Reply
Sun 22 Jun, 2003 09:11 am
DNA tests after missiles strike 'Saddam convoy'
Human remains removed after US Hellfire missiles target source of dictator's satellite phone call
Jason Burke in Baghdad
Sunday June 22, 2003 - The Observer
American specialists were carrying out DNA tests last night on human remains believed by US military sources to be those of Saddam Hussein and one of his sons, The Observer can reveal.
The remains were retrieved from a convoy of vehicles struck last week by US forces following 'firm' information that the former Iraqi leader and members of his family were travelling in the Western Desert near Syria.
Military sources told The Observer that the strikes, involving an undisclosed number of Hellfire missiles, were launched against the convoy last Wednesday after the interception of a satellite telephone conversation involving either Saddam or his sons.
The operation, which has not yet been disclosed by the Pentagon, involved the United States air force and ground troops of the Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment based around Ramadi, a major town 70 miles west of Baghdad.
Despite previously unfounded US claims that Saddam had been killed during the bombing of Baghdad before the invasion by America and Britain, the sources indicated that they were cautiously optimistic that they had finally killed the target they described as 'the top man'.
Asked about rumours circulating in senior military circles about the incident, one US officer with knowledge of the raid on the convoy said: 'That is unreleasable information. The Pentagon has to release that information.'
The Pentagon last night refused to comment on what it called 'operational matters'. However, other military sources indicated they were optimistic the tests would show that Saddam and at least one of his two sons, Uday and Qusay, were among the dead, although they stressed that a conclusive identification of the men killed in the attack had not yet been made.
The convoy, composed of several four-wheel-drive luxury vehicles, was attacked after the telephone call was intercepted. An air strike was then organised.
The sources confirmed that Uday Hussein, the deposed dictator's eldest son, was thought to have been travelling with his father in the convoy. The convoy is believed to have been heading for the Syrian border and was intercepted near the frontier town of Qaim. Several such convoys heading for the border were destroyed during the conflict in March and April.
Another US military source confirmed that there was 'an incident in the Western Desert' and said that information about it was 'unreleasable pending verification'. Other sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that they were awaiting confirmation that the remains were those of Saddam and Uday following full DNA tests. It was not known when the tests would be completed, but the sources indicated it was 'imminent'.
The attack on the convoy came two days after US authorities captured Abid Hamad Mahmud, one of Saddam's top aides. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Mahmud, who was seized by American Special Forces near Saddam's home town of Tikrit, had provided information about Saddam's whereabouts.
The paper reported that Mahmud had told US authorities that the deposed Iraqi leader and his two sons survived the war and that the sons, along with the aide, escaped to Syria, only to be forced to return to Iraq.
The officials said the aide had described a plan by Hussein and his sons to split up to increase their chances of survival as US forces closed in on Baghdad in April. Mahmud was captured last Monday in a raid near the Iraqi city of Tikrit that also netted a number of other, less senior Saddam Hussein loyalists, officials said. But neither the deposed Iraqi President nor his sons were with Mahmud.
'We're not yet sure he's telling the truth,' one senior defence official said of Mahmud's information. 'He could simply be reciting a set of talking points.'
However, the report, from the most significant member of Saddam's government caught so far, contributed to an increasing sense among US authorities last week that the net was closing on the ex-Iraqi leader, who was believed to be hiding somewhere north of Baghdad.
Accounts differed yesterday over the extent to which Mahmud had helped pinpoint the locations of Saddam and his sons. NBC News, which first reported that Mahmud was talking, said some of his information has included places where Saddam or the sons may be found.
A Special Operations group known as Task Force 20, made up of army and navy counter-terrorist teams, had been spearheading the long hunt for Saddam and family members.
US officials last night confirmed reports that Mahmud had told his interrogators that he, Saddam and the sons at one point fled to Syria and then re-entered Iraq. Syria has angrily denied US charges it harboured Saddam or members of his family or that it had any knowledge that top former Iraqi leaders might have taken refuge across its border during or since the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam.
Officials told Reuters that the 'information, or perhaps disinformation,' from Mahmud had intensified the hunt for Saddam Hussein and the sons by US Special Operations troops and paramilitary intelligence agents in Iraq.
White House officials said on Friday it was unclear if the former Iraqi leader was alive or dead. 'We know that this guy (Mahmud) was his (Saddam's) shadow at one time. But who knows what's true and what's not here,' one US official said last night.
Mahmud was regarded by Washington as the most wanted Iraqi figure after Saddam and his sons.
The presidential secretary was the ace of diamonds in the US 'deck of cards' of 55 most-wanted Iraqis and the highest-placed of them caught so far.
US forces have now captured at least 32 of the 55 on the list.
double hmmmmm
I had two immediate reactions. First: wonder who they blew up this time. Second: is it ok to target and bomb Saddam with intent to kill - even now? What about a trial? What about gaining further info from the man?
Strike first, and ask questions later. Good policy! Dead men can't talk. c.i.
Anyone with a tape recording of Saddam's voice can now
assassinate someone, just by placing a phone call from their location.
Meanwhile, Osama is hiding out in East L.A. . . .
With all that looting going on, who knows who has those items.
Lil-K, the restrictions on assassinations by the US were lifted post 9-11, by September 19 in fact.
Quote:'Jawbreaker' [CIA team in Afghanistan] had another assignment. The president had signed a new intelligence order, the gloves were off.
"You have one mission," Black instructed. "Go find the al Queda and kill them. We're going to eliminate them. Get bin Laden, find him. I want his head in a box".
