Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

moki · Jul 28, 2004, 12:42 AM

Sweet justice...

from: http://ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=64178

.....

St. Louis area man who helped troops capture Saddam.

By Deanne Lane

(KSDK) -- It's a world famous photograph, showing a man wearing military camouflage holding Saddam Hussein down on the ground. What few people knew, until now, that man lives in the St. Louis area.

"I just told myself it can't be, no way," says Samir, 34. He's asked us not to use his last name, or identify exactly where he lives.

Samir worked with the military as an interpreter. He was at the remote farm on December 13th when U.S. forces discovered a secret hiding place. The next few minutes would feel like a lifetime for Samir.

"We saw the hole for the bunker, but it hard to believe someone live in that hole. It was really small," Samir remembers. "They shot in there and he started yelling, "Don't shoot, don't shoot, don't kill me.'" So I had to talk to him. I was the translator. I said, 'Just come out.' He kept saying, 'Don't shoot. Don't kill me.'"

In Arabic, Samir said he continued to pursuade Saddam to come out. He was about to come face to face with the tyrant who killed his loved ones.

Saddam was the reason he fled Iraq in 1991 and eventually moved to St. Louis.

Samir says, "I was like, 'I got him.'" We all reached him and pulled him out. And we say Saddam Hussein he looks really old. He looks disgusting." There was also anger, "You want to beat the crap out of him. He destroyed millions in Iraq. I'm one. I left my family 13 years ago because of him."

Saddam couldn't fight back, but he did speak out, "He called me a spy. He called me a traitor. I had to punch him in face. They had to hold me back. I got so angry I almost lost my mind. I didn't know what to do. Choke him to death. That's really not good enough."

For Samir, this was sweet justice. One of Iraq's own, now a U.S. citizen, helping arrest one of the world's most wanted fugitives, "I said 'Who are you? What's your name?' He replied, 'I'm Saddam.' 'Saddam what?' I asked. He said, 'Don't yell. I'm Saddam Hussein."

Now, many months later, Samir had another emotional moment in store. He would meet the leader of the free world, when President Bush attended a campaign rally in St. Charles, "I told him I'm the one who had to talk to Saddam and the first one who grabbed him."

Samir says he spoke from the heart, "This is the message from Iraqis and my family. They want to thank you to free Iraqis from Saddam. And he said, 'You're welcome.'"

During their meeting, Mr. Bush received a photo from Samir, and special beads that Samir's parents gave him for protection. "It's like a blessing. It's important to me and I want you to have it. He tapped me on shoulder and said, 'Great work.'"

Soon, Samir will return overseas for more work as an interpreter. He says he's glad to do it for the country he now calls home, "I don't call myself hero. I call it lucky. A lot of people helped, but I was there at the right time."

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 04:47 AM

So he violated the Geneva convention and the US still hasn't charged him for it?

Does that mean the US is harbouring war criminals?

Randman · Jul 28, 2004, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
So he violated the Geneva convention and the US still hasn't charged him for it?

Does that mean the US is harbouring war criminals?

Puh-leeze. Get real.

Ok, but if you really want a legit answer, in apprehending a potential war criminal (saddam), the soldiers had to use appropriate force in detaining said suspect. The Geneva convention is a bit shady in these areas, but, according to the story, saddam got smacked (and rightlfully so) before confirming his identity. Therefore, no violation of the Geneva Convention took place.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Randman:
Puh-leeze. Get real.

Ok, but if you really want a legit answer, in apprehending a potential war criminal (saddam), the soldiers had to use appropriate force in detaining said suspect. The Geneva convention is a bit shady in these areas, but, according to the story, saddam got smacked (and rightlfully so) before confirming his identity. Therefore, no violation of the Geneva Convention took place.

He was already apprehended. Then he got smacked. = violation of the GC.

and remember that it doesn't matter if he deserved the smack or not.

angaq0k · Jul 28, 2004, 05:33 AM

I heard some shook hands with Saddam...

Think I saw that somewhere..

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 28, 2004, 06:15 AM

The Geneva Convention doesn't require the use of no force at all when apprehending a prisoner. That's absurd. And given who we are talking about, obscene.

