Zarqawi killing a war crime?????

If our soldiers did beat him to death after he was captured alive is that a war crime?

just like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and how many others we'll never know about.

been there. This is not an innocent noncombatant, nor a woman or a child.

I know you don't like hearing this, but there it is. He needed killing.

The killing of Iraqi civilians, especially women and children, disgusts me beyond description. But that guy? I'd have done it with my bare hands while looking him in the eye, and not lost a moment's sleep for having done so.

Redstone

That guy deserved no mercy. The only reason to keep him alive would be for intelligence purposes.

a bunch of justice giving jerks.

Why does he get his execution without a fucking trial? Even Saddam got a trial.

Americans. Dishing out justice without a trial. Sounds pretty um...dictatorish to me.

that you had the right person?

You do realize we don't have a good track record in this regards?

of existance and even more thrilled if he suffered. He killed a lot of good, innocent people, both our soldiers and Iraqis. I don't get all the concern for him. And it's not just DUers. I'm hearing it from others too.

Don't you get that?

It's concern for playing by the rules, or for civilization or for some damn stupid thing like that.

:argh:

Geez, I hope you're only 14.

Last time I checked we were still a land of LAWS. He was (as evil as we believe him to be) still Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.

Period. No shortcuts allowed.

Sorry - he was a bad guy but it only demeans us if we sink to his level, where murder is acceptable.

We should have brought him to justice but instead we took the "expediant" (easy) route and dropped a couple half ton bombs. Did the half dozen others killed at the same time deserve death also? How much "collateral damage" is too much?

This guy isn't a civilian. And he himself is a war criminal for all the innocents he killed.

Very, very few people in the country would be the least bothered by that crime, though, and there is not any great reason they should be. Most people would perceive it as mere rough justice, and feel there were far more important matters to be outraged over.

Nor is there any particular reason, at this point, to believe that this occured. Not much is known about the witnesses making the claim, and so it is hard to assess whether they are telling the truth, or merely providing the propaganda view of the other side of the conflict.

"Very, very few people in the country would be the least bothered by that crime"

If this is what this country has devolved to. That torturing and killing in cold blood prisoners of war and for that matter anyone else who gets in our way is okay, then we are worse then pond scum.

anyone fairly? This is not a personal attack, sir. I don't believe it is something we have devolved into, it's always been that way. We are just fortunate items like the Heretic's Fork, Pear of Anguish, Strappado and Judas Chair are no longer viewed as useful and justifiable items to interrogate and punish...

That is not a devolution; that is how things always have been, and doubtless always will be. People really do not much care what happens to those they understand as cruel and violent and lawless themselves, and they are not going to start caring about it anytime soon.

I'm glad the excuse 'gee mom everyone else is doing it' never was acceptable in my home.

Since we are supposedly bringing democracy to Iraq, then the basic tenets of a democracy must be the foundation. One of the basic tenets of a democracy has to do with the treatment of criminals and pow's.

The US now admits that we found Zarqawi alive. The US now admits that they began to administer medical treatment and that he died shortly after. If it turns out to be true that instead of giving him medical assistance, we beat the shit out of him instead, that is a war crime.
f
If Zarqawi really was the big bad boogieman that BushCo turned him into, then they should have brought him to justice and charged him in a court of law. If a jury decided he was guilty, then he should have been appropriately punished.

There's a big difference in beating to death an unidentified enemy combatant, and bringing a criminal/terrorist to justice.

The thing is flat useless a subject for political agitation: no one will care,and many more people than not will think it a good thing, if it happened at all.

It was always my impression, Sir, that the basis of democracy was the idea that the people should choose who rules their country, and the laws should be made for the benefit of the people and not some aristicratic clique.

in this country, many i see throughout each & every day care so little for each other as to be truly eye opening. each other, us, we the people.

sadly, there are many who support the war; any war, there is a growing number that does not. there are vast tracts within even the people against that have no pity for they whom themselves have no pity for the spilling of innocent blood.

some portion of the remaining may feel that activities such as these are justified within certain scenarios...but the numbers are getting smaller so as to lend credence here: "Very, very few people..." may then fit the breach

at least vis-a-vis 280mil people i'm just say'n

than one murderous bastard. What do we as a country want to become, the exact thing we say we hate?

It seems the people who 'get it' are few and far between around here.

was founded. Don't sound so surprised.

I don't think beating him serves a purpose.