"You're serious?" asked Gary. Black had a penchant for dramatizing and Gary knew the presidential restraints on direct killing and assassination.
...The new authority was clear. Yes, he said, he wanted bin Laden's head. "I want to take it down and show the president".
"Well, it couldn't be any clearer," Gary replied.
'Bush at War' by Bob Woodward.
Quote:'We're not yet sure he's telling the truth,' one senior defence official said of Mahmud's information. 'He could simply be reciting a set of talking points.'
Why is it that when Iraqi talking heads are reciting a set of talking points the defense department isn't sure they are telling the truth, but when US spin doctors from the Administration and pentagon are simply reciting a set of talking points, people swear on stacks of Holy Bibles that they are being told the truth.
As for the stereotype implied in the photo of turban-wearing people working in 7-Eleven stores being terrorists, hasn't our country already had enough promotion of that sort of hatred?
I'm sure I'll be back on the membership list for Craven's Club, but I really don't care. I consider it my responsibility and right to speak up about it.
Actually, I thought the same thing upon seeing the photo.
edit: actually upon looking at the photo I didn't get it. It has a doctored look but I didn't see what was funny. When I saw it again today I saw the 7-11 and rolled my eyes. Knowing Setanta I'm not altogether too worried. I'm pretty sure he don't like no Arab stereotypin' anymore than I do.
So you two can have it out. :-) My club turns you down this time.
Awwww, Craven, are you staying up this late just to see the sunrise this morning?
If so, be sure you tell us about it in the other thread.
I see the sunrise almost every night before I go to bed. But I have a little more than 2 hours to sleep so I'm gonna hit the sack.
Ah yes, let's jump to Political Rectitude conclusions rather than have a sense of humor . . .
I must of missed the humor. Perhaps you could explain it to me so we can share in the laughter.
Perhaps i would consider that at your age, if you lack the essentials to a sense of humor, nothing i can say or do will give it to you. Take your righteous indignation and cuddle it, cherish it, nourish it--i will assure you that i'll not interact with you, and you might have the courtesy to do the same for me.
Now that's funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
The reported American attack on a convoy thought to be carrying Saddam Hussein and/or his sons last week would have been legal only if there was substantial evidence indicating their presence.
But if there had just been a hope and there was the risk of killing innocent civilians instead, then it would not be justified. If the convoy really involved Saddam Hussein or other military leaders, it would have been a legitimate target. The war has not ended. President Bush announced the end of 'major combat operations' only. The laws of war still apply.
But the point is that you have to take all precautions. You are allowed to attack a military target even if civilians are there. But you have to use the principle of proportionality and weigh the value of the target against the risk to civilians. And you have to show that you checked that the target was a military one.
If Saddam was known to be there, the target would probably have been legitimate, whoever else was. It is a difficult calculation. If you are in doubt, you are required to hold back under the precautionary principle. There is a difference between this kind of incident and firing on crowds of demonstrators. In situations where you are already in control, you have to use methods of policing not of combat.
The relevant article of international law is Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Convention 1977.
Article 51 says: "The civilian population shall not be the subject of attack."
Article 57 deals with the precautions which have to be taken. The attackers "should do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects."
The United States has not ratified the additional protocol, but international law regards the protocol as binding in the custom and conduct of war.
The reported convoy attack shows that the United States is becoming increasingly desperate in its search for Saddam Hussein.
It badly needs a success right now. American soldiers are being killed. Pipelines are blown up. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. Iraq is recovering only slowly.
Convincing the world that Saddam was dead would require describing in detail how those samples were acquired and how the matching DNA was examined
Hence the risk the Americans were willing to take. The intelligence linking Saddam and Uday and Qusay Hussein to the convoy is thought to have been based on a monitored satellite telephone call.
The possibility of killing totally innocent people must have been taken into account. The prize of getting Saddam Hussein or one of his once powerful sons, it seems, was worth the price others might pay.
The unit in charge of the search for Saddam, Task Force 20, is said to have DNA samples of a number of former Iraqi leaders. Establishing the identity of their bodies would not be difficult in that case.
But convincing the world that Saddam was dead would require describing in detail how those samples were acquired and how the matching DNA was examined.
The legacy of doubt left by the intelligence failure on the WMD issue would have to be overcome.
Saddam unaccounted for is a threat, this was at least the third specific attack aimed at Saddam Hussein from the air.
a Pentagon official has admitted the US attack on a convoy that was believed to have been carrying Iraqi leaders may have taken place inside neighbouring Syria.
All countries in the world better enable their airdefense system because before you know a US C130-gunship is attacking some luxury jeeps on the highway.
Frolic -- excellent info.
Any idea on a real-life, practical level, how often false information could lead to such missile attacks?
I recall in Afghanistan a few tribal leaders "informed" the Americans that Al-Queda leaders were hiding in certain places, just in order to have their tribal enemies eliminated. A satellite phone call seems like an easy thing to fake.
The hardest job will not be killing Saddam but make the world belief Saddam is dead.
Who will belief Rumsfeld when he announces the end of Saddam? I know i wont because Rummy, and the entire Bush-govt, are pathological liars.
Again False alarm it seems.
Some local villagers have claimed the people killed in the attack were sheep smugglers. Pentagon officials said they might have been smugglers, but said U.S. intelligence strongly suggests high-level Iraqis, not sheep, were their cargo.
Most of the 20 people captured in the attack have been released, Pentagon officials said.
Again some families turned against the US, again retaliaton to expect after this errant attack.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace