Who is guilty of murder in Iraq?

Question

The technical and therefore legal difference between the meaning of 'murder' and 'killing' is very grey. It is used in legalise to defend the actions of US and UK soldiers as 'justified homocide' or as 'legal killing' of innocent citizens *by accident, cough* but not in defence of the Iraqi insurgents who are also engaged in a war (against an occupier) who have been downgraded as 'terrorists' to somehow grade inhumanity as 'OK' as long as it is officially supported by HM Government but 'not OK' for the Arabs because they have no institutional support. The ethical posturing by HM's Law Lords is therefore very unreliable in this highly hypocritical context.

Answer 1

sorry pal, but legally you're sitting on air. no soldier engaged in combat operations is guilty of murder so long as he is within the parameters of the operation, if and when he kills an entire family so he can rape a female, then he's guilty of murder. and only then

Answer 2

You should join the army instead of sitting comfortable behind your computer, then see how you would react when you are being shot at by people who are hiding behind an innocent group of people. Ask yourself if you would just stand there and let them shoot you, or try to take out the culprit. In these situations it is very difficult to differentiate between friend and foe in a split second. What is needed here is a reality check on what the situation is like in Iraq and a bit of fact finding before asking questions like this. A little knowledge is also dangerous as well. In the case where the soldiers were accused of murder and rape, then these cases are determined by the rule of law and not under battle orders.

Answer 3

The only people guilty of murder is Saddam and his henchman.
but i will say that a soldier willing to kill civilians is no better .
but when women and children are used as human shields then your duty is to yourself and you respond to the situation.
i gather by your question you have never been in the army so your knowledge is limited to what you read when you face a situation of so called innocents being killed ask yourself what you would do in that situation.
a)stop engaging and let the innocents butcher you .
b)shoot the **** out of them.
i know which i choose.
one other point when an enemy uses a human shield to attack a combat unit they are the ones that are the murderers not the troops .
the troops job is to survive and not to kill civilians but in some instances as above its inevitable.

Answer 4

Oh and who will be accusing them in a land were murders of innocuous human beings are a way of life on an in intensity to on a daily basis foundation for hundreds of years, commited by way of their personal countrymen through how. Why do not you ask why the UN and all those different pc "human rights advocates" stand through and nonetheless enable crimes hostile to specifically females that are seen 'property' and characteristic about as a lot rights as a rabid canine could their husbands deceide they don't look living as a lot as their 'beliefs' of womanhood ? No. What planet do you reside on!? we've performed extra to guard the iraqi human beings from being brutally killed by way of their personal then every person could or has performed. WE not the UN, yet WE and our allies have stepped in to rescue the oppressed and fix rights. educate some allegiance and position self assurance on your u . s . and it is infantrymen, issues will make extra experience would develop into extra sparkling to then you definitely, attempt focusing from our vantage factor.

Answer 5

Idiotic question,
saddam hussein was guilty of mass murder,the terrorists from syria and iran are guilty
The sponsorship of terrorist acts in iraq by iran and syria are murder.
the islamic radicals sabotaging the reconstruction of iraq infrastructure and government is murder.
carbombing other muslims because they want democracy is murder.

Soldiers , keeping rival factions apart ,trying to maintain law and order and defending themselves bravely against savage fundamentalist beasts isnt murder!
The british and american soldiers are doing an excellent , worthwhile task, worthy of our support.Every time you challenge western occupation in iraq youre lending comfort and support to the enemy and costing allied lives.Your falling into the propaganda trap of the enemy,they dont care about you , theyre just using your ignorance to advantage themselves.
get a grip . support our soldiers...........FREEDOM ISNT FREE

Answer 6

November 7, 2006

Saddam Hussein Adjudged Serial Mass Murder

by James A. Phillips

WebMemo #1247

An Iraqi tribunal has convicted former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of mass murder and sentenced him to death. Bringing Saddam and his henchmen to justice is a welcome milestone on Iraq’s grueling path from dictatorship to democracy. Without resolving Saddam’s fate, national reconciliation would be a difficult proposition for Iraq’s Shia Arabs and Kurds, long persecuted by Saddam’s Sunni-dominated regime.

Saddam’s trial also is an important step towards establishing the rule of law in Iraq. And it is a historic event for the broader Middle East. As one Iraqi blogger noted, “For the first time in our region tyrants are being punished for their crimes through a court of law.”[1]

Saddam’s trial stands out as an exemplary model of fairness compared to the arbitrary “justice” meted out by his own regime and other governments in the Middle East.

Saddam’s trial was not an example of “victor’s justice” imposed by foreign powers but a judicial proceeding designed and carried out by Iraqis, who were the chief victims of his brutal rule. Nor was it a kangaroo court or show trial. The Iraqi judicial authorities labored to give the toppled tyrant a fair hearing. It was Saddam who sought to put on a show, spewing vitriolic rhetoric to score points with his diehard followers and help ignite a wider insurgency.

Saddam was found guilty of ordering the 1982 murders of 148 Iraqis from the predominantly Shiite village of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt against him. He will be hanged, along with his half-brother Barzan Ibrahim, then the leader of Iraq’s feared Muhkabarat intelligence agency, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court, which issued the death sentences against the Dujail villagers. A local Baath Party officer was acquitted for lack of evidence, and four others received prison sentences in the highly publicized trial.

An Iraqi appeals panel has unlimited time to review the case. But if the verdicts are upheld and confirmed by Iraq’s presidential council, the convicted men must be executed within thirty days. Meanwhile, Saddam is standing trial in another case related to the 1988 “al-Anfal” (the spoils) campaign against Iraqi Kurds, who opposed his brutal regime. Approximately 4,000 villages were destroyed and 180,000 Kurds liquidated in a series of mass murders designed to break down all resistance to his dictatorship.

Saddam did not calmly accept his verdict. He screamed at the presiding judge, “Go to hell, you and the court!” and cynically chanted, “Allahu Akbar,” (God is great) to pander to radical Muslims viewing the televised proceedings. Yet this serial mass murderer killed over half a million of his own countrymen (by conservative estimates) during his reign of terror and several hundred thousand more Iranians and Kuwaitis while invading his neighbors. This makes him responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than any single leader since the Mongol hordes invaded the Middle East in the 13th century.

Saddam’s legacy persists in Iraq’s bloody insurgency, which is dominated by a loose alliance of his Baathist followers, Sunni Arab tribes, and Islamic radicals. Bringing Saddam to justice was an important accomplishment of the American intervention in Iraq. But to safeguard Iraq’s future, the United States must help Iraq’s elected government to defeat the insurgents that continue to murder innocent Iraqis and American troops in Saddam’s name.

James Phillips is Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

Answer 7

I say lets sit back and let the Iraqis kill each other. Get them out of the way. That is fine with me. Less Islamic Radicals to make their way here on our soil. They are so ignorant that they continue to kill their own kind. Only animals do that.

Answer 8

a plague of leprechauns?

Answer 9

Oh do grow up!

Answer 10

no