He saw to the killing of many humans, and the men who came upon him dying were human, and the people who hear of it, and by and large do not care how wretched was his fate are human. Everyone involved in the thing shares that.

or any Al Qaeda, I have no sympathy at all.

The lowest felon may be the victim of a crime as surely as the most upstanding householder. That people will be outraged by the latter, and indifferent to the former, does not change that.

he is a "dispicable" one. Got it now? And you are correct in your analysis of human nature. Humans will toss aside what they consider to be right and honorable when they are confronted with an aberation like that thing called Zarqawi. Sometimes frontier justice is a good thing.

What about when this kind of thing happens to our own? I agree that he deserved to die but what about a war crime would be ok for us to commit?

But if one was committed here, it will not distress more than a handful of our citizens, all of whom already agree the occupation of Iraq is a criminal venture.

As an issue for agitation, it is a non-starter.

Iraq is a criminal venture? I thought that most Dems thought that, am I wrong? I also thought that pResident Boosh was the one who thought that torture and murder of pows was ok and that the Geneva conventions did not apply to terrorists. Do we (the USA) now believe that we can pick and choose whom it is ok to murder with no regard for the Geneva Conventions Agreement? I am not saying that the alleged beating took place but rather what if it really was how he died? Who made us ruler of the world and god given life? I thought that we always took the high road. I thought we were suppose to have integrity. I thought that we were the ones who set good examples so that all others would strive to be what we are. The mindset that this would be ok, for any reason, just blows my mind and it worries me for our own soldiers if we would condone torture and murder of pows.

If we ever find out the truth I hope he died from the bombs.

Between thinking a thing is wrong, and thinking it is criminal. There is at best a narrowly technical case to made for the proposition the invasion of Iraq was criminal, and it is of interest to very few people. It is pretty clear, to anyone who pays much attention, that any number of criminal acts have been carried out by U.S. forces in Iraq; that is something different than saying the invasion and occuaption is criminal. The overwhelming majority of persons who indicate on polls they do not agree with the occupation of Iraq are not moved to that disagreement by thinking it is a crime; they think it is a failure.

It is an unhappy fact that surrender in the midst of combat is a delicate art, and not everyone who attempts it succeeds. Mistreatment of prisoners of war is more the norm than the exception: that does not make it right, but it does leave much ground for feeling it is some new low in human depravity unheard of til now and peculiar to the present situation.

I don't have a double standard for Clinton and bush when it comes to assassinating "known" terrorists who do not fall under the rules of the Geneva convention.

any american soldier he happened to catch. However this is UNSUBSTANTIATED rumor. Has not been backed up.

Beat, held him down to get an IV in, who knows. He is worth more alive. His head didn't look like someone caved it in with a rifle butt.

for these goons. To the Hague for Bushco

Lord King divine violence unfurled,
raging propaganda in every mindless act,
spreading gun jesus all across the world,
debase the truthful for the bloodlust fact.

Another judging dredded final executor,
waging a hatred for a headless tact,
silent exploded splinter bomb that killed her,
a fateful death repeated, grinning lie attack.

Warblood justice comes the barrel of the gun,
judged tried and heartless killer so whacked,
Jesus' excused murder is the last and final one,
bushwar elected thats what the taxes backed.
grinning skullless bodies flailing in rage,
armed to the teeth, oh violent war they wage.

The war crime is not that they beat Zaqawi to death, they didn't. The war crime is how easily men are sent to war intelligence blind, culture dumb and langaude deaf. The appointment to the Baghdad postAmb. Khalilzad was expression of exasperation on the part of the Bush Administration. He in effect was a switch to trying to take the culture and the language of Arabs into consideration. And, for the first time, rather than use intelligence TACTICALLY to "kill the bad guys," our forces used intelligence STRATEGICALLY to follow them instead and see if that leads them to a big fish-- it did!

But this is still not the rule. Our military still acs as if they are there because they like killing people and blowing up things. Even the Iraqi PM Malaki had to remind us of that. And STILL Democrats squat quiet bececause they don't know if to speak out is tactically wise for November. I offer you something I wrote in the Summer of 2004, during the Presidential Campaign; see if it still applies and let me know please:


Date: Thursday, August 19 2004 10:56 pm
From: Daniel E. Teodoru <deteodoru@yahoo.com>
Subject: Why can't we do in Iraq as well as we did in Vietnam?