If you resist arrest, you get clobbered until you stop resisting. That's the case with the most genteel of police forces. Soldiers are held to no different standard.

You really need to get a grip and stop with the sympathy for genocidal maniacs schtick.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Geneva Convention doesn't require the use of no force at all when apprehending a prisoner. That's absurd. And given who we are talking about, obscene.

If you resist arrest, you get clobbered until you stop resisting. That's the case with the most genteel of police forces. Soldiers are held to no different standard.

You really need to get a grip and stop with the sympathy for genocidal maniacs schtick.

He is already restrained and under control when he gets punched. That is against the rules. And I have absolutely no sympathy for SH. I'm bringing this up since the next time a US soldier gets caught I don't want him to recieve the same treatment.

And SH wasn't resisting arrest, he was talking dirt about one of the soldiers holding him under arrest. That is not a reason to punch him in the face. Or would you accept that treatment of a US soldier if he gets cought?

Randman · Jul 28, 2004, 06:27 AM

Technically, war was never declared, so the Geneva Convention may not even be applicable.
Considering the circumstances and the guy being Iraqi, I'm sure he wouldn't mind losing a stripe over such an action. Besides, you don't see Saddam's lawyers making a fuss.

SimeyTheLimey · 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Randman:
[B]Technically, war was never declared, so the Geneva Convention may not even be applicable./B]

Whether or not war is declared makes no difference to whether or not the Geneva Convention applies. It applies in situations of armed conflict. The global applicability isn't the issue. The reason the GC isn't triggered is because it doesn't cloak POWs with the kind of all-encompassing immunity for their actions that some extremists think it does. The bar is actually fairly high, because battlefields (duh!) are violent places. The GC is designed to mitigate that violence and confine it, but it doesn't pretend to eliminate it. Otherwise basically every soldier would be prosecuted for simply doing his job. It's a common sense treaty, meant to be implemented in a common sense way that understands reality, not one that pretends that a battlefield is anything less than what it is.

If the soldiers here continued to pummel a POW long after he had ceased to resist, there might be an issue. But one punch to quiet him isn't wrong, let alone actionable. It's just that some people are taking Saddam's side in an absurd way.

Simon X · Jul 28, 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by moki:
...the leader of the free world...

O please. You Americans have got to stop using this term. You don't realise how arrogant it sounds.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If the soldiers here continued to pummel a POW long after he had ceased to resist, there might be an issue. But one punch to quiet him isn't wrong, let alone actionable. It's just that some people are taking Saddam's side in an absurd way.

Will you ever stop pretending I'm taking SH's side? Or does it make you feel better to think I like SH?

And SH wasn't resisting in any way. He was already under control and just shared a few thought about one of the soldiers holding him. That isn't resisting. And why do you think the other soldiers needed to hold the soldier who punched SH back? Because it had nothing to do with SH resisting arrest but it had to do with a soldier with a personal grudge against a detainee and not being able to act professional. The soldiers that held him back acted in a professional way. Not the soldier who punched a man already in custody and that poses no threat to the soldiers what so ever.

That you think it's ok to punch a detainee for opening his mouth says a lot about you and I hope you are one of the few soldiers(and former soldiers) that think that is OK.

Or would you consider it completely OK if a US soldier got that treatment from his captives?

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 07:02 AM

And because you insist on saying SH was resisting arrest here's the relevant part for you Simey.

Saddam couldn't fight back, but he did speak out, "He called me a spy. He called me a traitor. I had to punch him in face. They had to hold me back. I got so angry I almost lost my mind. I didn't know what to do. Choke him to death. That's really not good enough."

And I'm gonna ask you again. Would you feel it was completely ok if a US soldier would get that treatment from the ones holding him captive?

Randman · Jul 28, 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Would you feel it was completely ok if a US soldier would get that treatment from the ones holding him captive?

Ask the families of the people beheaded recently. Ask the families torn apart from Saddam's murderous reign.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Randman:
Ask the families of the people beheaded recently. Ask the families torn apart from Saddam's murderous reign.

The typical "we are not as bad as they are" answer that doesn't hold any weight.

The rules are clear and you can't bend them when a) the other side acts worse or b) when you are dealing with an "evildoer".

