Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi leaders have set up a tribunal to try ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and other members of his Baathist regime, a spokesman for the Iraqi Governing Council said Tuesday.
Salem Chalabi, the nephew of the head the Iraqi National Congress, was named to head the tribunal of judges and prosecutors, according to council spokesman Entefadh Qanbar.
New political parties in Iraq include the Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmed Chalabi; the Iraqi National Coalition headed by Adnan Pachachi; and the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution headed by Ayatollah Muhammed Baqr Al Hakim.
Seven judges have been assigned to the tribunal so far, and more judges and prosecutors will be chosen, Qanbar said.
He added that the tribunal has a budget of $75 million for 2004-2005.
French attorney Jacques Verges, who has long made a name for himself representing notorious world figures, has said he will lead a team of defense lawyers in any future trial. He said he plans to call top U.S. officials to testify about their support of Saddam during the 1980s.
"It is a trial that must be open," Verges said last month. "We shall have the duty to look at the truth, but all the truth. And in this matter the links between the American government and the Iraq government are so close you cannot judge from one and the other."
Saddam was captured December 13 in a "spider hole" near his hometown of Tikrit and has remained in coalition custody in Iraq.
U.S. officials have described Saddam as being less than cooperative during his interrogations.
"He's turned out a pretty wily guy who seems to be enjoying the give and take with his interlocutors," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said last month.
In early March, a team of U.S. Justice Department officials traveled to Iraq to start organizing evidence that could be used against Saddam once he goes on trial.
No trial date has been set.
The team includes 50 prosecutors, investigators and administrative staff members of various Justice Department entities, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Marshals Service.
The team is assisting the Iraqis in trying to sort through potential evidence for use in war crimes trials against former regime officials, including the former Iraqi president.
|
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
The question is, for what is Saddam going to be tried? Ok, Ok, so there is all that messy slaughtering of the Kurds thing, can’t forget about that. (Of course the Kurds were openly fighting against Saddam, assisting Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. But I'm sure there must be a law against putting down open rebellions, no?) Then of course there is the further killing of the Kurds. More killing of Kurds, and yet even more killing of the Kurds. Oh and did I mention that Saddam killed some Kurds? Saddam is an evil man.
Ok, so other then the Kurds, which I will come back to in a bit, what other war crimes has Saddam committed? Well there is that whole invading Kuwait thing that he did back in the early 1990's then isn’t there? Surely there should be some war crimes there? But wait a sec, that would be more of an international crime, one in which he should have to answer to the people of Kuwait and the world at large, no? Seems a little fishy that he should be tried in his own country, by his own people for crimes that he committed against someone else don’t you think? I’ll get back to this in a sec too. Saddam is an evil man.
Finally there is the whole killing of the Shi’a Arabs who live in Southern Iraq. Oh but here again we run into the same problems we had with the Kurds, the whole supporting Iran during open war, no law against putting down open rebellion, hell no law at all really under Saddam’s rule.
Ok so now to provide a little background history to why the United States is so concerned about making sure our “friend” Saddamy is tried for these crimes. Let us start with the Kurds. The United States was running secret operations out of Iran (before the Ayatollah took over the joint) supporting the Kurds against Saddam. Then, one day, the following message came into the Embassy in Tehran (and I’ll paraphrase here) cease and desist any and all support of the Kurds. The Ambassador along with most of the staff was flabbergasted because they all knew what this meant for the Kurds. (Like they would be slaughtered) So the Ambassador wrote back to the State Department asking for them to clarify what they wished for them to do, noting that they had promised the Kurds that they would support them (which, by the way, is the only reason that the Kurds were openly opposing Saddam) and that if they were to stop supporting them, the Kurds would very likely be slaughtered. The State Department or rather should I say Kissinger himself, wrote back and said, (again paraphrasing) what part of cease and desist don’t you understand? Right, so we stop support of the Kurds, the Kurds get slaughtered, Saddam is an evil man.
Now for those of you doing the math, this would have happened in the 1970's before Saddam was actually running the country, but he was in charge of military operations under his cousin at the time and practically running the place anyway so that’s really a mote point. Also, you may wonder how I know about all of this as it isn’t something you are likely to very easily find in public record. It just so happens that my college professor, who was also my mentor, happened to be a CIA operative assigned to the embassy in Tehran when this all went down. His duties included providing support to the Kurds, so I would think he knows a little something about it. Ok, so fast forward to the 1980's. Same deal here. US promises support to the Kurds, Kurds stick their neck out, US pulls back and watches the Kurds get their heads lobbed off. Replay, throughout the 1980's and 1990's, Saddam is an evil man.
Story number two. So, before invading Kuwait, Saddam sends one of his cronies to the US ambassador in Baghdad. Crony asks, hey US would you have any problem if say, hypothetically speaking of course, Iraq were to invade Kuwait. Now, its important to point out that Kuwait has historically always been part of Iraqi territory and has been a matter of contention for some time (That is, ever since a couple of drunken British officers sat down after WW1 and randomly drew lines on a map creating the modern day boarders of Iraq and Kuwait). So, the US ambassador, knowing full well the history of contention over Kuwait, tells the Crony, (and I am again paraphrasing here) seems like an internal issue to me, don’t see any reason that this would concern the US or why we would get involved so long as it doesn’t interrupt oil supplies. So the crony goes back to Saddam and lets him know that the US has just given them the green light to invade Kuwait. Imagine Saddam’s surprise some days later when the US starts putting up a big fuse about his invasion of Kuwait. Saddam is an evil man.
Ok, so what is the point of this rant? Not that Saddam is innocent and should be set free (actually I think we should turn Saddam over to the French since they want to defend him so badly, and then in say 5-10 years when he is running France we can thumb our collective noses at them and say HA, we told you he was evil) but that the US has invested interest in seeing Saddam convicted for these so called crimes, if for no other reason then to clear our conscience for the diplomatic blunders that contributed to these atrocious events. But the real question remains, what exactly are we going to be trying Saddam for anyway? As I stated above, none of these actions were outlawed under Iraqi law, so the only law that can be used is international law, which would seem to suggest that Saddam should be tried for international crimes at someplace like the Hague. So, why aren’t we sending him there? (Well that’s another long rant about US foreign policy concerning the Hague, better left for a later date) Your thoughts on all of this please. (Oh and Saddam is an evil man.)
(Fixed vB tags - lebell)