes) photos prove nothing! I was immediately suspicious about this story when I heard on the news "US Military confirms....". I think releasing these pictures is designed to keep focus on this issue longer, debating just the sort of things we're debating, but in the mainstream media, where people will forget all about the many deceptions leading up to war discussing this issue.

I can only hope that the memory of the people, and the memory of the mainstream "journalists" isn't as short about presidential lies as it is about the murder case du jour.

Susan

Georgie Bushprano, whacking his enemies to become a "made man."

How pathetic.

I'm not sure that's a place we should be going.

You don't need a trial to kill combatants in war and it is so incredibly stupid to think we should. These 2 were combatants and I'm guessing they were armed.

> You don't need a trial to kill combatants in war...

I trust that someday, then, when Bush is walking down the street
in some city, possibly carrying a bag of oranges, and some thugs
jump out and whack him, you'll understand that you don't need a
trial to kill combatants in war, and it CERTAINLY won't
have been "an act of terrorism" or an "illegal assassination"
or whatever spin the fascists will try to put on it.

It'll just be the continued war.

Atlant

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

> But I don't expect radical leftists to make sense. Why are you such a moron?

You only seem to have personal attacks. No better ammunition?

A fact or two?

Atlant

And burn a flag.

No wonder we won't join the ICC...we know we couldn't possibly stand up to any objective judgement of our actions

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

fricking war, it was an invasion. The Iraqi's had no offensive force. And don't call me a moron. The owner of that house in Iraq squealed on the two guys to get the reward money. The American soldiers protected the owner of the house and got him to safety. Then the military overwhemed the Hussain brothers.

It was a legitimate use of force. I opposed the war but once we went in I didn't expect our soldiers to not defend themselves. These scumbags were leading attacks against our troops and you bitch about their "rights".

I never said the war was over , Bush did.

I guess the controversy is whether this was a military action or a quasi-law enforcement one.

Personally, I'm not reaching for my cry-hanky over the loss of the Hussein Boys, but I don't want our guys put in harms way just to run a publicity stunt for the Bush Gang (oh wait, that's what this whole war's about), especially one that has the potential to backfire as badly as this one might.

But if our troops get shot at I expect them to return fire.

Over 200 fine Americans have lost their lives of what is essentially a PR stunt for the most incompetent president in our nation's history. My brother may be getting rotated over there because of this mouthbreather.

But I'm not a Bush supporter.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

can be charged with using excessive force. Like having dozens of soldiers and missles to take out four people with guns.

Also why in the fuck should I care how many troops it takes to get rid of a threat.

This was not murder. A squad entered the house, and immediately took fire and 3 wounded casualties. So there's a crime for you: attempted murder by Uday/Qusay. When you shoot at the Army, and they then shoot back, it is not murder. Sometimes logging into DU feels like stepping through the looking glass.

The killing was a bad decision because it was against our interests to waste such potentially valuable intelligence assets. But, we had every right to shoot back in a combat situation. It was no violation of the civil rights of Uday/Qusay.

(Edited for clarity)

Maybe in a few days or months, you'll have an opportunity to explain
why we'll have shot Saddam dead instead of taking him prisoner.

After all, we don't have any questions to ask HIM, right?

Atlant

for exactly that reason. I think the killing of Uday/Qusay was not illegal but was a really horrible decision. I wouldn't be surprised to see Saddam shot while resisting either. And I wouldn't call that murder, since I do think he is likely to resist. But it would still be a terrible decision to kill Saddam in combat.

The media need to point out that this was a collosal failure from an intelligence standpoint. It wasn't murder, though.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not it was murder,
some other (war) crime, or just-plain legal.

But I'm glad we agree that it was stupid policy, if only
for the intelligence information that died with those two
(and will die with Saddam).

Atlant

they gave themselves up. The Bush Corp will never allow them to discuss the fact that they were both Bush and Reagan puppets.