So again I ask. Would you feel it's completely ok if a US soldier would get that treatment from his captors?

Randman · Jul 28, 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Would you feel it's completely ok if a US soldier would get that treatment from his captors?

Well, you truly are defending Saddam. A solider does not have the history that Saddam is. Trying to apply the same princples to Saddam as a solider angered by the injustices that Saddam did to his land and his family are hardly equal.
And all soliders know that in battle, they face risks such as death and capture (and possibly torture).
But you never answered my previous questions? All you came up with a silly Philosophy 101 debate that totallly skirts the issue and gravity of the manner.

But even better than the punch was the first cell Saddam was held in. It had one piece of art. One of the wanted posters with all the dead and captured Baathists on it, led by Saddam's very own sons.

Oh, cry foul and hide behind the Geneva Convention on that one.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Randman:
Well, you truly are defending Saddam. A solider does not have the history that Saddam is. Trying to apply the same princples to Saddam as a solider angered by the injustices that Saddam did to his land and his family are hardly equal.
And all soliders know that in battle, they face risks such as death and capture (and possibly torture).
But you never answered my previous questions? All you came up with a silly Philosophy 101 debate that totallly skirts the issue and gravity of the manner.

But even better than the punch was the first cell Saddam was held in. It had one piece of art. One of the wanted posters with all the dead and captured Baathists on it, led by Saddam's very own sons.

Oh, cry foul and hide behind the Geneva Convention on that one.

I have nothing against that poster. And while you think I'm defending SH, I'm in fact defending the GC.

It doesn't matter if the soldier who punched SH was a saint, what matters is that after they had gotten SH under control he punched SH. That is a violation of the GC.

And you still haven't answered my question. About your question, could you perhaps show me where you asked me anything. I can't see one question in your previous posts.

Like I said, it doesn't matter who the captive was. What matters is that the soldier didn't comply with the GC and should be punished for that.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Randman:
Well, you truly are defending Saddam. A solider does not have the history that Saddam is. Trying to apply the same princples to Saddam as a solider angered by the injustices that Saddam did to his land and his family are hardly equal.

Yes, equal treatment before the law seems to be a difficult concept for current-generation Americans to grasp.

-s*

Randman · Jul 28, 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yes, equal treatment before the law seems to be a difficult concept for current-generation Americans to grasp.

And America bashers will focus on anything to prove their point. Besides, the soldier was born and raised in Iraq.

And what about all of the crimes against humanity that Saddam committed? Why aren't some of you more upset about a despotic tyrant? That's the sad part. If the solider broke the Geneva Convention, why hasn't anyone in any official capacity said or done anything? How come the press anywhere in the world hasn't made a deal. How come liberals or pro-Saddam parties made any fuss?

Oh, forget it. You people have an agenda and that makes you blind to the way things are. It's like talking to a

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 08:56 AM

It was a cheap shot, but it's nice to see that it hit home.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It was a cheap shot, but it's nice to see that it hit home.

dcolton · Jul 28, 2004, 09:20 AM

Spheric...King of the Cheap SHots!

At any rate, I can see where you are coming from Logic. A violation is a violation...especially if there is no room for interpretation. This person should definately be reprimanded so for the rest of his life, it will be known to current and potential employers that he helped to capture SH...and after SH called him a traitor - after the realization by Samir that SH was responsible for killing his loved ones and forcing him to flee his homeland...he punched Hussein in the face.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
Spheric...King of the Cheap SHots!

At any rate, I can see where you are coming from Logic. A violation is a violation...especially if there is no room for interpretation. This person should definately be reprimanded so for the rest of his life, it will be known to current and potential employers that he helped to capture SH...and after SH called him a traitor - after the realization by Samir that SH was responsible for killing his loved ones and forcing him to flee his homeland...he punched Hussein in the face.

I'm sure there wouldn't(and definately doesn't need to) be a very severe punishment for that. I understand very well that someone might want to kick SH's arse. The problem is that punching SH in the face while he is under control isn't allowed. So he would have to face some punishment for his crime. Not much but it should be investigated.

f1000 · Jul 28, 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Simon X:
O please. You Americans have got to stop using this term. You don't realise how arrogant it sounds.

