Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Saddam Hussein Arrested

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Dec 14, 2003 09:06 AM
from the submitted-two-hundred-times dept.
MoonChild was the first of hundreds to submit that MSNBC, ABCNews and others are reporting that Saddam Hussein was arrested. This isn't normal Slashdot subject matter, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Faust7 (314817) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:13AM (#7715765) Homepage
    Considering the crimes Saddam Hussein has committed against people of several countries, would it not be logical for his ultimate trial to be held in the form of an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremberg?

    Will the newly-established Iraqi government, or perhaps the U.S. itself, take steps to prevent such an event from occurring?

    I foresee international tensions rising from their already heightened point over this matter.
    • by k98sven (324383) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:36AM (#7716015) Journal
      Considering the crimes Saddam Hussein has committed against people of several countries, would it not be logical for his ultimate trial to be held in the form of an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremberg?

      Yes it would. There already is such a court, the International Criminal Court [icc-cpi.int]..
      The problem is, the USA opposes it.

      This was not always the case; Funny you mention Nuremburg, where the american procecuter Robert Jackson expressed a desire to create such a permanent tribunal.

      I feel that is the America the world admired and respected.
      Todays unilateral foreign policy is a shame on America, and the ideals America is supposed to represent. And it is the reason why the USA no long commands the same international respect.
        • by aepervius (535155) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:59AM (#7716228)
          Remmember Hitler & germany in 1937-1940 ? they had plenty of Strength. I am pretty sure nobody repected them really. but feared yes. Remmember Staline and the purge ? He had plenty of strength too. Are you respecting him ? Do you think the russian people at large are/were respecting him ?


          Ther word you search for strength is NOT repsect. Respect comes from admiting the weak point and strong point of the other and admiting for a certain admiration of those point.

          US is not respected. US 15 years ago might be. But thanks to a certain ... External politic and some pinch of bullying now the US is not respected. It is FEARED for its strength. See the two example above.

          Fear and respect are quite not the same things, even if both lead you where you want to go. But remmember this : nothing is eternal. You recolt what you seed. If you think what is seeding right now the US is good, well good to you. I personally fear my kids will have to live "interresting years".
  • by mgcsinc (681597) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:15AM (#7715781)
    For any of those who think this whole story is offtopic, just rememeber that for many this is basically the only place they get news, and someone had to let them know.
  • by whovian (107062) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:15AM (#7715787)
    US stock markets surge Monday.

    The US detains Saddam indefinitely to prevent Iraqis from assassinating him.

    Bush gets re-elected.
  • Fair trial? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Blue Master (675893) <wiesener@OPENBSDsamfundet.no minus bsd> on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:16AM (#7715807)
    The question now is: Will he get a fair trial? As far as I could make out from the news broadcast here (Norway), he will face a court specifically assigned to try the cases of members of the former regime. Now, this court was assigned by who, excactly? Let me guess, Americans? Wouldn't it be more fair to try him in the international court in Haag?
    • by koi88 (640490) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:45AM (#7716095)
      Everybody deserves a fair trial. That's what democratic states promise to their citizens, and their enemies.

      This basic right used to by highly valued in the US, too. Of course, now suspects are declared "terrorists" and put away to Guantanamo and other places, or left to "friendly" governments for torturing.

      The very reason that a few days ago a suspect 9/11-collaborator was set free by the court was a lack of proof against him (likely the US' fault for not allowing an important witness to testify because said witness is "interrogated" by the CIA at an unknown location).
      In Germany, at least, people can be sure not to be held prisoner without evidence.

