Saddam Hussein's Odai, Qusai Deaths Go Against U.S. Ban

Associated Press ^ | 7/22/03 | GEORGE GEDDA

[Barney Gumble]

Odai, Qusai Deaths Go Against U.S. Ban

By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination. It was the misfortune of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s sons, Odai and Qusai, that the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition.

The brothers were killed during a six-hour raid Tuesday at a palatial villa in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul by U.S. forces acting on a tip from an informant. They ranked just below their father in the deposed regime. Odai, in particular, had a reputation for brutality.

Officials said people inside the villa opened fire first — but left little doubt what the U.S. troops hoped to accomplish.

"We remain focused on finding, fixing, killing or capturing all members of the high-value target list," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition troops in Iraq (news - web sites), announcing the deaths of Odai and Qusai.

The ban has been overlooked so often in recent years that some wonder why the administration doesn't simply declare the measure null and void.

Earlier this week, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, stated in unusually candid terms the administration's disregard for the assassination ban. Appearing on NBC TV's "Meet the Press," Bremer said U.S. officials presumed that Saddam was still alive and that American forces were trying to kill him.

"The sooner we can either kill him or capture him, the better," Bremer said. Often in the past, officials resorted to winks and nods or other circumlocutions when asked about U.S. actions that gave the appearance of homicidal intent.

Consider President Reagan's response when he was asked whether the bombing of Moammar Gadhafi's residence in 1986 constituted an effort to kill the Libyan leader.

"I don't think any of us would have shed tears if that had happened," Reagan said. Over the past five years, U.S.-sponsored assassination attempts have been on the increase. Targets have included Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites) among others.

Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said before the start of the Iraq war that the assassination ban would not apply once hostilities broke out.

"People who are in charge of fighting the war to kill United States troops cannot assume that they will be safe," Fleischer said, making clear that Saddam would not be exempt.

Bremer says the rationale for going after Saddam now even though he is no longer in power is that he remains a rallying point for supporters.

The ban on assassinations, spelled out in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 and reinforced by Presidents Carter and Reagan, made no distinction between wartime and peacetime. There are no loop holes; no matter how awful the leader, he could not be a U.S. target either directly or by a hired hand.

The advantages of using assassination as a political tool seemed less obvious a generation ago than they are today.

Ford's executive order was in response to the general revulsion over disclosures by a Senate committee about a series of overseas U.S. assassination attempts — some successful, some not — over many years.

The committee found eight attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro (news - web sites). Other targets included Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, both in 1961; and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in 1963. Lumumba and Diem were both assassinated, although the degree of U.S. involvement has never been clear.

One rationale for the ban was that an attempt on the life of a foreign leader could produce retaliation — a concern borne out in U.S.-Libyan tit-for-tat attacks during the late 1980's. Libyan agents killed two U.S. soldiers at a German disco in early April 1986. Days later, Reagan authorized the bombing of Libya; Gadhafi was spared but his 15-month old daughter was killed. Libyan agents were behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 270, most of them Americans.

Support for the assassination ban appears to have eroded considerably after Sept. 11, 2001. The events of that day demonstrated that a small but determined group, no matter how far away, could pose a greater threat to ordinary Americans than the German Luftwaffe could in 1940.

Abraham Sofaer, a former State Department legal adviser, makes the case for pre-emption against terrorists: "If a leader ... is responsible for killing Americans, and is planning to kill more Americans ... it would be perfectly proper to kill him rather than to wait until more Americans were killed."

The Bush administration seems to agree, but the old assassination taboo lives on, at least on paper.

"There's an executive order that prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and that remains in place," a White House spokesman said just as the Iraq hostilities were about to begin.

____

EDITOR'S NOTE: George Gedda has covered foreign affairs for The Associated Press since 1968.

[Barney Gumble]

Do you think the left could conceed an inch by admitting the death of the evil sons of Saddam was a good thing?

Nope, now it's that their death's aren't legal. I won't even both trying to preach to the choir on why this is completely different than a political assasination.

[coloradan]

I won't even both trying to preach to the choir on why this is completely different than a political assasination.

I will. They went in to arrest, not to kill, but they received fire and returned fire. That is different from deciding to kill someone ahead of time, and just killing him.

[LBelle]

Yesterday when this news broke I told my husband it would only be a matter of time before this angle was played. Maybe a few of Howard Dean's supporters want to call this murder, but I don't think the rest of America is at all sorry that these psychos are out of lives.

[johniegrad]

They were enemy combatants. If they were first given the opportunity to surrender and declined, then there is nothing to the author's argument. In my opinion, even if they weren't given an opportunity to surrender, there's still nothing to the argument. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know.....

[boomop1]

They were asked to come out for a cup of tea, but decided to shoot it out.

[wideawake]

What I don't understand is the assumption that the intent was to kill.

The best possible scenario for capturing Saddam Hussein would be to have two live, interrogatable Hussein brothers.

Clearly the intent was to capture, but capture was made impossible by armed resistance.

They could have just called in a missile strike on the house if they wanted to assassinate them.

