US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld paid a secret visit to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and offered him freedom and possible return to public life if he made a televised request to armed groups for a ceasefire with allied forces, a media report said.
Saddam promptly rejected the offer, Ynetnews reported quoting a London based Al-Quds Al-Arabi daily.
Doubtful this really happened. It's not like the insurgents would listen to Saddam, and it is the people of Iraq who are preparing to try Saddam for Genocide and other heinous crimes. Rumsfeld has no authority what-so-ever over Saddam. Do you really think the Shia and the Kurds now dominating Iraqs politics would listen to this? Bogus report....
Do you want to cite any other "reputable" source for ththis allegation, now that this report has been out for a few days? If you can't cite at least one other source, then it is most probably fake.... Which fits right in with what anti-Americans want...
Saddam may escape noose in deal to halt insurgency
By Adrian Blomfield in Baghdad
(Filed: 11/04/2005)
Saddam Hussein could avoid the gallows under a secret proposal by insurgent leaders that Iraq’s new administration is “seriously considering”, a senior government source said yesterday. A reprieve is understood to be among the central demands of Sunni nationalists and former members of Saddam’s Ba’ath party who have reportedly begun negotiations with the government amid the backdrop of a bloody insurgency which claimed 30 lives during the weekend. Officials say they are looking for a way of joining the political process after January’s election, which was boycotted by most of the once-powerful Sunni minority. “We are trying to reach out to the insurgents,” the source said. “We don’t expect them to stop fighting unconditionally. Sending Saddam to prison for the rest of his life is not a huge price for us to pay, but it will save them a lot of face.” The official said those involved in the negotiations included senior members of Saddam’s Fedayeen militia and the Jaish Mohammed, a grouping of former army officers that operates under the guise of an Islamist organisation.
But it is unclear if those at the talks genuinely represent a majority of the deeply fragmented insurgency. While a deal could represent an important step towards ending the violence that has plagued postwar Iraq, a reprieve for Saddam would infuriate many in the country. He is unlikely to come to trial before the end of this year, but Jalal Talabani, Iraq’s new president, has already begun to prepare his people for a possible reprieve. Asked about the fate of Saddam in an interview yesterday in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, the president, who is a Kurd, stated his personal opposition to a death sentence. “I am among the lawyers who signed an international petition against the death penalty around the world and it would be a problem for me if Iraqi courts issued death sentences,” he said. Though Mr Talabani’s powers are largely ceremonial, he has the power, as the head of a three-man presidential council, to commute death sentences. The two vice presidents that make up the remainder of the council, Ghazi al Yawar, a Sunni, and Adel Abdul Mahdi, a Shia, have not stated their positions.
Further demonstrating his determination for a political settlement to the insurgency, Mr Talabani proposed an amnesty for fighters last week. But al-Qa’eda’s wing in Iraq, which is led by Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, yesterday rejected the offer and dismissed Mr Talabani as an American “agent”. Though they regard Mr Talabani as a hero, many Kurds said they opposed any plans not to execute Saddam. “Anything but death for Saddam would be a travesty of justice,” said Nawzad Othman, a greengrocer whose brother was among 5,000 Kurds killed in the notorious chemical weapon attack on Halabja in 1988. “A murderer like that cannot be allowed to live.” Iraq’s new government, dominated by the majority Shia community and its Kurdish coalition partners, faces a tricky balancing act. Its attempts to reach out to all parties were boosted yesterday when the outgoing interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia, agreed to join the new government after weeks of negotiation. It was unclear if Mr Allawi or any of his bloc would take cabinet posts. Shia MPs in the cleric-backed United Iraqi Alliance, which won 51 per cent of the vote in the election, are unhappy with the development and accuse Mr Allawi of corruption.
^ This article says the 'secret deal' would be to imprison Saddam for life instead of capital punishment. It is a LIE to pass this 'report' as Rumsfeld offering to free Saddam.
