Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Saddam 'let world believe he had WMD to deter Iran from attacking'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 July 2009
SADDAM Hussein told American interrogators he let the world believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he worried about the need to deter an attack from Iran, newly declassified FBI documents show.
He made the statement in an extraordinary series of more than 20 interviews conducted with him by the FBI which give a rare insight into the mind of the former dictator.

In the interviews, after his capture by US forces following the 2003 Iraq in
vasion, Saddam said he had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons – but wanted Tehran to think he had.

"Hussein believed Iraq could not appear weak to its enemies, especially Iran," FBI special agent George Piro wrote in a report.

In fact, Saddam, identified as "High Value Detainee #1", shared President George Bush's hostility towards the "fanatic" Iranian mullahs, the records show.

It led to a disastrous series of events in which Saddam denied co-operation to UN inspectors, fearing they would reveal Iraq's weakness if it was known he had no such weapons.

"In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq," according to the documents obtained and released by the US National Security Archive, a research institute.

Saddam's reported possession of these weapons was the reason given by the US and Britain to justify invasion, but no such weapons were ever found.

"By God, if I had such weapons I would have used them in the fight against the United States," he told Mr Piro.

Saddam also rubbished reports by the former Bush administration of his alleged ties with al-Qaeda. "Hussein stated that Osama bin Laden's ideology was no different to the many zealots that came before him," the FBI papers said.

He denied making common cause with al-Qaeda against the United States, with Mr Piro reporting: "If he had wanted to cooperate with enemies of the US Hussein would have with North Korea … or China."

The release of the transcripts comes at a sensitive time on both sides of the Atlantic, with Gordon Brown facing calls for full transparency in the planned inquiry into the Iraq war.

Saddam's admission that he had no weapons of mass destruction will raise questions about the intelligence London and Washington relied on to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Obama administration is meanwhile resisting calls for investigations and possible criminal actions against senior Bush officials over the invasion.

Saddam ruled Iraq as president from 1979, executing thousands of officials and political opponents, and his interviews show signs of the paranoia that governed much of his rule.

He told the agent that, in the interests of secrecy, he gave all his orders by courier, and could recall using a phone only twice since 1990.

"He was very aware of the United States' significant technological capabilities," the agent noted after one interview.

But he denied using a "body double" for visits across Iraq because of fears of assassination.

The interviews paint a picture of a former tyrant verging on megalomania.

"Hussein stated it is not only important what people say or think about him now but what they think 500 or 1,000 years from now," wrote Mr Piro.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 July 2009 10:03 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Iraq
 
1

2dogs in D.C.,

03/07/2009 01:51:37
You could say all for nothing.But,on the other,Saddam would have been sentenced to death for crimes against,in 89% of nations.In the long run,was this whole bloody war worth it? Don't ask me,I'm not wise enough.I'd never been behind it from the start,but history will have the final say.
2

Transformers rule,

China, 03/07/2009 01:57:36
The Bush administration knew full well that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction, every source had told them so, and once verified, they illegally invaded Iraq knowing full well that they'd be met with little resistance, for the US and its ally Britain had far superior weaponry.
The whole weapons of mass destruction lie, not told by Saddam to the US, but concocted by the US, is what made this whole invasion immoral and illegal and each and everyone in the US administration responsible for that needs to be hauled in front of the International court to face charges of war crimes, Obama included.

Now of course North Korea is the next target, one little problem though, China will not let North Korea get invaded, we don't want the Yanks and their allies on our doorstep.

Scotsman55
3

2dogs in D.C.,

03/07/2009 02:08:29
Um,Postit,in this year of 2009,and ICBM's,doorsteps are meaningless.And,no,I don't like it either.
4

Carolyn 1,

03/07/2009 02:34:33
2Dogs @2
"You could say all for nothing"

I'll be slammed for saying it, but selfish and thoughtless statements like that make my blood boil! but I'm going to ignore it and hope at some point you figure out Iraqis are not lesser human beings- they are no different than you or I. Sorry, but as a woman I see the middle east situation as dire for the future of women everywhere
5

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 02:39:26
There were those of us who knew full well that this war was a farce but we were shouted down by the "free world" western media who faithfully trotted out whatever rubbish their governments spewed in an effort to get them to go to war. We were called "America haters" and "dirty commies" and "government propagandists".
The same thing is happening right now with North Korea and Iran. Have you learned anything yet?
6

Carolyn 1,

03/07/2009 02:42:33
These interviews are fascinating.
My question is, why weren't they declassified years ago?
Saddam considered Iran such a threat to Iraq that he pumped out false info? Why wouldn't the CIA release that kind of data? It certainly conjures up a different set of dynamics than what we were led to believe!