[MediaMole]

They went in to arrest, not to kill, but they received fire and returned fire.

Bingo.

[Puppage]

Officials said people inside the villa opened fire first — but left little doubt what the U.S. troops hoped to accomplish.

Oh, for Gods sake! Little doubt for whom, George?

Perhaps, if your family were being picked off on a daily basis maybe there's little doubt in your little mind?

[Andyman]

Let me see if I get this right . . .we can pursue criminals, but cannot shoot them. If the criminals shoot at us first, we still cannot try to kill them, even in self defense. So, we can chase them all over kingdom come, let them shoot at us, and never fire a shot at them. Yeah, right.

[RightWhale]

The brothers were WMDs themselves. Further, there is a war and has been since WTC911 and in fact since the invasion of Kuwait. The brothers were given a chance to surrender, but they opened fire instead. Holdover fossils from the Jurassic Age of Comintern can be identified by their citations of inappropriate policies and regulations, and sometimes by nonexistent international law.

[Fred Mertz]

This was a cordon-knock raid. The occupants of the house were given the opportunity to come out and surrender. They decided to fight and lost. I don't see this as an assassination, sorry.

[Wright is right!]

The premise of the article is specious and faulty. First, Dubya has issued an EO overturning the one Ford issued. Second, this is a WAR and the EO didn't apply during wartime conditions even if it were still valid.

The author of the article is spreading a lie or mistruth. If he doesn't know about the new EO, he's spreading an untruth. If he does know about it but betting that his readers don't, then he's lying.

Michael

[Tijeras_Slim]

It's not as if these thugs were still the ruling elite of Iraq, they were criminals on the run. They had a chance to surrender, but chose to fight it out from a barricaded bedroom.

[ctlpdad]

What about the 72 hours before the start of the bombing? They were very well aware they were wanted and had infinete chances for surrender. The declined to use them, so this authors whole point is garbage.

[jlogajan]

In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination.

First, it is a presidential executive order. Secondly they are enemy combatants in wartime. We would have bombed Hitler and Hirohito if we knew their locations. And third, they shot back.

I think we have too many lawyers running around.

[Ex-Dem]

I don't think there's any law prohibiting political assassination. Isn't it only a policy that was put in place by a former administration? Is so, why's the Bush admin bound to follow it?

[CFW]

As we say in Georgia, "He just needed killing".

[jdege]

The Ban was an executive order, not an act of Congress. Bush isn't refusing to enforce it, he's withdrawn it.

[verity]

By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer Democrat sympathizer.

[fooman]

This makes me mad beyond belief. This reporter should go up on treason charges. They are enemy combatants all the up to the CINC Daddy Saddam.

[glock rocks]

these 2 clowns were not heads of state... they were enemy combatant thugs, shooting at us.

[fooman]

Its better that they are AP. The AP would be whinning about venue and rights otherwise.

[Semper Paratus]

The sons played Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid, and the US played the Bolivian Army.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Maybe we should shoot lawyers too :)

Off subject...has anyone else noted that there is the All Your Base reference in almost all posted thread keyword lists?

[LarryM]

This is pure BS. If they came out with their hands up and we shot them that would be another matter. Once they opened fire, it became an issue of warfare.

[PISANO]

Let me see if I get this right . . .we can pursue criminals, but cannot shoot them. If the criminals shoot at us first, we still cannot try to kill them, even in self defense. So, we can chase them all over kingdom come, let them shoot at us, and never fire a shot at them.

You have just stated the Socialist/Leftist/Commie/Media/Gimmiecrap position. Well Done!

[50sDad]

Jeez, a two-year-old knows that "assassination" is done by covert means, via sniper, poison or bomb. The scumbags fired on us first rather than surrender. That's warfare, you morons.

[dixiechick2000]

"Dubya has issued an EO overturning the one Ford issued"

He did? I remember this being discussed, but I didn't hear that he actually did it.

Good! Then, there's no problem, not that there was one to begin with...

[Shermy]

Do you think the left could conceed an inch by admitting the death of the evil sons of Saddam was a good thing?

They can't concede that "capture" was the first intent. It was a "six hour" operation - not a bombing strike.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Shameless, outrageous twisting of the story. Twerp.

the old assassination taboo lives on, at least on paper.

The paper that counts now is the paper used to print the "wanted" card decks.

[ARCADIA]

Bush changed the ban shortly after 9/11. It looks like the libs fell asleep at the switch (again).

[StriperSniper]

Hey Wright, you're 100% Right! ;-)

[Scott from the Left Coast]

the Bush administration has not bothered to enforce the prohibition

Other than America-hating DemocRATS, does anyone give a RATS *$$ about this "prohibition"?

And that's an odd arguement for RATS to make: They believe in "living, breathing", relativistic, legal strictures anyway. Why Ms. RAT, this is just a "living, breathing" prohibition.

[syriacus]

Officials said people inside the villa opened fire first — but left little doubt what the U.S. troops hoped to accomplish.