      The value of democratic principles can be seen best whan you look at how a state treats its enemies.
  • No connection (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bgfay (5362) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:18AM (#7715821) Homepage
    Keep in mind folks that this has absolutely nothing to do with September 11. Sure, a dictator is out of power. That's fine. Remember though that to topple him, our government invaded a sovereign nation without international support or a plan for after the initial attacks. The administration is going to spin this as a wonderful thing for Americans and a sure sign that the administration is tough on terrorists. This isn't the war on terrorism (as ill-thought as that war is). It's the war on Iraq that was started many years ago by the father and now reengaged by the son. Nothing more. Iraqi citizens may rejoice, but there is no reason for us to do the same.
      • Re:No connection (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bgfay (5362) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:42AM (#7716054) Homepage
        Ridiculous. I in no way advocate the suppression of anyone's human rights. Nor do I advocate the brutal attack of any nation in order to "save" the people from a dicatorship. George Bush's foreign policy states that the US can invade when it feels that the justfication is there or that the justfication may soon be there. That's a horrendous, dangerous and absurd policy based largely on hubris.

        As for not recognizing the sovereignty of a nation that doesn't recognize the liberty of its people, then you may not want to become a US citizen any time soon. The current US administration places many things higher on its list of priorities than it does the notion of personal liberty. Ask John Ashcroft. Ask the detainees in Guantanamo. Ask the thousands of people held in American jails without habeus corpus on the suspicion of terror sympathy.

        The US government DID invade a soveriegn nation. It did so without international support. It did so in violation of international law. The means, especially in this case, do not justify the ends.
        • Re:No connection (Score:5, Insightful)

          by blastedtokyo (540215) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:58AM (#7716217)
          Jews in the holocaust. Ethnic cleansing in eastern europe. Genocide in somalia and other african warzones. Chinese college students murdered in plain public view. North Koreans who aren't in the miliary starving, working in camps.

          If you're one of these suffering people, it's your sovereign government that's probably going to kill you. If you plainly respect the soverign government, the people die. I'd rather take down a man made notion of government than let masses of innocent people die.

  • Good. So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ringel (31107) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:20AM (#7715842)
    Capturing Saddam is a good thing. He's a Very Bad Man(tm).

    The fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with...
    Al-Qaeda,
    making America safer,
    the War On Terrorism,
    WMDs,
    or any of that other stuff aside, yes, he's a Very Bad Man(tm).

    Bush &c. will get an approval bump out of this, right up until the next terrorist attack, when it is plainly shown that the whole Iraq boondoggle was an expensive distraction so that W could feel like a man, and so that people wouldn't ask questions about the actual problem.

  • by close_wait (697035) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:29AM (#7715943)
    So, after 9 months during which the alleged Weapons of Mass IP Infringment failed to materialize, they finally got him. I hope they string him up.

    Just out of curiosity, why *was* Darl in Tikrit?
  • by understyled (714291) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:33AM (#7715988) Homepage Journal
    Saddam has not been captured. He did not bury himself in a cellar. The infidels are committing suicide at the gates of the great fortress in which he resides. No worries.
  • by Leffe (686621) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:36AM (#7716017)
    I read on one of the news sites that he will be tried in Iraq, by Iraqi's, which would be best IMO.

    Not for the current administration. While his guilt is certain, if he is given anything less then a showtrial in which he is gagged and without a real lawyer he could have a field day embarrassing the US, and in particular reaganite members of the current Bush administration. Imagine for a second that we've got to where they are charging him with gassing the Kurds. At this point, assuming his lawyer has any clue, he'll supoena major members of the Bush administration to come and reread their own words in defending Iraq's "right" to gas the Kurds, both when they went to UN and vetoed the resolution to punish Iraq for it, and when they went to the Senate and successfully stopped the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing. He'll also likely bring up other things. For instance when the charge of trying to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons comes up, he'll pull out the records showing how the now Bush Jr. serving members went out of their way to provide him with high quality US chemical weapons, samples of Anthrax and other bio weapons and the supplies needed fast track his own bio weapons program, and over $1 billion dollars in components for nuclear weapons and delivery systems for the above weapons (which is where Iraq's scary SCUD missles all came from). From that a defense lawyer could easily paint a picture that the administration at the time (and of whom many now serve under Bush) fully supported Saddam in using those weapons (Iraq had already been declared a terrorist nation years before, so it's not like they thought he was nice at the time).
  • by BTWR (540147) <americangibor3@yahoo . c om> on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:42AM (#7716055) Homepage Journal
    Well, Election 2004 ended this morning. Like him or not, Bush is the man right now. He accomplished his goal, and a grand victory is always embraced by a leader's people. Dean's whole schtick was anti-war. While there still are merits to being anti-war (men/women killed, cost $$$, no WMD), Dean just lost his biggest stance against the war: that it hasn't truly accomplished anything.

    That picture of Saddam in a disgusting non-bathed attire, dirt-filled beard will be remembered forever.

    Plus, his trial for crimes against humanity will probably begin just around November 2004 (yeah yeah, cue trolls calling for "America's crimes against humanity, etc...")
  • by pagaman (729335) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:52AM (#7716165)
    root@iraq# emerge unmerge saddam-hussien
    root@iraq# emerge democracy
    Calculating dependencies
    !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "democracy" have been masked.

    !!! Error calculating dependencies. Too unstable. Please correct.
    root@iraq# emerge friendly-dictator
    Calculating dependencies
    !!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "friendly-dictator" have been masked.

    !!! Error calculating dependencies. Could knife us in the back. Please correct.

    root@iraq# emerge friendly-dictator-council
    Calculating dependencies ...done!
    >>> emerge (1 of 10) app-admin/friendly-dictator1 to /iraq
  • Enough already (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:55AM (#7716185)
    Quit with the silly comments about Saddam not being linked to Al-Queda, or Bin Laden not being caught or WMDs and what have you. It is stupid. Don't pretend like you are The Great Enlightened One and the only person that can see the truth and the rest are mindless sheep.

    Slashdot is a fairly sophisticated and educated crowd. Yes, we know that Bin Laden hasn't been located. Yes, we know Saddam isn't the head of Al-Queda. Yes, we know they haven't found WMDs in Iraq. None of that has ANYTHING to do with Saddam's capture and it is insulting that you think we need to be told.

    That Saddam is captured is a good thing. Even if you hate Bush, think the war was wrong, unjustified and so on you cannot honestly say that the world is not a better place without him being a free man. Will this magically fix all the problems in Iraq? Of course not, doesn't mean it's still not important.

    This is important if for no other reason than that we have a concept of justice, that people should pay for their crimes. Saddam now can be made to do that. He can be tried for what he's done. More important than any punishment itself is the process, society enforcing order and justice.

    So knock it off with the stupid comments. We already know, and it's insulting and makes you look childish.
    • Re:Enough already (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JFMulder (59706) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:25AM (#7716469)
      You're 100% right. What people don't like though is that people use this as an excuse to justify the war in Irak. Yes, it's a perfectly 100% good reason to go to war with Irak, these people deserved to be freed, and I'm glad they were, but don't think for a second that the US did this ONLY for the good of Irak's people.

      I'm really happy for these people, but at the same time it's a shame that they weren't freed because they we're badly treated. Oil was always their #1 target. Freeing the people, WMD and false links to Al-Quada were only excuses to go there.

      That's what sickens people. And we have every right to be. This isn't childish at all.
  • by Mmm coffee (679570) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:18AM (#7716401) Journal
    Woke up, saw news, had karma to burn, felt like saying something, dunno why. Here goes.

    (1) I am sick of all the people here, on Fark, and on countless other sites mindlessly bitching about the conservitives and/or the liberals. All politicians are going for the $ no matter what party you support, both sides are insane, and the majority of people are centrists with a slight leaning one side or another. Extremists from both sides are equally mindless, and as always are the ones to make the most noise. Nobody cares about your blind following, please either say something with an ounce of intelligence behind it or STFU. Duckspeak is annoying.

    (Side note: All you people adding intelligent debate and thoughts reguardless of your political affiliation: keep it up! People who help the good content to noise ratio are the unsung heroes of the internet.)

    (2) I am very glad Saddam is found. One less asshole in the world to worry about. However...

    (3) Until I hear of nukes with "Hi, there!" painted on the sides being dragged out of Iraq, we have still invaded Iraq for no good reason. The only reason the UN went along with this little war is because US intelligence lied about WMD and thus believed that they posed a serious threat to neighboring nations. No WMD = unjustified war = unjustified deaths on both sides.

