Willisms
Navigation

Buy WILLisms

XML Feed


Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Donate





Links

Blogroll Me!







Search



Archives

July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004




Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006




Credits

Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori




WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):











The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site

giftshopbanner.gif











This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif



Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

























Willisms

« Snow On The Outs? | WILLisms.com | Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 50. »

Saddam's Reckoning For Genocide

Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein has been formally charged with genocide, in addition for the crime of killing 148 men and boys in the Shiite village of Dujail for which he is already standing trial. Saddam is now charged for the so-called 'Anfal Campaign' he waged in 1988 against the Kurdish people of Iraq, including chemical attacks. Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali" is also charged.

The Anfal Campaign was only one aspect of Hussein's genocide of the Kurds - he is not charged yet with the March 16, 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, in which nerve agents were used to kill at least 5,000 civilians. The Halabja gas attack included use of VX, mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and possibly hydrogen cyanide.

Ironically, Iraq has been a signatory of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide since 1959.

Genocide is defined as follows:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There is no reasonable doubt that Saddam Hussein is guilty of these crimes, and his conviction is rightly a foregone conclusion. Should he be found innocent by some odd miscarriage of justice, perhaps Iran would like him extradited to their country to stand trial for chemical attacks he conducted during the Iran-Iraq War.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 4 April 2006 11:25 PM

Comments

But did he have WMD's? Committing Genocide and invading his neighbors doesn't matter because that is so 1990. The only thing that matters is whether he had stockpiles of WMD's that were an imminent threat. We have no right to stop genocide unless it is convenient and the entire Security Council has not been paid enough in bribe money to veto it.

Posted by: Justin B at April 5, 2006 02:15 AM

So what is up with the Judge? Is this kind of like Judge Ito? What does the Abu prisoner abuse have to do with what happened with Saddam in the 80's? Saddam is a kook.

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at April 5, 2006 07:38 AM

Under the Nuremberg principles Bush, Blair, Chaney, Rice. and Rumsfeld should be sentenced to death. Read this:

Robert Parry: 'Condi, war crimes & the press'

During the three years of carnage in Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has shifted away from her now-discredited warning about a "mushroom cloud" to assert a strategic rationale for the invasion that puts her squarely in violation of the Nuremberg principle against aggressive war.

On March 31 in remarks to a group of British foreign policy experts, Rice justified the U.S.-led invasion by saying that otherwise Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "wasn't going anywhere" and "you were not going to have a different Middle East with Saddam Hussein at the center of it." [Washington Post, April 1, 2006]

Rice's comments in Blackburn, England, followed similar remarks during a March 26 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which she defended the invasion of Iraq as necessary for the eradication of the "old Middle East" where a supposed culture of hatred indirectly contributed to the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"If you really believe that the only thing that happened on 9/11 was people flew airplanes into buildings, I think you have a very narrow view of what we faced on 9/11," Rice said. "We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer."

But this doctrine - that the Bush administration has the right to invade other nations for reasons as vague as social engineering - represents a repudiation of the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter's ban on aggressive war, both formulated largely by American leaders six decades ago.

Outlawing aggressive wars was at the center of the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, a conflagration that began in 1939 when Germany's Adolf Hitler trumped up an excuse to attack neighboring Poland. Before World War II ended six years later, more than 60 million people were dead.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who represented the United States at Nuremberg, made clear that the role of Hitler's henchmen in launching the aggressive war against Poland was sufficient to justify their executions - and that the principle would apply to all nations in the future.

"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions," Jackson said.

"Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment," Jackson said.

With the strong support of the United States, this Nuremberg principle was then incorporated into the U.N. Charter, which bars military attacks unless in self-defense or unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

Posted by: tommo at April 5, 2006 10:14 AM

The invasion of Iraq was merely an extension of the UN-approved Gulf War of 1991.

Saddam Hussein failed to abide by any of the terms that ended that war, and engaged in aggressive acts such as plotting to assassinate President George H.W. Bush.

Your arguments are complete nonsense.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at April 5, 2006 10:28 AM

Ken... I think Tommo psychodic???

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at April 5, 2006 11:01 AM

Saddam should plead Executive Privilege and say he was trying to protect his people.

How could anyone (other than those knee-jerk liberals and the left-wing MSM) find him guilty with that defense?

Posted by: Robert at April 5, 2006 12:17 PM

Yeah! Concepts like innocent until proven guilty only apply to Tom DeLay.

"in aggressive acts such as plotting to assassinate President George H.W. Bush."
Posted by: Ken McCracken at April 5, 2006 10:28 AM

You know we tried to assasinate him first, right? It was in Clarke's book.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at April 5, 2006 04:56 PM

Too bad it didn't work.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy if it had.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at April 5, 2006 07:06 PM