There is absolutely no doubt that NEITHER Bush nor Kerry would invest any more
men in Iraq. It has been a total drain that rendered most anemic the American
War on Terrorism. Part of the reason is that Bush was pushed by the neocons to
respond without thinking to 9/11 as the Israelis would have responded and then
went into Iraq because of the insistence of those same neocons gave. The great
facilitator for all this was indeed Devil Cheney.

But, neither would NOW escalate the war in Iraq and both now realize that
force is the least element in a war on terror. They realize, the best analogy
I could think of, that what America did was much like a fruitless one shot
cancer cure by placing a hand grenade proximate to the invaded organ; alas,
you kill the cancer but also the patient.

In cancer you do surgery for tumor debulking, chemo to kill growing cells and
hormone therapy to retard tumor growth. And still, that only prolongs for a
short while life as a dying cancer patient. Now we are looking for biologic
intelligence assets: tumor markers that distinguish indolent cancer cells from
aggressive ones; protein markers that define cancer cells and can serve as
attractants for in vitro activated anti-tumor T-cells. In other words, we try
to use the molecular traits of the cancer cells to distinguish them from
normal cells; also, we seek embryological techniques to change tumor cells
into normal cells; we seek sub-cellular means of triggering the programmed
dying systems of aptoptoic cancer cells; in other words, ways of doing less
and less damage while better altering every single cancer cell, for all it
takes is one tumor cell to start a cancer. Finally, we are also working on
ways to prevent the development of normal cells into cancer cells.

All this offers up an interesting lesson to fighting the war on terror. If you
look at what MDs do to fight cancer, it's cut, cut, cut and tox, tox, tox,
until the patient finally dies. But PhDs in biology are the bioscience CIA
that gathers the itty bitty molecular intelligence from cancer to cure it one
cell at a time. The doctors in their white coats get all the publicity, but
the PhD researchers in their ripped jeans are the real heroes. I know what an
unsung story it is from both sides of the fence.

In the same way, both Kerry and Bush realize that the war on terror is a micro
war, not a macro war. BUT, because they are the fancy War on Terror MDs that
go on rounds always in public view, they feel they have to do something; so
they cut, cut, cut and tox, tox, tox. But really, it only delays, not prevent,
another 9/11.

Are we safer now? Well let me tell you, I just got to my NYC hospital and was
told that the NY State Homeland Security Agency has ordered that all hospital
and medical personnel be available on moment's notice in the week of the
Republican Convention. I must, therefore, leave the hospital administration
with the phone number of everywhere I go that week. I can imagine what it is
like for fire and police people. So, you see, the fear is "red alert," not
just "orange alert." That proves that all the cut, cut, cut and tox, tox tox--
Israeli style-- that Bush engaged in under neocon advise, is just as
unsuccessful as MDs fighting cancer with cut and tox.

You PhDs and "Orientalists" are the real molecular types who try to understand
the micro level of what makes people tick in the Arab and Islamic pools from
which terrorists are drawn. Thus, you are the bioscientists curing this
cancer, even though you never get to touch the patient.

In fact, I would argue that either because no one listened to you or because
you wouldn't talk to them (as PhDs and MDs refuse to talk to each other), four
years into 9/11 and we are like a cancer patient four years since the disease
first flared up-- no more than statistically closer to a recurrence. While you
were silent or not listened to, the cancer metastasized and we grew weaker as
we created more cancer by applying our cut, cut cut and tox, tox, tox
therapies.

It is this failure that makes Bush and Kerry hard to distinguish. All of
Kerry's and all of Bush's advisers used to be at one time or other on the same
team, cutting, cutting, cutting and toxing, toxing, toxing. Now they are
desperate and may well appreciate what you have to say, for the alQaeda
cancer's best means of metastasis was the arrogance and ignorance of our
"terrorism experts." All are now humbled and anxious and, though they work for
opposing candidates, they still meet to hug each other in fear. That is why I
would recommend that in their debate Profs Whealey and Theileh not assume that
there is much of a difference between what President Bush or President Kerry
would do; they are scared to death and only want to start all over again, but
more carefully, less bombastically. American hubris has been cut down to
more than size by alQaeda, given the utter incompetence of our Homeland
Security and Imperial Security efforts. What could be more emblematic of
this than the idiotic listing of Senator Kennedy on the FAA's watch list so
that he could not fly between Boston and Wash DC more than three times this
week?