---

The author would like us to conclude that the primary goal was to kill Uday and Qusay. But the words of Ricardo Sanchez, show otherwise.

"We remain focused on finding, fixing, killing or capturing all members of the high-value target list," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition troops in Iraq (news - web sites), announcing the deaths of Odai and Qusai.

I think we can conclude that the U.S. were focused on "finding, fixing, killing or capturing" Uday and Qusay.

[I still care]

It wasn't, and anyone with half a brain knows it.

But I hope the left keeps talking like this, I really do. It turns everyone with a drop of common sense against them. There is not a normal person in this country that is feeling any pain over these thugs being dead.

DU'ers are excepted. They are over there weeping and wailing over them. They feel that

a- It was an assassination
b- The 14 year old son was also killed. (War crime! War crime!)
and
c- It probably didn't happen anyway, we are just saying it to get Bush's poll numbers up.

It's too funny for words.

Now if those 3 arguments sway anyone DU, I guess, is the perfect place for them.

[ko_kyi]

I could have sworn Bush overturned that old executive order earlier this year.

[frithguild]

My heavens, these men were in their HOME! They were just defending themselves - it's their right isn't it? Hmmmm?

How could they be sure these were American Soldiers if they spoke Arabic? Hmmmm?

Did those GI's really have to shoot back? Hmmmm?

Did they get their Miranda warning? Hmmmm?

Did they get a chance to call their lawyer? Hmmmm?

[Dusty Rose]

Excuse me, but aren't we in a WAR here? Maybe the major hostile battle actions have stopped, but I don't recall anyone claiming victory, the war is over. Weren't there gunshots coming from the building targetting our soldiers?
Seems to me if they really wanted to live, O & Q could've surrendered. If they could've been taken alive, that would've been quite a welcomed spectacle. On the other hand, if we did not fight back with all we had, and we would've taken many casualties, then it would be blame the military and their leadership, and more blame to Bush for getting us into Iraq. No, O & Q are forever gone. Now, where is Sadam?

[talleyman]

George Gedda has covered foreign affairs for The Associated Press since 1968.

And hasn't gotten it right yet - what a maroon!

[Huck]

Is this an opinion piece?

[kevkrom]

In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing policy banning political assassination

They didn't sneak up on these guys and "whack" 'em anawares. They surrounded them, gave them a demand and a chance to surrender peacefully, and then returned fire once fired upon.

[Weimdog]

"Officials said people inside the villa opened fire first"

End of story dim-wad!

[ExSoldier]

I'm pretty sure that right after 9/11 Pres. Bush issued an EO that directly rescinds the "no assassinatioin" EO's previously issued by other President's. It's a new age and in this kind of war...we have to use all the tools at our disposal to insure the survival of the nation. That such an edict was issued in the first place shows the stupidity of liberalism...and that Reagan went along with such is a "head scratcher" but unsurprising since it was indeed...a different time.

[hoosiermama]

Well like uh geezze yu guys are suppose to ask "Who's that firin on us? Are you somebody important? Can we fire back? OK! Like wow man your Saddam's sons...Really! Ok cool...Like we'll just back outa here and you pretend you didn't see us and we weren't here. OK?..... Well see ya! Can I have your autograph first? I mean like before we leave........ Sarcasm/

[Redwood71]

"The brothers were killed during a six-hour raid"
_______________________________________________-

If the Special Forces were that intent upon taking these two animals out, it wouldn't have taken 6 hours. Why waste the munitions. It would have taken a few minutes and leveling the property to a few feet below ground level. 6 hours? Use your head RATS! They carry the armament to get it done in about 15 minutes and a loud, audible explosion.

[talleyman]

On second thought, since the author knows best, from now on we'll send him in first - report for duty immediately!

[ShandaLear]

How do they figure these two were assasinated? They absolutley were not. They died in battle.

[Gorjus]

..this is completely different than a political assasination.

Okay, then I will preach to the choir (at least a little) starting with the fact they were offered a chance to surrender and then resisted with deadly force which was met in turn by even more deadly force. This doesn't conflict with the policy at all. The real discussion at this point is on whether it was proper to counter an AK-47 with a missile. And my answer is, "Only if there wasn't a MOAB handy."

But I'll go further than that as well. Why not assassinate enemy leaders - as a primary goal of any conflict once it has begun? It is the leaders that make the decisions against US interests, and while the populace is responsible for their support of the leaders, I'm basically pragmatic. If enemy leaders knew there was a virtually certain chance that they would lose their power (and probably their lives) if they went against the US, do we think that would lead to more or fewer enemy leaders going against the US?

Even liberals should be able to figure that out. Of course, their goals are not the interests of the United States, but personal power. It's no surprise to me that politicians make rules against targeting politicians.

But if I, as an ordinary citizen, made the rules, politicians would be the first targets. (And let our own leaders take their chances on retaliation - while doing everything we can to protect them.)

[dixiechick2000]

"DU'ers are excepted. They are over there weeping and wailing over them."

LOL! It's times like this that I enjoy visiting DU. Really good for a laugh...