"...the master of the free world..."

Better?

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Randman:
Ask the families of the people beheaded recently. Ask the families torn apart from Saddam's murderous reign.

While I'm at it. Using this "logic" of yours, should the Iraqis be allowed to compare all acts of the rebels to this horrendous act done by the coalition?

moki · Jul 28, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
So he violated the Geneva convention and the US still hasn't charged him for it?

Does that mean the US is harbouring war criminals?

My god Logic... you know no bounds heh. Did you read the article? He was held back.

I surely hope you get up on that stump and start spewing off about the Geneva Conventions every time someone is decapitated, every time a car bomb blows up civilians, every time a suicide bomber blows himself up in a pizza partlor, etc, etc.

Oh wait... if the US isn't involved, you are far more lenient in your judgments, and far less vocal. I forgot.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by moki:
Oh wait... if the US isn't involved, you are far more lenient in your judgments, and far less vocal. I forgot.

You forgot to call him "anti-Semitic".

Go on, be a sport.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by moki:
My god Logic... you know no bounds heh. Did you read the article? He was held back.

I surely hope you get up on that stump and start spewing off about the Geneva Conventions every time someone is decapitated, every time a car bomb blows up civilians, every time a suicide bomber blows himself up in a pizza partlor, etc, etc.

Oh wait... if the US isn't involved, you are far more lenient in your judgments, and far less vocal. I forgot.

Who was held back? The US soldier after he punched SH or SH while the US soldier was punching him in the face?

And the decapitations, car bombs and suicide bombers wouldn't be covered by the GC if the US policy is correct. And I've condemned them on several occasions. So kindly just

off will you?

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You forgot to call him "anti-Semitic".

Go on, be a sport.

Heh, that is only used when debating something relating to Israel. In these cases I'm just a terrorist sympathiser, anti-American, tree hugging hippie. Don't confuse the situations

moki · Jul 28, 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
While I'm at it. Using this "logic" of yours, should the Iraqis be allowed to compare all acts of the rebels to this horrendous act done by the coalition?

Logic, you're being disgusting and disingenuous. There is clearly a difference in intent here, and the law in every country recognizes intent as being a large part of the law. If a policeman is speeding after a criminal, and hits a kid on the side of the road, he is not charged with murder.

This is a different situation entirely from someone strapping a bomb to themselves, and intending to kill as much and as many of whomever they can -- military, civilians, whatever -- just to incite fear and terror.

You are not driven by your hate of needless loss of life, as you are attempting to portrary it, because if you were, you would speak out as loudly, in as rhetorical a fashion as you are now, speaking out against the suicide bombers, the decapitations, the random car bombings, etc.

If you were just a pacifist who mourned any loss of life, then I'd respect you, despite thinking you're a bit short-sighted and out of touch with how the world works. But you're not; you very clearly pick and choose what deaths you'll condemn. Welcome to the new anti-semitism indeed.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Heh, that is only used when debating something relating to Israel.

Like Lance Armstrong?

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Like Lance Armstrong?

Oh, I forgot. Also when talking about France. Because you know that every French citizen has a Swastika at home and go out on Saturdays to kill some Jews before they go to the pub.

Powerbook · Jul 28, 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I heard some shook hands with Saddam...

Think I saw that somewhere..

Look! It's HIM!

dcolton · Jul 28, 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by moki:
Logic, you're being disgusting and disingenuous. There is clearly a difference in intent here, and the law in every country recognizes intent as being a large part of the law. If a policeman is speeding after a criminal, and hits a kid on the side of the road, he is not charged with murder.

This is a different situation entirely from someone strapping a bomb to themselves, and intending to kill as much and as many of whomever they can -- military, civilians, whatever -- just to incite fear and terror.

You are not driven by your hate of needless loss of life, as you are attempting to portrary it, because if you were, you would speak out as loudly, in as rhetorical a fashion as you are now, speaking out against the suicide bombers, the decapitations, the random car bombings, etc.

If you were just a pacifist who mourned any loss of life, then I'd respect you, despite thinking you're a bit short-sighted and out of touch with how the world works. But you're not; you very clearly pick and choose what deaths you'll condemn. Welcome to the new anti-semitism indeed.