Daniel E. Teodoru

welcome to DU. I can't believe you signed up to DU in 2005 and
waited until NOW to write your first post. !!

Welcome :toast:

this so called "war." No reason for them to crow about it. Still, I'm very happy that this particular beast is no longer alive to kill innocent people.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

If beat him, farted on him etc..

Remember the footage from the Iraqi sniper shooting americans? Well he shot one guy, wounded him, we shot the sniper and then saved his life with medical care. Could have just shot him behind the ear, but did not.

This report is from an un named witness.

If he was targeted specifically, it is assasination.

he is not a head of state of a nation. He is a military target..

I just don't believe he was a real guy, I think the whole thing is made up. But if he was real and they really got him and killed him by whatever method, why should I be outraged? He would be just as big a piece of shit as anyone, responsible for the deaths of many and I wouldn't cry any tears for him. I'd say he got what was coming to him. But, again, I think the whole thing is nothing more than propaganda.

real...

Can you imanage all the intel you could torture out of him? Remember, to U.S. forces he was much more valuable alive.

and this guy was just a bogeyman.

The Iraqi people and our soldier are better off now that this disguting cretin is gone.

it matter who he killed whether they were Iraqis or Americans or martians???

go home. This is a sideshow for Kool Aid people.

And it came around for this bastard. The Iraq War is clearly a criminal undertaking, but let's get a little personal here. This guy assassinated one of our diplomats; blew up a U.N. office and murdered the chief diplomat; assassinated a powerful American-friendly Ayatollah who believed in secular government; kidnapped U.S., Korean, Japanese, Turkish and Iraqi citizens, psychologically tortured them, put them in front of a camera and sawed their heads off; killed untold U.S. soldiers with I.E.D's; and massacred hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women and children - even his own people in Jordan. The war is evil, but he was even more evil. This was a good old fashioned case of P-A-Y-B-A-C-K. If he went to the woodshed before he went to hell, well.....oh well what the hell.

here hoping you stick around for a time or two :hi: :kick:

I think I will.

too bad he didn't suffer more. And you are of course correct. The Iraq invasion is a criminal undertaking. But that doesn't excuse what Zarqawi did to a lot of innocent people who had no part in the invasion. He didn't give a damn about the invasion. He was just an opportunist who took advantage of the situation to cause terror, death and destruction.

My my. It's fascinating to watch DUers betray the same animal instincts as those they condemn.

beating of him to death, if true, be a war crime? Should the USA under any circumstance commit war crimes? Do you approve of the USA committing war crimes?

I think he was mortally wounded by the bombs and some soldiers found him and gave him a few shots out of anger before he went. If he was beaten - and I'm not sure that it's certain - it was probably nothing more than a few f-yous on his way out the door. The bombs surely did him in, and that strike certainly was not a war crime. I would never excuse a war crime - not even by our own forces - but I don't see one here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I don't think we should lower ourselves and use racial insults.

Welcome to DU.............

Look up the white butterfly effect. Anyone that close to a brace of 500lb bombs was not long for this world. Sort of ironic...

one thing, there was absolutely no need to; and the vast majority of our troops would have been watching the perimeter for anyone who might have come to Zarqawi's aid, that is SOP.

It should also be remembered that the Iraqi forces look virtually identical to our troops when in uniform, so it would be difficult to tell who would be "beating" whom. The possibility exists, but there is no motive for beating an injured man on a stretcher who is about to expire anyway.

Being a Vet, I can see no reason for this to happen, and there would have been Medical Personnel all over him, (I am a former Med Plt Sgt, and Medics do NOT allow their charges to be beaten, of that I can assure you). It would have been beneficial to bring him in alive for various reasons as well.

I get the distinct impression that there is some propaganda working here. I do not put it past anyone to come up w/some of this stuff to make what they might consider political "points", regardless of the "side" they are on.

What I can say is that I shall lose no sleep over this death; Zarqawi was a very evil man and he died a far less than "noble death". He died while basically hiding, and possibly planning other acts of horror. I have no sympathy at all for him. The only thing that would have made me feel more as if justice had prevailed, is if he tried to be a human bomb, and blew himself up before anyone else could have been harmed. Or if he would have been imprisoned for life in a small cell alone and muted by his own devices like Mullah Omar and the first WTC bombers.

That was unarguably a war crime.