Chemical Ali to Hang in Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:17:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I hate to say this about an execution, but it seems in the case of Chemical Ali, we've been here before, done that.

Ali Hassan al-Majeed -- a former general known as "Chemical Ali" -- received five death sentences for ordering the use of deadly mustard gas and nerve agents against the Kurds during the so-called Anfal campaign. Majeed and [Saddam] Hussein were cousins.

There was no great uproar, just some human rights groups protesting Saddam's executions, and I think you will see the same for Chemical Ali, albeit on a lesser scale.

He has 30 days to appeal his sentence.

Neither should have been tried by the Iraqi tribunal, but by an International Court. I doubt it will get the same media attention in the U.S. that Saddam's execution did.

The death penalty is barbaric, and what else do you expect of a country like Iraq. We've been there four years trying to instill democracy, and they sure haven't come very far. But then again, neither have we in the death penalty department.

I'd give him life without parole in a country where he knows no one. A very cold country, like Siberia. Maybe then he will have time to reflect on the egregrious acts of genocide he ordered or acquiesced in.

< The Evil Men of The Bush Administration | Gore Vidal Ticked Off at McVeigh Play >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Chemical Ali to Hang in Iraq | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Does U.S. have any responsibility... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Yes2Truth on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:04:30 AM EST

for the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis killed by actions of the U.S., ordered by Presidents Clinton and the Bushes?

Should citizens or leaders of another country have the right to demand that both Bushes & Bill Clinton be tried for the death & destruction which occurred as the result of what they ordered in (pick a continent/country. there's plenty to choose from)?

"Democracy" (none / 0) (#1)
by Andreas on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:11:37 AM EST

TL: There was no great uproar, just some human rights groups protesting Saddam's execution

The WSWS opposed and condemned the execution:

The execution of Saddam Hussein
By the Editorial Board, 30 December 2006

Saddam Hussein execution: A sectarian lynching
By Patrick Martin, 3 January 2007

TL: We've been there four years trying to instill democracy

No. Iraq was not invaded and is not occupied by US and British imperialism to "instill democracy". The first aim was and is oil.

TL: I'd give him life without parole in a country where he knows no one. A very cold country, like Siberia.

That was the "reason" why the Stalinist regime sent countless people to Siberia. And numerous people died there.

TL: Maybe then he will have time to reflect on the egregrious acts of genocide he ordered or acquiesced in.

The US government was silent at that time:

"Chemical Ali" may have been responsible for the use of cyanide and nerve gas against the northern city of Halabja in March 1988 that killed more than 4,000 people, mainly Kurds. But Washington made no vigorous protest at the time and internal State Department documents reiterated that the massacre should not damage US relations with the Hussein regime.
Like all the lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration's sudden "concern" about the crimes of Hussein is no more than a pretext for its own illegal actions--the US subjugation of Iraq and seizure of its huge oil reserves. Genuine justice for the Iraqi people requires the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and foreign troops and the indictment of US officials responsible for the invasion.

Closed-door court proceedings in Iraq against Hussein's associates
By Peter Symonds, 21 December 2004

care to provide some actual (none / 0) (#3)
by cpinva on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:59:33 AM EST

evidence for your claim, with regards to the clinton administration?

both bushes have much blood on their hands in iraq, daddy for first supporting saddam, then the persian gulf war, and son for the current iraq invasion.

care to show where the clinton administration caused massive deaths in iraq? if you're referring to the embargo, that was the U.N., and it preceded the clinton administration.

Regime Change (none / 0) (#4)
by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:36:23 AM EST

Didn't the whole idea of the US committing to the policy of Regime change in Iraq, begin with the Clinton Adminsitration?

I believe something was passed during his administration that put us on a path toward war and then the Iraqi occupation that Saddam could not have prevented with anything short of removing himself from power. Perhaps, this was done with good intentions, but the end result was war.

Clinton also gave the ultimate orders for enforcing the no-fly rule over portions of Iraq and we ended up dropping many bombs and missiles during his term, despite never being fired upon, I believe.


You are correct and consistent Peaches... (none / 0) (#5)
by Slado on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:52:04 AM EST

We where at war with Iraq during the Clinton administration because we enforced the no-fly zone.

A freind of mine in the navy flew multiple missions in Iraq and dropped lots of bombs on radar sites, anti-missle sites and other military targets enforcing it.

It obviously wasn't the conflict we now find ourselves in but we where at war. A war started by Bush I, continued by Clinton and finally brought to a head by Bush II.

I have no poblem with what he did because he should have but it is rarely mentioned when the topic of Iraq is brought up.


again, get your facts straight (none / 0) (#8)
by cpinva on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:37:13 PM EST

the "no-fly zone" was enforced multi-nationally, under a U.N. mandate, to reduce saddam's ability to harm his own people, and invade other countries.

many of those flying cover were shot at, by iraqi ground-to-air rocket batteries, some hit. the clinton administration had nothing to do with any planning for the current iraq invasion/occupation. i'm sure it had contingency plans drawn up, in the event saddam overtly attempted to violate the terms of persian gulf I, they'd have been irresponsible not to. but don't even try conflating that with bush II's "pre-emptive" war, it's not even close.


To the people.... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:41:02 PM EST

living where the bombs got dropped...I doubt it makes any difference to them who the president was when the bomb fell. They all say "Made in the USA" on the label.


CP (none / 0) (#10)
by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:50:51 PM EST

I may be wrong, but I remember hearing that there was never a case of a US Plane being shot at, or hit, by Iraqi fire. Either one, for certain, an US plane was never shot down. The justification for bombings was always that Iraqi air defenses locked onto the plane(s) and not that it ever fired.

Maybe you are more of an expert on the facts, but I was also under the impression that the US was never ordered to enforce the nofly rule, but undertook the mission on its own. Perhaps the UN gave them authority. But, I, like you too I would Guess, am flying by the seat of my pants. There are way too many things to keep track of in the world than UN resolutions and the ultimate authority. If you are the expert on UN resolutions, please inform us with some justification of your facts. In the meantime, I think we are justified to say that the US, under Clinton, was partially responsilbe for the killing of Iraqis during his term, if for the only reason that it was US bombs falling upon the Iraqi people.


Can't have it both ways... (none / 0) (#11)
by Slado on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM EST

That mandate was blessed by the UN but the US did 95% of the flying with some involvement from the British...sound familiar?

The only differnece...other then the invasion...between now and then is a UN mandate...as if that matters...

The real question historians should ask is how much better off would we be if BushI had finished the job in 1991?


: Tha answer to that question (none / 0) (#12)
by Peaches on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:12:05 PM EST

is happening right now in Iraq was what was entirely predicted by the the military and political advisers to Bush Sr, so he made the decision not to get the US involved in a long drawn-out occupation. The neocons second guessing of Bush Sr. decision is one reason that many peopled argued we needed to invade in 2003 to finish what we started in 1991. I doubt it would have been cleaner are more easily accomplished in '91, at least I can think of no reasons it would have been.

Siberia's a country? (none / 0) (#6)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:37:51 PM EST

Huh? (none / 0) (#7)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:57:00 PM EST

Since when have we been trying to instill 'democracy' in Iraq? Seriously, let's not play make-believe, that's not what has been happening.