Also, now that these interviews are public, at some point in the future as historians record these past six years I wonder if they will acknowledge the US was in essence fighting a proxy war against Iran. The same can be said that Israel is fighting a war against Iran who supplies and support Hamas and Hizbollah.
7

2dogs in D.C.,

03/07/2009 02:59:26
Carolyn,I think you misread me.I meant the war,not women's rights.I have always supported Women's rights.I just think going to war in a foreign nation for a will 'o the wisp like non existant WMD's or even the rights of women is wrong,without the world behind,and supporting it..Just who made us the worlds cop? Not to mention Judge and Jury?Tell you what,re-instate the draft,and then see what kind of conflict we'd all get behind.And,really,where do you get the idea I think any nationality is better or lesser than any other? Govenments? Oh, sure,but the people are people all over.
8

Dave Drake,

03/07/2009 03:05:01
It appears Bush and his stooges were so stupid they couldn't ever sum up the Iraqi's fear of Iran.
9

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 03:26:15
#6 Carolyn the signs were all there for everyone to read. You were just force fed what your government wanted you to believe.why d'you think Kelly was suicided?
#8 bush knew... please... let's understand the magnitude of the crime here.
Hello double dog
10

Carolyn 1,

03/07/2009 03:38:37
2Dogs @ 7
"I just think going to war in a foreign nation for a will 'o the wisp like non existant WMD's or even the rights of women is wrong,"

Is war justifiable if children were being slaughtered? Is war justifiable if people being killed were the wrong religion? Should we pick and choose who we save and who we let die? And if so, what is the standard that makes a person worth receiving our help? Who should make that decision? Congress? Personally, I have a problem with all that who lives and who dies stuff.

I'm inclined to trust the leaders and military commanders to make the decisions because they have vast amounts of information we are not privy to.

As for Iraq and Saddam, without listing the locations of the mass graves, the number of dead in them or the number missing, suffice to say about 200,000 people in those graves may differ with your version of "all for nothing" will-o-wisps.

11

,

03/07/2009 03:43:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Carolyn 1,

03/07/2009 03:47:55
2Dogs
Oh, sure,but the people are people all over."

Actually, No. In Iran a woman is worth half a person.

As for your "supporting womens rights" -The war on terror, or whatever its called these days, is essentially about theocracy and subjugation of women, if you fail to see that, I agree- globally, you are with the majority opinion.
Every time Iran stones a woman to death it should be front page news everywhere, but it isn't. Every time Iran sends more weapons to Hamas so it can kill Jewish folks it should be front page news, but it isn't. Why is that?

It's a fact that minorities in past decades have surged forward to equality, but women aren't even close, we don't have affirmative action but we do put up with a lot of unequal laws and misogynist men who use them. Women's rights are decreasing, not expanding. Sharia banking is now part of the American bail-out package and stimulus. Yet no outrage, why is that?
But at least we have a lot of young US military fighting for women in Iraq who don't agree with your will-o-wisp version of truth. They even respect women and say stuff like Miss and Mamam. (Thank God.)
13

,

03/07/2009 03:51:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Carolyn 1,

03/07/2009 03:58:11
Oder @11
playing brinkmanship .."

Good analogy especially when you look at Iran's meltdown and the mad men who control the outcome

15

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 03/07/2009 04:28:33
And we all know Saddam killed more of his own people than the Americans, Brits and Insurgents put together!!!!
16

Transformers rule,

China, 03/07/2009 04:34:19
Carolyn 1,
Give this whole women's rights thing a rest, you in the US in particular have abused the rights you have attained and have chosen to leave family life behind in your ever greedy quest for the mighty dollar.
If you are indeed so concerned about women's rights, go live anywhere in the Middle East and fight your fight from there, if not, put a sock in it, you have more than your share of equality in the US, in fact, the pendulum has swung the other way, again, at the cost of family values.

