Isn't "assasinating" Saddam considered a war crime?

I remember hearing something about a thing Carter, I think, signed that pretty much said no assasinating, but I think the war situation changes it or something. I think it also helps since Saddam is like a war leader or something.

Man, I really don't know what I'm talking about.

 

The whole preventive war with Iraq is a War Crime, which will never be prosecuted. Killing Saddam is only a minor part of the larger War Crime.

 

A high ranking military official was asked this after 9-11, and he said that if the U.S. would ever go to war against Iraq killing Saddam Hussein wouldn't be considered assasination because Saddam would be known as a "soldier of war" or something like. in effect killing Saddam would be seen as somewhat eqivalent to killing any other Iraq soldier.

 

He is an enemy combatant.

 

The official word is, had Saddam stuck to wearing Armani suits, then yes, it would be illegal. But now that he's wearing a military uniform, that makes him part of the army. Glad I could help

 

The US is currently operating an illegal war, as defined by the United Nations since 1947...the pre-emptive self-defense has been defined for years as an act of aggression, and as such outlawed without UN recomendation, which did not happen...As they are currently operating an illegal war in the face of UN legislation they were the primary architects of, I doubt seriously whether the US government cares all that much about breaking other international laws, or will stop short of comitting further war crimes. Might is right is the word of the day...

 

the crime would be of a similar nature to selecting Eggie to ever attend any All-Star game activities

 

If what you're saying is true, then why was Resolution 1441 passed by the United Nations? Didn't the resolution call for the use of aggression if Iraq refuses to disarm? Is that not pre-emptive self-defense?

 

Then what does that make Dubya as C-in-C?

 

Contrary to popular myth, pre-emption is not illegal under the UN charter. This war is not in anyway, repeat in anyway illegal.

Besides, allow me to be the cowboy here, WTF can the UN do even if this is iilegal? The UN is a defunct organization. In fact it had never been of much use when its responsibilities call.

Personally I find it offensive to label a US action illegal based on a bogus claim on an incompetent organization that had Lybia on its human rights committee.

The UN is dead. Pax Americana has begun.

 

I thought I heard Kofi Anan say it was was illegal. I could be wrong, because I don't remember where I heard it or read it.

 

To get back to the topic, an Executive Order was signed prohibiting the peacetime assassination of any foreign leader (includes leaders of a country, NOT someone like Bin Ladin). Of course, this is not a law and can be repealed simply by signing another EO nullifying the former one.

Although, since this is a state of war (have we officially declared war? I never saw for sure) I'd have to wonder if Saddam would simply be declared an enemy casualty should he wander into the path of a Tomahawk.

 

Illegal war.

Macbeth, come on now.

There have been 26 armed conflicts since the UN was chartered in 1947, they have sanctioned a grand total of 3.

The UN needs to have teeth to be effective, and since we are the teeth, it is time for us to bite.

DD

 

Considering this war opened with a direct strike aimed at him and the govt has been saying that was the case, I doubt they will be making up any stories if and when they get him.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear. I meant that Saddam would simply be called an "enemy casualty" rather than an "assassination" should he get nailed during a time of war.

Actually, the government insists that they got him and maybe a son or 2 last night in the Tomahawk/F117 attack last night. I hope so. It's better than having to dig him out of Baghdad, leading to urban warfare and the possibility of lots of friendly and innocent casualties.

 

Today I heard an international law professor from Johns Hopkins on NPR say something along the lines of what rocks_fan and RC Cola said.

The obviously left-leaning (like, duh!) NPR reporter seemed pretty annoyed/disappointed/surprised at her (the professor's) answer. Her answer was something like, throughout history it has been illegal/considered unacceptable by international standards to assassinate a head of state that is not also a military leader, but in recent times the head of state and the head of the military are often one and the same person. Once war is declared, it is acceptable to try to kill the head of the military, whether he happens to also be head of state or not. Both Saddam and GW, both heads of state, fall in this category of being also heads of the military, so they are both fair game.

S'what I heard, anyway.

 

Has the original Gulf War ever came to an official end. I thought it wasn't officially over until all responsibilities were fulfilled. Since SoDam Insane never fulfilled his responsibilities to disarm we don't have to declare war again only restart kicking his a$$. Is this right?

 

This war is far from a pre-emptive strike. This is a resumption of hostilities that were halted with the agreements reached at the end of the Gulf War. One of the main conditions was that Iraq disarm. That didn't happen, so we'll have to do the world's dirty work and make sure he does. 14 resolutions, over a decade later.