Hey Reza. Did you even bother to read the part of the story that is highlighted? If you did read it, then maybe you shouldn't throw out the word liar so cavalierly.
The article says nothing about setting Saddam "free." It talks about a potential deal to spare him the meathook in favor of life in prison. It also says the deal is being considered by the Iraqi government. Says nothing about Rumsfeld.
“You liars are talking to Sunni terrorists about going easy on Saddam.”
Pardon me, but I am literate. Your own post from the telegraph does not mention the US once. Not a single reference to a single American. If you have issues with Saddams justice, bring it up with the Iraqis, they are in charge of Saddam.
And by the way, the US government was about the only government throughout the 90s who wanted to INDICT Saddam. The rest of the world, did not give a crap. Get your facts straight.
Human Rights Watch thus turned to the only available remedy – a civil suit before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, commonly known as the World Court. The relevant U.N. treaty – the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – assigned the World Court the task of adjudicating disputes under the treaty. We hoped for a declaratory judgment that the Iraqi government had committed genocide, damages for the survivors, and an order that the perpetrators be prosecuted.
The problem was that only governments can bring suit before the World Court. Washington was a logical first choice, and ultimately the Clinton administration endorsed the case. But restrictions in the U.S. ratification of the Genocide Convention stood in the way of a successful suit.
Human Rights Watch staff then circled the globe trying to convince another government to bring the suit. None would. At best, a couple of governments said they would join a coalition to bring the case, but only on the condition that at least one European government joined as well. Several European governments gave the matter serious consideration, but in the end none would take the plunge.
There were many reasons for this reluctance, some stated openly, others only hinted at. Governments feared the loss of business opportunities when Iraq emerged from U.N. sanctions. They feared a loss of influence in the Middle East for suing an Arab state. They feared terrorist retaliation by Iraqi agents. And they feared the expense of bringing the lawsuit (although offers were made to raise the funds).
Seriously, dude. The name calling and insults do nothing to further your point or this discussion. It only draws attention to the flaws in your position.
The US captured and jailed Saddam, and the Iraqi government they “turned” him over to is working under the thumb of 130,000 US troops. Your people let Saddam and his generals live in comfy cells while you butchered Shia’s in Karbala and Najaf not too long ago.
Who lied when posting a link to an article to prove the point of the initial post and it did nothing of the sort? Take the advice of gupshup’s resident attorney dont use the word ‘liar’ so cavalierly. It could be turned around on you just as quick and as I said it only draws attention to flaws in your argument (like posting an article that is contradictory to the thread). It’s also immature.
Actually my article proves that your people are talking to Saddam and his Sunni butchers, which is the main theme of this thread. You people went to war on lies, and your friend told a blatant lie about the turnout in the Iraq election, thinking no one would notice it. No amount of legalise or diversions can get away from that.
**Saddam rejects Rumsfeld offer of release: Daily **
JERUSALEM: US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld paid a secret visit to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and offered him freedom and possible return to public life if he made a televised request to armed groups for a ceasefire with allied forces, a media report said.
Saddam promptly rejected the offer, Ynetnews reported quoting a London based Al Quds Al Arabi daily. The visit came during Rumsfeld’s visit to Iraq about two weeks ago and was known only to a few Iraqi officials in Jordan, the Arab daily reported quoting sources.
**Some two weeks ago the British Telegraph had reported that Iraqi gunmen were offered a “deal” to halt all terror attacks in return for a reduced sentence for Saddam, likely to be sentenced to death. **
all your heroes are getting beaten so badly that maybe should consider changing your nick to black & blue? Besides, didn't you know that nationalism is haram bhaijaan?
Yer an idiot. This is an article quoting the exact same source that was quoted before, Al-Quds. When you find something other than this one rumor rag, let me know. And even if Saddam DID get some offer, do you think that it would not be at the direction of the Iraqi government? Saddam is Iraq business. Once he is behind bars we really don't give a crap. If it saves some poor Iraqis, what do I care, I don't need to see him die.
