Publius

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)

MSD

It seems only fair that the people who lived under his rule are the ones who decide whether or not to convict him of anything. To try him in another country would be illogical.

After they're done with him, he can be passed on to the internatoinal court if the Iraqi government sees fit to do so.

Superbelt

Chalabi though didn't live under his rule. He has been in exile for 45 years, which leaves him as having NEVER been under Saddams rule. Saddam only took the "Presidency" in 1979 (25 years ago) and before that he was vice president since 1974. That is LONG before Chalabi ran away. But when he did run, he ran off to Jordan, became a bank embezzler and then took exile in America to protect himself from conviction and to push for Saddams ouster.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068557/

All around a good guy to put in charge of things in Iraq I think!
I can think of noone better to leave to internation scrutiny when Saddams tribunal is covered.

It looks like we are setting Iraq up for an apocalypse by putting people like Clalabi and Negroponte in charge over there.

tecoyah

Hey now...placing the wrong person in power is what we do best. We have a glorious history of backing bad guys, and as it has been so successful to this point, why would we stop now?

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Pacifier

Yes, for that kind of crimes he should put before the international court, but the US didn't accept the court so they can not hand saddam over without looking stupid.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Superbelt

I'm interested in whether or not Saddam is allowed to give testimony. And if it will be televised. I don't think Bush want's Saddam to be allowed to "speak to the world" He may end up trying to take the US down a peg with him.

Saddam: "You hold all the receipts america"

reconmike

How come no one is making jokes about the mass graves IN Iraq?

How about the torture chambers?

I am no lawyer but I am kinda sure that he can be put on trial for murdering non-baathist Iraqi citizens, no?

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Dragonlich

Well, there's always international law, and basic human rights, and the whole UN, which Iraq was a member of. There's a UN charter which allows for international law, and there's all kinds of conventions (Geneva, Hague), which Saddam broke.

Why should he *not* be tried by his people? He broke international law, and someone has to try him. It might as well be an Iraqi court.

But wait a minute. I'd say that it'd be illegal, even in Saddam-era Iraq, to commit murder, to rape, to torture, etc. If so, he and his henchmen broke all those laws. If not, there's still that pesky international law thing.

Besides, history shows that it's quite normal for countries to put on trial their own leaders for their crimes (South Africa comes to mind). Even if the things these people did were not illegal (due to them being above the law), there's still human decency and (again) international law.

As for your examples: It's not illegal to put down an armed rebellion, but it *is* illegal to murder random civilians who just happen to be of the same ethnicity as the rebels - that's called genocide. And it *is* illegal (according to international law, the UN charter, which Iraq signed on to) to invade another country.

losthellhound

I agree with the original post. Saddam should be tried at the Hauge.. These are all International crimes.. If he is tried in Iraq it will be nothing more then a Fox News special trial of the century. puppet court..

You mean like invading Afganistan and Iraq? (never mind)

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Publius

I just wanted to get back to this topic for a bit and I am sorry that I wasn’t able to keep up with it this week, sorry (taking over the world and all that). Anyway, good comments so far but I did want to bring up a few things. First of all, yes, Saddam did slaughter lots of Kurds who were civilians, but that happens in war. We have killed our own share of civilians both in Iraq, Pakistan, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, ..... well you get the idea. Its just the nature of war, so to say that Saddam is any more guilty of it then other countries are is more than a little hypocritic in my opinion.

Now like I have already stated I think Saddam is a bad evil man who should have to answer for his crimes, but I also believe that for justice to be served, Saddam cannot simply be given a puppet trial. Sure he is guilt, the whole damn world knows he is guilty, I don’t think there is really any debate about that. But for justice to be served the truth must be allowed to come out. The truth of who Saddam’s supporters and co-conspirators were. The truth of what really took place during the wars with Iran and Kuwait. And most importantly, the truth of how the US and European countries supported Saddam in his criminal activities. Now that’s justice, and that’s exactly what won’t happen if Saddam is tried in Iraq.

My final thought on this is that after WW2 there were many trials in Europe about who the lead Nazi were and who had helped to support the Nazi regime both in Germany and outside Germany in the conquered territories. Hell, some of these trials are still going on today (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/30/co....ap/index.html) and it can be a long difficult process, but for true justice to be served it must be done, otherwise it is just puppet justice and we are no better off than the accused.

Ok so I lied, this is my final thought actually. Anyone here ever wonder why Saddam was such a harsh dictator? Does anyone else out there besides me see a connection between the way that Saddam ruled Iraq and the problems that we are now facing in trying to bring stability to the region? It might just be that heavy-handed dictatorship is the only way in which to do this, in which case Saddam would totally have been justified in his tactics. Let us hope not.

Robb@EPE

Very interesting point Publius. I don't think it's true, but it's interesting none-the-less.

Dragonlich

It's indeed very interesting. One need only look at the parallels with former Yugoslavia - one dictator, Tito, manages to hold many ethnic groups together. As soon as he dies, the country falls apart into warring factions. Or look at Russia: without the power of the Soviet Union/communist rule, the country fell apart, albeit peacefully.

There are countless other examples where "strong" leaders held together a large, diverse, country, and where the removal of that leader led to war. What about the rise and fall of the Roman empire? Or the chaos that Charlemagne's death brought to his empire?

I'd say that "strong" leaders instill fear into their subjects, who dare not speak their mind, or act against the state (for obvious health reasons). As soon as that controlling power is removed, people can give in to their hatred and animosity (the result of years of resentment).

Of course, it doesn't have to go this way, but sometimes it does.

Not Normal

update: US State Dept says it has no plans to handover Saddam to Iraq.