Scotsman55
17

,

03/07/2009 04:48:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Just Deserts,

03/07/2009 04:52:21
Carolyn
There's no real point in pushing womens rights from your lounge room you do need to be out there amongst the action to ram home your beliefs.
19

Mashimaro,

china 03/07/2009 04:55:16
#12 "As for your "supporting womens rights" -The war on terror, or whatever its called these days, is essentially about theocracy and subjugation of women, if you fail to see that, I agree- globally, you are with the majority opinion.
Every time Iran stones a woman to death it should be front page news everywhere, but it isn't. Every time Iran sends more weapons to Hamas so it can kill Jewish folks it should be front page news, but it isn't. Why is that?"

first of all might I remind you that women enjoyed a whole lot of rights in Iraq that they don't have through the rest of the middle east countries. Just like they enjoyed in Afghanistan before the west interfered and left the taleban in charge there.
Second, stuff like that is not front page news because it is not "news". If all the papers had to do was to carry the same stuff about women being stoned to death would you buy them? I think not.
20

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 04:59:00
#17 Sorry, but no.
We are not half the worth of a male. We should not be stoned to death if we're raped, veiled or kept locked in a house if there is no escort. This is the 21st century. Women are not handmaidens, slaves or concubines anymore than men are. We are not machines to be kept barefoot, pregnant and tied to a kitchen anymore than a guy is. But why is it that my job pays about $95,000 to a guy, but a woman's pay is $75,000?

First of all... if you want to make this your fight then got to the middle east and do so. But frankly... it's none of your business. Many middle eastern women do not want things to change. Why enough of them do they will make it happen, just like western women did and Chinese women did.
Second, women are paid less because many times they take off more time than men do. Specially women with children. Their time is divided between work and home and men's is not. Men have families to support, women should not.
21

Transformers rule,

China, 03/07/2009 05:16:00
#17 Carolyn 1,
If indeed you're getting $75,000.00 per year, don't come crying in these treads about inequality to women, you're getting paid far too much, judging by the time you spend on this blog.
$75,000.00 annually for any job for anyone is more than enough pay, and you'll never see the poor house, regardless of what's happening in your economy.
You have no idea about life anywhere except for where you live, so keep it there or else live elsewhere.

Scotsman55
22

Transformers rule,

China, 03/07/2009 05:58:39
#17 Carolyn 1,
And you're right Carolyn, you're not getting half of what the male is getting, you're getting far more than half if you get $75 Grand compared to their $95 Grand.

Scotsman55
23

Damarcus,

03/07/2009 07:54:30
This just keeps getting worse, I never heard this one before. Gordon Brown is pretty useless but he doesn't deserve to be blamed for Tony Blair's mistakes.
24

Mashimaro,

03/07/2009 09:10:59
#15 the Kurds were not his own people. They just happened to be living inside his border.
25

oder,

Scotland 03/07/2009 10:24:05
Mashimaro

"15 the Kurds were not his own people. They just happened to be living inside his border."


you mean similar like Chinese in Tibet? not your own people!

or are you saying Iraqi Kurds are not the same people as other Iraqis?

China has a number of minority groups who live within its borders does it not?


so the "moral" of this wisdom is what exactly?

its OK to kill? 100,000s people because they are different?

do you seriously believe there is nothing wrong in what you have said?

26

oder,

Scotland 03/07/2009 10:33:54
Carolyn 1

thank you! seems not every one appreciates the simple facts of the situation, keep your eye on poster 8
27

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 10:36:43
#25 Oder you know the Kurds were not killed "because they were different". You know that there has been ongoing tribal strife in that region because of the false borders imposed by the west. You also know that the Kurds were in alliance with the Iranians. I think after all that... all bets were off.
People like to get over emotional about Saddam killing his OWN people. They are not HIS people. He was a Sunni. The Shia and Kurds were sepratists, trying to overthrow him and seeking a breakway state.
So yes, we in China can identify with him. If ethnic Tibetans had to rise up and demand a seprate state... well, you've seen the consequences. We have scores of nations living together and luckily we are not divided, but Iraq is.
28

Jason,

Japan 03/07/2009 11:22:55
So bottom line, Iraq was attacked and occupied, and Saddam subjected to "a short drop and a sudden stop" not because he had WMD, but because he didn't. Mass casualties being the West's soft under belly; so imagine the impact of several thousand US military deaths in one attack.
It really didn't take rocket science to figure that Saddam was double-bluffing Iran. Hope Bush and Blair show equal fortitude when their time comes, but I sort of doubt it.
29

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 11:30:35
#28 Jason, I a humble journalist had it figured out that Saddam could never admit to not having the chemical weapons. I am sure military intelligence had that figured too.
30

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 03/07/2009 11:51:43
At worst Saddam was a monumental pain in the butt. At best he was a dictator who kept a lid on his powder keg of a country.

He was never a real threat to the world, especially after Schwarzkopf flattened his armies in the early 90s. You have to ask yourself the question as to why Schwarzkopf stopped short of taking Baghdad. The Iraqi army was all but in tatters and there was nothing to stop him from storming the capital and removing Saddam from power.

Why didn't he do it? I expect that John Major and George Bush sat down and realised that if they removed him from power, the country would erupt---something which certainly came to pass when Saddam WAS removed some time later.

If you look closely at what was said at the time of the most recent invasion of Iraq, you will spot the get-out for Blair and Bush Jr. They were banging on about weapons of mass destruction. The arms inspectors in the 90s were looking for chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are not and never have been weapons of mass destruction. The kinds of things that are WMDs are essentially nuclear weapons.

THAT is their get-out clause because they can legitimately claim that they didn't know if Iraq has nuclear weapons because the weapons inspectors were never specifically looking for them. Yes. I know it's lies and the twisting of the truth but what's new with that pair?

Saddams methods of maintaining control over his country may have been less than orthodox by western standards but now we have some idea of the mess he was presiding over. We should have just left him to it, occasionally flexing our muscles to ensure that he remained in check.
31

oder,

Scotland 03/07/2009 12:02:29
Mashimaro,China

they were killing each other in that region long before the west drew any borders, and while I accept that the drawing of these border "aggravated" the situation it is not the chief cause of the problems in the region! as for political alliances between tribes and countries if history serves me correctly Saddam was waging tribal war long before the Iranians came on the scene! and it was Saddam himself who got the Iranian's involved by also attacking Iran on whom he used chemical weapons not only on Iranians but on villages of his own people Kurds included, the destruction of the marsh Arabs was not a problem for this tyrant,


"So yes, we in China can identify with him"

try identifying with the facts before you fall in behind a tyrant just because he`s is opposed to the west.
32

Mcsnagpile,

03/07/2009 12:43:33

WMD is just a cover to mean nothing. What sort of weapons of mass destruction would Saddam have had??
Gas ?–very limited against a superior force. Some WW1 mustard Gas, primitive nerve gas-chlorine?? You must be joking
Viral/Bacterial—to slow acting to be an immediate defence
Nuclear –the Israelis blew the kettle out of that one in the 80’s.

The only attribute for WMD is the threat of using them in defence. If nobody thinks you have any—or what they are- then it is no defence.
33

,

03/07/2009 12:49:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

,

03/07/2009 12:59:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Yane,

03/07/2009 13:01:45
Can we trust the veracity of these documents? Was he tortured? I reckon we can assume a lot of information went with him when he was so quickly executed.
36

Yane,

03/07/2009 13:03:29
#34 I wouldn't delete it - where's the evidence?
37

,

03/07/2009 13:10:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Yane,

03/07/2009 13:20:20
#37 Maybe you are accepting information that is questionable. Have you thought of that?
39

,

03/07/2009 13:36:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Yane,

03/07/2009 13:41:17
#39 Love your avatar Sunny Jim - but no, I don't think it could because I am not making any claims just asking questions that you are not answering.
41

,

03/07/2009 13:43:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

03/07/2009 13:49:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

,

03/07/2009 13:56:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Yane,

03/07/2009 14:02:46
You can't claim that I support Saddam - that's ridiculous. But the trial began in 2005.
45

,

03/07/2009 14:04:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

,

03/07/2009 14:06:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 14:09:49
#30 yes... exactly. Well said.
48

,

03/07/2009 14:14:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

,

03/07/2009 14:14:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 14:15:17
#31 do tell us where he got the chemical weapons from. My entire point here is that the Kurds were NOT Saddam's people. I'm not saying he was a loving brother. He did what had to be done to get Iraq to where it was. And frankly, much like China, if you kept your head down, life was pretty darn good.
Let me remind you that he was the west's ally when he was doing what they wanted. He got the good old UKUS shakedown, just like North Korea is getting right now.
51

Yane,

03/07/2009 14:16:55
#48 Preparation is not a trial - it was fast for a war crimes trial.

52

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 14:28:20
#43 No, he didn't bring the war down on himself. He was shaken down. Just like is happening to North Korea. he was quite prepared to let inspectors in - if only they were not US spies. But the "world" insisted the US spies had to be let in to poke and prod wherever they pleased. No government will agree to that. Get real. Just like they are trying to do with North Korea...
53

,

03/07/2009 14:36:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Carolyn 1,

03/07/2009 14:37:46
It's also interesting that in the interviews Saddam says China was the United States enemy, not Iraq.
55

Yane,

03/07/2009 15:04:02
#54 Carolyn - why wasn't the Hague used? A trial begins when the court sits.
56

,

03/07/2009 15:10:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

King of comebacks,

China, 03/07/2009 15:12:39
#54 Carolyn 1,
The reality is Carolyn that America has no true friends or allies, the US likes to bully countries around, and butt kissers like the Brits of course fall into line but China will not bow to your lot or anyone else.
We do have nuclear weapons, just because we will not be pushed around by you Yanks, and of course your lot knew that Iraq was defenceless, thus the lies and subsequent illegal invasion and occupation, which is ongoing as we speak, and apparently til at least the end of 2011, but in reality much longer.

And if your lot does get any ideas about North Korea, she has a pair of big brothers that go by the names of Russia and China, for the last thing we need or want is a bunch of bullying and nosy Yanks on our doorsteps.

Scotsman55
58

Dave Drake,

03/07/2009 15:23:53
#56 oder
Who named Saddam's chemical buddy "Dr Death"?
59

King of comebacks,

China, 03/07/2009 15:37:13
#56 oder,
Are you deliberately misinformed or is it indeed a real problem, either way, you're wrong about everything and for some reason you either fail to see or don't want to know the truth, the Brits and their offspring the Americans are the root of all terrorism, they've been stirring the pot in the Middle East since just after WWll and will not stop until someone finally stops them, and you're pushing us all closer to the brink of an all out nuclear war, because that is the only way your lot can be stopped.
Reasoning is not part of your lot's vocabulary, it's all at gun point or in Japan's case, a couple of nukes.
Well the rest of the world has not forgotten about the Yank's use of those nukes, thus the nice collection of them all around the globe now, so again, point your finger at the Americans, they started it all.

Scotsman55
60

Bored,

03/07/2009 15:47:40
Scotsman55

I have just reviewed the posts on articles from yesterdays Evening News and todays Scotsman. Do you realise that you have been posting for over 28 hours with very little breaks.
Is this all that there is to your life?
How very sad.
I feel so sorry for you.
All this negativity and anger is not good for you.
I suggest that you switch off the computer, meet up with your friends, and enjoy yourself. Time to be positive about life.
Whilst these posts can be entertaining and sometimes infuriating, life is far more than these web pages.
Go on. Shut down the computer and put happiness back into your life. You will feel better for it. You are in danger of becoming a grumpy old goat.
Bye Bye.
61

Mashimaro,

China 03/07/2009 15:50:44
#56 Oder, the point on the borders, which you seem intent on ignoring and twisting is that THE KURDS WERE NOT SADDAM'S PEOPLE, CAPICHE?
I am not condoning anything or being on Saddam's side. I am merely pointing out that the kurds are not Saddam's own people.
62

