Israel Says Saddam's 1991 Scud Attacks May Be War Crimes

[Scurrilous]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105876,00.html

<snip>

"JERUSALEM — Israel is looking into whether Saddam Hussein (search) committed war crimes when he fired Scud missiles at Israeli population centers in 1991, and whether it should seek compensation, an Israeli official said Tuesday.


Israeli legal experts discussed possible action at a meeting following Saddam's weekend capture.

Saddam fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel in the 1991 Gulf war, causing damage but few casualties.

Alan Baker, the Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, said Saddam's Scud barrages apparently violated international law, because during a war, parties are forbidden from firing missiles at civilian targets and population centers."

[Vitruvius]

1. Israel fires missiles at civilian targets in Palestine all-the-time.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Gimel]

6. Did you

stand up and denounce the actions of Saddam in 1990? The number and intent of the strikes significantly outweighs the targeted killing operations Israel undertook. Poster, meet truth.

[lefty_mcduff]

9. Ahm. I denounced it....

...it was a really cynical attempt to draw the Israeli's into the conflict and split the US/Arab coalition. Militarily insignificant, and terrorized the civilian populace.

"The number and intent of the strikes significantly outweighs the targeted killing operations Israel undertook." <--- Though, I'm not sure if I agree with this though as the number of casualties was minimal in the scud attacks. This would seem a little hypocritical.

Also, would Israel be deducting the $$$ for the unprovoked bombing attack on Iraq in the mid-eighties (which everyone seems to forget) Old nutty Saddam had what he perceived as a legitimate beef with Israel.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. That's a red herring

Yes, General Sharon may be guilty of war crimes. One can make a case that he is. Nevertheless, to raise it in this context is an ad hominem to quoque. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. General Sharon's alleged war crimes are a seperate matter from Saddam's.

The issue here is whether Saddam could be charged with war crimes for firing scuds into Israel. Was he targeting civilians? It looks like it to me. It is at least worthwhile to gather further evidence.

[Vitruvius]

14. There is the question of selective prosecution -- if Saddam is prosecuted

for targeting civilians and Sharon and other Israelis responsible for targeting civilians get off scot-free.

For the record, I think BOTH Saddam and Sharon should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of international law. Murder is murder -- no matter who does it. And -- for the record, the Israeli body count from their missile attacks on civilians year-after-year is far bigger than from those from Saddam's scud attacks.

Tho' I give Saddam full credit for bad intentions and even one Israeli dead from his unprovoked attacks would have been too many. Just as even one civilian casualty from the Israeli gov'ts incredibly casual targeting of palestinian civilian residential areas would have been too many.

There is also the utter hypocrisy of a barbarian and war criminal like Sharon pointing the finger at anyone at all for targeting civilians -- that he does so at all shows utter confidence that a double-standard will be applied and he will -- as usual -- get a pass for his crimes.

It was a damned shame when Rabin was shot in the back. An Israeli right-wing murderer did it, and right-wing murderers like Sharon profited by it. If Rabin had lived, Sharon would be enjoying the obscurity he so richly deserves.

[Vitruvius]

16. P.S: One more war criminal who should be tried alongside Saddam & Sharon:

George W. Bush -- for waging an aggressive war ("the supreme crime" under international law), for his incredibly casual targeting of civilian neighborhoods during the Iraq war, and more.

Again, murder is murder. No matter who does it. Whether it's a current US client (Sharon), a former US client (Saddam) or the pResident of the United States.

[Lithos]

18. Good site

Thanks

L-

[bowens43]

2. What hypocrites!

This is completely ridiculous.

[LARED]

3. This makes sense

Israel was not at war with Iraq. Hussein fired this missiles in an attempt to break the Arab coalition by forcing Israel to respond.

[Gimel]

7. Agreed

The atack on Israel cams within hours of the US lead assult on Iraq in 1999. Israel demands compensation, some was granted through a UN assessment, but little has been paid. Further compensation is also demanded for Saddam's support of the recent wave of suicide-homicide bombings of civilian centers in Israel The scuds failed to kill Israelis so Saddam backed the Intifada.

I am quite sure that Saddam gave Arafat the signal to refuse to sign at Camp David, promising to support a new Intifada. He paid the family of each bomber $25,000. More than 150 bombers attacked Israel, causing 2-3,000 casualties as well as extensive property damage. Time for Saddam to pay up! He is in fact behind the current conflict.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Not at war

That's irrelevant to the matter. Even if Iraq and Israel were engaged in a hot shooting war, it would be a war crime for Saddam to target civilians.

As far as I can tell, that's what he was doing.

[bluesoul]

4. Hmm considering how many missiles were

launched at Palestinian targets (even highly populated civilian areas) Israel would have to be hold responsible for numerous war crimes...

[Gimel]

8. How many? eom

[lefty_mcduff]

10. A lot.

n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

13. So what?

See post number 11.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

15. Because #11

is in the mindset that this is a gameshow or pool with the first one to 9 wins.

Jack Rabbit is calling a point of order

give me a break

the actions are equal.

See, that's all it takes

Hey, I'm for as big and dynamic a trial as possible. The more people feeding at the Iraq trough and seeing how wingers eat their own....

They have to kill that guy quick....these dipsticks can't handle the situation and infinite scenarios his mouth and existence create.

B

[Vitruvius]

17. Your argument against "tu quoque" in post 11 is a red herring;

"tu quoque" is a defense -- and nobody on DU is defending Saddam. Therefore, alleging "tu quoque" on our part is incorrect.

What we are saying (once again) is

a) It is gross hypocrisy for the Sharon gov't in Israel to demand that others be prosecuted for targeting civilians. Unless Sharon & co. volunteer to stand trial for their own targeting of civilians.

b) Now that the Sharon gov't has unwisely raised the issue of bombing civilians as a war crime, it is a good moment to remind people that Sharon & co. should themselves be prosecuted for that same war crime.

Finally, most of us think that Saddam is only one of many war criminals who should be punished for their crimes. Sharon and Bu$h are two other worthy candidates for condign punishment for their war crimes. If Saddam is punished -- in a proper international tribunal in the Hague -- good. If Sharon and Bu$h are ever punished, better; punishing a third-rate loser for his crimes is easy; punishing the rich & powerful would teach the lesson that nobody is above the law.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. Red Herring

The term originates from the practice of escaped prisoners throwing down the contents of a jar of pickled herring to throw bloodhounds off the path.

A red herring is an argument designed to get one's opponent off the subject (this could be inadvertent, as it is here).

If a house is burglarized, the police should investigate. The fact that the home owner is an embezzler shouldn't keep the police from investigating or the DA from prosecuting should the culpret be caught. Furthermore, to address the other objection, the fact that the DA is more interested in prosecuting burglars (more likely to be a poor person) than embezzlers (perhaps a well-educated and well-to-do sort) has nothing to do with the merits of putting the burglar behind bars. To raise such objections are red herrings.

Since we tend to emulate debating politicians, red herrings are common on political discussion boards. On the FA board, we've taken note of some real gems.

[Vitruvius]

20. Ahh -- but nothing we say here can(or should)save Saddam from prosecution,

and none of us on DU would save Saddam from his just desserts even if we could.

Therefore -- when another war criminal, such as Sharon or Bu$h, pipes up with some hypocritical self-righteous blather, it's a golden opportunity for us to agitate for them to get their just desserts as well. Without imperiling the just prosecution of Saddam -- which nobody can stop, even inadvertantly.

Sharon opening his big mouth re Saddam's war crimes is a "teachable moment" on the subject of Sharon's own war crimes. To make your example more precise, if a wanted burglar calls the cops on another burglar, the cops should arrest them both, the state should prosecute them both, and both should go to prison. Even if one is a rich cat burglar who does work on the side for the BFEE and the other is a poor street burglar.

And -- while we will probably never know who was behind the right-wing thug who shot Rabin in the back, thereby clearing the way to power for Sharon, if Sharon was involved, imprisoning him for his known war crimes just might provide some justice for Rabin.

Similarly, imprisoning some of the right-wing war criminals in this country just might provide some justice for JFK, RFK, and possibly even MLK.

Vitruvius

P.S: I wish the Israeli army & police had arrested the associates of Rabin's assassain and subjected them to some of the "hard" interrogation techniques that they use so freely on Palestinians. I think they might have learned the answers to some interesting questions.

As for Saddam, all I ask for him is that he be prosecuted in the Hague and not by the US or by our puppets, and that he be interrogated by neutrals who care about international law, rather than by the CIA. So the world can learn some things it needs to know about how Reagan, Bu$h I, and the CIA helped make Saddam the monster he is.

[jonoboy]

5. not unlike the US firing missiles into Bhagdad