    (4) A clarification of #2: Again, I am glad that he's taken care of. However, it is not America's place or anyone else's to say "I disagree with that X nation is doing, bomb them". If we have the right to bomb another nation to "free the people" then why doesn't China have the right to start WW3 with us in order to "free the poor American people from the totalarian fist of the Bush regime" or such other bollocks? Only if a nation has the power to pose a severe threat to neighboring nations or the world at large should drastic military action be taken against them.

    (5) Where the fuck is Osama?!?! He flew those planes into our buildings, not Saddam. Why the hell is he no longer a high priority? I've had a close friend die in the WTC and you're telling me that capturing the man directly responsible for my friend's death isn't a priority?!!!

    (6) I sure hope they don't do anything stupid like torturing Saddam. Should we treat him inhumanely a _LOT_ of people will be severely pissed, a lot of them nuts enough to do insane crap like fly planes into our buildings. What we receive 10 years from now will be a direct mirror of our actions now, after all.

    (7) Speaking of Osama, shouldn't we be going after the top brass at the CIA for training him? I mean, they basically started the largest terrorist movement in the world..

    (8) The war on terrorism can never end, for it is not a static entity. A war on Iraq can end. A war on an action anyone can do can not end. The Bush administration has started a war that will never end, a war that they can exploit to give them a lot of power they are not intended to have (and have done so). This situation scares me.

    (9) It saddens me that I have yet to hear anyone question "Where will this take us in 10 years? Or 20?" We are repeating past mistakes and worrying only about the immediate future, it seems. The amount of debt we are leaving to future generations through this war alone makes me afraid of our impact on the future. Let alone the legal precidents we have set, loss of rights, new (probably unconstitutional) laws, nations we've pissed off, etc.

    (10) I need coffee. Damn parents calling me at 6am telling me to turn on the TV when they know damn well that I don't own a TV and haven't for years... grr...
  • by Munra (580414) <slashdot.jonathanlove@co@uk> on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:19AM (#7716414) Homepage
    It's official... Osama Bin Laden has been declared World Hide and Seek champion ;O)

    Manta
    • Re:Naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NMerriam (15122) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:11AM (#7715750) Homepage
      Note: Anti-War is not the same as Pro-Saddam.

      GOOD JOB GUYS!!!!
        • by hey! (33014) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:50AM (#7716143) Homepage Journal
          The so-called "anti war movement" in the West is very pro-Saddam. They opposed efforts to get him out of power, or even dent his power. If the "anti-war" people had their way, Saddam would still be filling mass graves.

          This attitude really reminds me of working with my business partner.

          Some years ago I introduced him to the term "opportunity cost". He immediately took it to mean the exact opposite of what it does. It is supposed to represent the lost revenue you get by going after a lesser opportunity when it interferes with pursuing a better one. He still thinks it is the opportunities you "lost" by not trying to do everything at once.

          I was very anti-war and very anti-Sadaam at the same time, but for this reason. If there were nothing else on our agenda at the time, then by all means I would have supported taking Sadaam out. But after 9/11 we had a unique, once in a generation chance to unite the world in the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Now the action we've taken in the name of freedom and democracy have united freedom's opponents as never before and divided its proponents. This is to say nothing of Al Qaeda or North Korea.

          I agree, Sadaam was evil. He should have been removed. But power has its limitations. You can't acheive everything at once. With patience and strategy, we could have removed him, at lower cost, not just in money but to our long term interests and to the interests of humanity at large. Granted, Iraqis would have unfairly borne the cost of Sadaam's regime for some months longer. It wouldn't have been fair to them. But we are now in a precarious and risky situation, and others may suffer if luck is not with us. It's not going to be fair to them either.