,

03/07/2009 16:08:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

,

03/07/2009 16:12:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

,

03/07/2009 16:18:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

,

03/07/2009 16:40:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

,

03/07/2009 16:56:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

,

03/07/2009 17:01:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

Joburg Pete,

03/07/2009 17:06:02
I would ask if we can see the interviews to ensure that they were conducted under proper guidelines. I ask this because if Saddam was under duress he may have lied. I would also point out that Bush and his administration knew prior to the war that there were no weapons of mass destruction, thus the war regardless of what you think of it was illegal. I would also ask what purpose this war served when Osama Bin Laden is still free and unchallenged or even a target.
69

,

03/07/2009 17:35:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

,

03/07/2009 18:13:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

,

03/07/2009 18:27:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
72

,

03/07/2009 18:31:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

,

03/07/2009 18:41:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

,

03/07/2009 18:52:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

Wally,

By The Rivers of Babylon (USA) 03/07/2009 20:07:22
there is a lot of interesting history concerning Saddam Hussein

http://www.amazon.com/Spiders-Web-Secret-History-Illegally/dp/0553096508

http://www.usedbookcentral.com/cgi-bin/texis/scripts/ubc/searchbooks.html?author=friedman&title=spider%27s%20web&keywords2=&minp=&maxp=

His history with the US goes back to prior to 1960. During the 1980's the US gave his government $40 billion worth of aid in the form of cash, grain & weapons. It was because of this special relationship that Iraq attacked Iran in 1980 a few months after Iran's radicals kidnapped some US embassy employees.
76

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

03/07/2009 20:49:53
60...This character is a paid lackey of the Chinese Communist Government...this is why he spends all of his time online...he lines his pockets with positive "Harmonising" comments re China...of course when he is bored he can always mouth off re other articles.....
77

Pilrig,

Livingston 03/07/2009 21:41:06
12 - "Thank God", the auld bloke in the sky wi' the grey beard has a lot to answer for.
78

Joburg Pete,

03/07/2009 23:13:00
Carolyn

I am happy to hear he was not tortured,no reason to stoop to his level. I was not having a go at Americans, why would I do that I like America and the people.
I have nothing against your country or the people, I would only say that some of the politics in your white house is as bad as anything Saddam did. But that has little to do with American people. The war went on before Osama was caught and that tells me that Bush didnt want Osama - I dont think Obama wants him either, I honestly believe that Osama is off limits and protected by the US. I honestly believe this because the evidence forces me to think so.
79

,

03/07/2009 23:40:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

Yane,

04/07/2009 00:38:08
#74 This is getting repetitive but I'll just say that, again, it is ridiculous to imply that I am a supporter of Saddam. I don't know if you would call it stubbornness, some may call it a determination. The trial is in a court, when the court reporter begins to record the spoken word in the courtroom. I still think it was quick. The rest of the stuff that you've answered - you are guessing. I don't think the world knows the answers to many of these questions - I would like to know - from someone who is impartial.
81

Carolyn 1,

vacation in the rain 04/07/2009 01:28:44
@82 Yane
If you think I suggested you support Saddam, I did not. However, from these few posts I gather you don't hold much esteem or trust with the Iraqi people.

But- Good for you for being determined as to what is or is not a 'trial.' we should all be determined when it matters- but you should choose carefully what merits that devotion and what does not.

In this case you are insulting everything that justice stands for, and for which the Iraqi government aspired to when they set up the Tribunal.
The crimes for which he would stand trial were against the Iraqi people- not foreigners- which is why he was tried in Iraqi courts. It was not "quick." How quick or how slow should it be? Should these trials be as slow at Gitmo trials? Or as quick as Gitmo trials, for example? Is that your standard for trials?

An ethical trial consists of four parts. Period. Fact. Any thing less is not a trial. If I sound arrogant, please excuse me for knowing how a court works, but knowing stuff like this is no big deal because understanding government is part of earning a college degree, even for citizenship classes.