PacHead · Jul 28, 2004, 12:33 PM

dcolton · Jul 28, 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Like Lance Armstrong?

The only point your link proves is the fact that lefties are allowed to violate forum policy while others are not.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
[b}You ****in' moron.

I'm sorry, but really[/b]

Since we are talking equal enforcement of the law...

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by moki:
Logic, you're being disgusting and disingenuous.

I encourage you to read the rules on macnn again.

But anyway. Using a 1000lb bomb to take out a mortar battery in the middle of a civilian area is just as bad as taking a 500kg car-bomb to a police station to get a few policemen. The net result is the same.

Are you done with the personal attack or are you willing to debate this in a civil manner?

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
The only point your link proves is the fact that lefties are allowed to violate forum policy while others are not.

Since we are talking equal enforcement of the law...

Rest assured, if I saw a German dimwit pull the "anti-Semite" card as stupidly and misappropriately as moki did in that thread, they would most certainly get the same response.

I know you have.

dcolton · Jul 28, 2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Rest assured, if I saw a German dimwit pull the "anti-Semite" card as stupidly and misappropriately as moki did in that thread, they would most certainly get the same response.

I know you have.

I don't believe I have ever pulled out the anti-semite card. Besides, I believe you missed Moki's point.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
I don't believe I have ever pulled out the anti-semite card. Besides, I believe you missed Moki's point.

I'm not so sure I did, but give me a call when Europeans start rounding up Americans and burning their shops, and maybe we'll talk.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm not so sure I did, but give me a call when Europeans start rounding up Americans and burning their shops, and maybe we'll talk.

You mean like the US and Israel is doing in Palestine and Iraq now?

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
You mean like the US and Israel is doing in Palestine and Iraq now?

This is heading off-track too fast.

The point was that even *mentioning* anti-Semitism in the context of media reports on Lance Armstrong was an incredibly stupid thing to do, and I called moki on it, and will continue to do so whenever I see him grasping at any Euro-critical straws and sexing them up with stupid inflammatory comments and implied collective complicity, like that one.

I think he got the gist - even if dcolton didn't - else he would have responded. It was his thread, after all.

-s*

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is heading off-track too fast.
-s*

NEVA!!!!!!!

But you are correct.

Randman · Jul 28, 2004, 01:49 PM

So, you support terrorists, Saddam and other idiots who kill innocents for their own political gain, eh Logic? Quite sad.

Why not show some photos of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who died at Saddam's hands? I guess it's ok for him to kill other Muslims as well since he hates Israel. You're as sad as the right-wing nuts. I take it you also support Bashir and JI? They would love someone as full as hate and intolerance and self-loathing as you sound.

You have the Quran quoted in your sig, but have you ever read it? Or do you just figure that the parts on moderation and compassion are negotiable because you carry grudges and have to act out your negative impulses in passive-aggressive manners such as this?

You're too blinded by your ignorance and prejudice to rationally discuss such a topic as this.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 28, 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Randman:
So, you support terrorists, Saddam and other idiots who kill innocents for their own political gain, eh Logic? Quite sad.

And you get knocked on your ass, but try again, hoping it will stick, eh?

There is a *slight* difference between supporting Saddam Hussein, and supporting the Geneva Convention.

They only seem similar from your perspective because you are in favor of *violating* the Geneva Convention.

Logic · Jul 28, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Randman:
So, you support terrorists, Saddam and other idiots who kill innocents for their own political gain, eh Logic? Quite sad.

Why not show some photos of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who died at Saddam's hands? I guess it's ok for him to kill other Muslims as well since he hates Israel. You're as sad as the right-wing nuts. I take it you also support Bashir and JI? They would love someone as full as hate and intolerance and self-loathing as you sound.

You have the Quran quoted in your sig, but have you ever read it? Or do you just figure that the parts on moderation and compassion are negotiable because you carry grudges and have to act out your negative impulses in passive-aggressive manners such as this?

You're too blinded by your ignorance and prejudice to rationally discuss such a topic as this.

huh?

Where did you get all that from?