          I'm glad he was taken out of power. I'm glad he was caught, and that he will be brought to justice. I am optimistic by by nature and continue to hope for the best. If Bush and America are very, very lucky, or if we begin to be a lot more skillful in our affairs, things may yet turn out brilliantly. However I think it was a very unwise course of action.
    • Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard Allen (213475) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:14AM (#7715780)
      There is still a lot that needs to be done.
      But, that shouldn't take away from the tremendous victory of the Iraqis and the Americans here.
      Some people are perpetually negative. This is a great moment for these people. Relish in it. Stop looking for something to whine about ... please!

      Congratulations Iraq! Congratulations US coalition!
        • Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nyseal (523659) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:47AM (#7716119)
          It's not irrelevent to the people of Iraq. Try to explain to a widow of a Saddam victim that the war is illegal.
              • Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:05AM (#7716288)
                Nope, the sanctions didn't hurt Saddam at all, because he was still living in a giant palace while having sugar blowed up his ass. That's the fucking point.

                Don't tell me that you care about Iraqis when you let them die in the millions.
              • Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:19AM (#7716413)
                a quotation from Saddam's Profile by BBC World: "The United States had quietly supported his war against Iran. They turned a blind eye to Iraq's human rights record and to atrocities like the gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja" - looks like you woke up a bit late to save them. and please, don't be such an idiot and try to understand: US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:17AM (#7715812)
        my blood is burning for Osama...

        Me too!! He is like, sooooooo hot!!!
      • Re:bin laden.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cloricus (691063) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:30AM (#7715964)
        Note that the Kurds gave the American's the tip of and by "we" I hope you don't just mean America but every one who has fought and died to make this happen?
    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kevinv (21462) <kevinNO@SPAMvanhaaren.net> on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:17AM (#7715814) Homepage
      doubtful. not all the opposition is saddam supporters. there are islamic terrorists that want to setup another afghanstan, probably some shiites wanting to setup a iran-type islamic gov't, maybe some sunni's and maybe some kurds.

      There may even be an upswing in attacks in retaliation, but i would expect that to fall off fairly quickly.

      And it isn't the attacks that are keeping us there, we have to be there through the setup of the country and to fix a lot of things we broke in a couple of wars (and even more things saddam broke through neglect).
      • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:51AM (#7716155)
        Good points. But for the sake of conversation, I'd like to make some counter-points...


        doubtful. not all the opposition is saddam supporters. there are islamic terrorists that want to setup another afghanstan, probably some shiites wanting to setup a iran-type islamic gov't, maybe some sunni's and maybe some kurds.


        At the same time, Saddam was a symbol. Capturing him is also symbolic - that this regime is not going to return. This may hearten the Iraqi people. And those who feared such a return and kept silent while resistance / terrorists operated amoung them.


        And it isn't the attacks that are keeping us there, we have to be there through the setup of the country and to fix a lot of things we broke in a couple of wars (and even more things saddam broke through neglect).


        Actually - I have to disagree with this. The longer these attacks keep up, the longer US and its allies will remain in Iraq. True - the goal is to rebuild Iraq, not wipe out insurgants. But Iraq can not be rebuilt while the infrastructure of a new government is picked apart by assasinations and sabotage.
    • Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Homology (639438) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:05AM (#7716290)
      Good news for Iraqis.

      Undoubtly, and with some luck he will have a fair trial, in stark contrast to his own former justice system.

      Hopefully, this will stop the attacks on the coalition troops

      Hopefully, but very unlikely. Contrary to official propaganda not only Saddam loyalists, but also ordinary people are attacking the occupation forces. US disregard for civilians has made them quite a few enemies : Oh The LIttle Saddams We Weave [zmag.org] The War on Iraq's Workers [zmag.org]

      and the US can pull out and let Iraq start setting up its own country.

      US are already planning to have several permanent bases in Iraq, and are there to stay. And in the process install a puppet regime to protect their oil interests.

    • by Faust7 (314817) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:21AM (#7715853) Homepage
      While I am thankful that Saddam Hussein was captured, my foil hat -- which has been tuned to "non-paranoid" mode -- can't help but think that it serves a dual purpose for the Bush administration.

      Were we able to find Osama bin Laden? No. The war on terror, originated in Afghanistan, was in danger of stagnating, with a conclusion that lacked the novelistic roundless of rounding up the enemy leader.

      The focus of the war on terror was thusly shifted to Iraq. "There are connections," they said, which meant the war would really be over when Hussein was taken.

      Now he has been. He, not bin Laden, will be at the forefront of millions of Americans' minds, seen as a defeated figurehead for terrorist activity -- despite the fact that he was not responsible for 9/11.

      And this means re-election.
    • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by squarooticus (5092) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:27AM (#7715914) Homepage
      Who is modding this stuff up to "insightful"?

      If you aren't Arab (and in this case, Arab isn't equivalent to Muslim), you probably don't understand the honor structure of those people. In this case, while Saddam remained free and was able to demonstrate his strength by surviving and directing attacks against coalition forces, his former Ba'ath party supporters were willing to fight for him.

      With him captured, you can expect to see the vast majority of the domestic Iraqi resistance disappear.

      The foreign (i.e., Syrian and Iranian) destabilization efforts will continue until a effective domestic police force exists.
      • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Avihson (689950) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:43AM (#7716067)
        Not only will the Ba'athists be less inclined to fight, but the "Lion of Tikrit" was found hiding in a hole in the ground, and submitted to the disgrace of a televised medical exam.

        This is a great shame for the fearless leader to be found hiding. The Iraqi are no longer afraid of his return to power. One of the Iraqi reporters at the press conference pointedly asked if the ban on capital punishment could be lifted in this case, Paul Bremmer and his Iraqi counterpart in the conditional government had to remain noncommittal.

      • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pavan_Gupta (624567) <`pg8p' `at' `virginia.edu'> on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:50AM (#7716146)
        Your first question needs to be asked again --

        If you've been watching the news and White House propoganda of late, you'll know that the major forces that have organized behind attacks against coalition forces have been those forces that arrived from out of the country. It's not some disbanded Ba'ath party members that suicide bombing the country side, but it's crazed militants from around the middle east.

        The capture of saddam will probably provide some superficial relief, and will likely setup a nice facade to help ease reelection tensions, but more than that -- it's a relatively mute point. Nothing can come of it besides some happiness that hundreds of billions of dollars can go to capturing someone that was already deposed.

        And moreover, the questions begs to be asked: where the hell is Osama? The man needs a DIALYSIS MACHINE! That's not some simple tool, or small for that matter. I'm angry that we've invested so much time in other countries, but Bush wants us to forget the real criminal behind 9/11.

        Well, you be satisifed with this capture of Saddam. I'll be angry that we paid 25 million USD for a figure head, and a good ol' fashioned taste of Nazi propoganda. Where's Osama?!

    • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Atryn (528846) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:08AM (#7716310) Homepage
      What's important is not whether or not Saddam was controlling the cells from his spider hole... What is important is whether the cells thought he was controlling them.

      A recent news story heard on NPR (I believe it was a Times reporter that had gotten in with a cell attacking US forces?) had Saddam loyalists flatly stating that, although the cells operated independently and did not know of other cells actions, they got their orders from a military structure that they believe was controlled by SH.

      The hope would be, that with SH exposed and captured (and clearly not in command) that these cells will see they are being controlled by a military structure NOT under SH. In a perfect world, they would thus turn against that leadership...
      • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:22AM (#7715863)
        No doubt that many Iraqis are happy about Saddam being captured, but please be a little more sceptic about what you see on TV. Remember the staged destruction of the Saddam statue? Even without explicitly arranging things to transport a certain message, cameras lie by choosing angles and avoiding others. Yeah, I know IHBT.
        • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by illuminata (668963) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:10AM (#7716334) Journal
          That goes both ways. It all depends on what the views of the people in control of the source are. Liberals show the liberal angle, conservatives show the conservative angle, so on and so forth.

          Be careful to not imply that it's only the conservatives that do this.
      • Re:who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by prisonernumber7 (540579) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:45AM (#7716093) Homepage
        (*) Disclaimer: I'm no prophet, so please take my post with a grain of salt.