Sorry, if this is "repetitive" but different people learn different things at different paces. I know the court system but I still can't speak Russian and have given up trying even tho Russians do it every day! Each to his own! Hopefully you have no plans to sit for the LSATs without a bit more study.
82

Carolyn 1,

vacation in the rain 04/07/2009 01:39:25
Tobytoo @81
Sorry, but I do think fighting for womens rights are important, that 2dogs doesn't think so, is his opinion. I have mine.
Obviously my opinions are unacceptable as they have all been deleted, and his never are.

My family has too many friends in the military for me to agree with his comment "all for nothing."
I think the Iraqi people deserve the freedom they have earned and the chance for peace
83

Yane,

04/07/2009 02:52:31
Okay there's not a lot of point to this so I'll make this my last post Carolyn - I mean no offense but I think we're just too different. I don't think I am questioning the Iraqi people because I do not believe they have had much power in this. They have been invaded. The rest of your post is about me being slow & having no respect for justice & not knowing about courts. I won't respond to that except to say that this is the internet & posting your CV just doesn't cut the mustard.
I also think that trying to argue that the attack on Iraq or any other peoples in the Middle East is for the benefit of "women's rights" is strange. Seriously, how many children have died in all this chaos & madness? Maybe this is a very traditional view but I think this would have broken their hearts.
This site, the Scotsman website, was absolutely brilliant for debating topics & I hope we can return to that & not have all these terrible deletions.
84

,

04/07/2009 04:12:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
85

Carolyn 1,

04/07/2009 04:23:56
I don't know what a CV is so I won't respond to it.
However, to say I was "guessing" and "not impartial" in the above (now deleted) posts is absurd.
If you had read the links I provided, (or even opened a few to see the actual fingerprints, court documents, etc) you would have immediately seen I paraphrased from the article, and the interviews and was not expressing a personal biased opinion.
If you take argument with my choice of words I used to summarize these documents from the archives of the interrogations and interviews, or if your argument is whether the documents themselves are false or biased or proof he was tortured, etc... all that's your opinion- Saddam lied about many things, maybe he lied in these interviews as well, but don't call me "guessing" and not impartial because I had the intelligence to read them and paraphrased what I read before I made the comments.
Sorry if my debate intelligence is below your standard of excellence- But you know me- I'm that damned independent woman who has a brain and uses it - no party allegiance, no one else makes up my mind- I read everything to learn and evolve, and that just makes people nuts.
If the LSAT comment was offensive, sorry. A close friend- a kindred spirit environmentalist, teaches philosophy but has decided to return to college to be an environmental lawyer. We've been taking LSATs for fun and practice (which any person can take by the way)

For what's it's worth, I realize you're not American, but as a woman, I help pave the path that so many women now take for granted. There were no women in my field when I started and there are still very few if any. I worked hard, I was smart and determined and I had to tolerate a lot of intolerable abuse from men when I was young before NOW was a go-to for help, I hate to see us slide back.
86

Dave Drake,

04/07/2009 06:24:25
#87 Carolyn
"I don't know what a CV is so I won't respond to it"
My God woman where have you been or rather what school did you attend?
A CV is a curriculum vitae, or to put it in simple terms for you, a Resume.
87

,

04/07/2009 21:02:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
88

Electric Hermit,

17/07/2009 17:41:29
Saddam 'let world believe he had WMD to deter Iran from attacking'

------------

And the US helped him maintain this pretence as part of a strategy to keep him in power. A strategy which included draconian sanctions that killed half a million children while leaving Saddam's regime with the massive powers of patronage associated with control of distribution.

I get sick to my stomach when I hear the members of Bush's War Cult claim that the purpose of the illegal invasion and occupation was to save ordinary Iraqis from Saddam when the Bush regime was primarily responsible for ensuring that they continued to suffer until the long-planned murderous assault on the sovereign nation and people of Iraq could be engineered.

89

Electric Hermit,

17/07/2009 17:48:32
"Hussein stated it is not only important what people say or think about him now but what they think 500 or 1,000 years from now," wrote Mr Piro.

------------

So Tony Blair wasn't the only one preoccupied with concerns about his "place in history".


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.