Posted on 07/24/2003 10:31:18 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:05:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
International legal and human rights specialists said yesterday that Tuesday's firefight that resulted in the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons did not violate a long-standing U.S. ban on political assassinations.
The wartime setting, the fierce resistance and the leadership roles of Uday and Qusai Hussein in the ousted Iraqi regime made the two sons legitimate targets of deadly force by coalition forces in the shootout, said Steven Ratner, a University of Texas law professor and former legal adviser at the State Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at dynamic.washtimes.com ...
I've been hearing "what if" scenarios like this for the past two days. Nobody has mentioned the actual case of shooting down Japan's Adm. Yamamoto after intelligence showed that he was flying over the Pacific at a known time.
-PJ
We supported Saddam back in the 80s when he was fighting Iran. We overlooked some of his atrocities because we had a need to have a local guy fighting against what we perceived as a greater threat. I am more than happy about the way things turned out, but we are complicit in our support of Hussein when it suited us. Such is the way of the world. The borders of ME countries are a fiction foisted on us by the Brits and a sore subject to the participants. It was the right thing to do doesn't weather the test of time. Sometimes I think that we should arm all of the players well and just stand back and watch events unfold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.