        The international press (for example the press in my country, Austria) is assuming the opposite to happen. And I share their view. Central Europe believes these assaults to happen because the Iraquis would prefer the US to move out of their country.

        With Saddam Hussain being put on display in a humiliative fashion - him playing the role of a broken man whose two sons have been killed by the very forces that now have control of his life - this might anger those who lead these assaults even more.

        The situation down there is not a beautiful one; the rest of the world blames the many problems on the Bush administration. We are sincerely hoping that you will vote their asses out of office next time and elect somebody with a finer understanding of the world into what's easily the world's most important political function. The rest of the world needs a different US. You might not care, tho - but I for one hope you do.
      • Re:Not bad. (Score:5, Informative)

        by madprof (4723) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:31AM (#7715969) Homepage
        Great - let's go and invade China then. They've been imprisoning, torturing, killing and generally oppressing their population for decades.
        Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?

        Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?
      • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:34AM (#7715995) Journal
        1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.

        2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world.

        Lest you forget, it was left to organisations like CND to point out that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons on Kurdish settlements whilst countries like the US stuck their collective fingers in their ears, repeatedly chanted "la-la-la, I'm not listening", and pretended that the whole thing never happened.

        You see, back then Saddam Hussein was a Good Guy (TM), because he was fighting those nasty Ayatollahs in Iran that gave the US such a bloody nose at the start of the 1980s. That he was a brutal dictator didn't matter then because he was the West's brutal dictator.

        Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, and ask yourself why it took the Gulf War and this latest War on Terrorism to bring his activities to your attention. For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.
          • by attonitus (533238) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:12AM (#7716343)
            United States only provided Saddam witharound 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992

            This graphic seems to get quoted failed often. It's rather misleading in that it focusses on arms transfers by volume. This means that:

            1 AK47 = 1 supergun [bbc.co.uk]

            Money provided to buy weapons isn't taken any account of

            Intelligence aid [cooperativeresearch.org] isn't reflected at all

          • by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Sunday December 14 2003, @10:20AM (#7716424) Journal
            In spite of your assertions, the United States only provided Saddam with around 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992.

            Ignoring all other assistance (intelligence, etc) that's still 1 percent too much, isn't it? If not, what percentage would you consider to be OK before a nation becomes culpable for assisting that regime? 5 percent? 10? 20? It must be nice to be able to pretend that assisting an oppressive regime doesn't matter as long as you don't help them too much.

            He was not placed in power by the U.S. and the U.K. and he helped turn back the Ayatollah and, ultimately, the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East.

            So you admit he was used by successive US administrations who were willing to turn a blind eye to his "extra-curricular" activities?

            "...In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia..."

            Just what does the fall of General Franco in Spain, etc have to do with your argument? Are you suggesting the conversion of Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc to democracies had something to do with US intervention? Was Franco killed by an exploding CIA cigar? I think not.

            As for those "new democracies in Latin America", please, don't make me laugh. The US's record in Latin America is laughable, such as the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile [cnn.com] that overthrew the democratically elected President President Salvador Allende in favour of a facist dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, who then proceeded to tortured and murdered tens of thousands. If that's the kind of example you want to bring up of how the US helps bring self-determination to the world then perhaps you want to think twice.

            The facts are clear: when Saddam Hussein was murdering his people, the West stood by and watched, happy in the knowledge that he was being just as brutal towards Iranians as he was to his fellow Iraqis.
      • by akepa (213342) on Sunday December 14 2003, @09:53AM (#7716174)
        No, because it isn't the reason Bush started this war. Mass-murdering dictators are a dime-a-dozen, unfortunately - there are many others besides Hussein. And the US doesn't hesitate to support them if it suits some politically expedient purpose(Saddam Hussein was supported by the US back in the 80's). China has been committing genocide in Tibet for decades and executes more people than the rest of the world combined - many of them "guilty" of nothing more than criticism of the state. Yet China enjoys "most-favored nation" trading status with the US.