"Handing" Saddam over..
 

What exactly does that mean when they say they're gonna hand Saddam over to the Iraqi govt?

Are we gonna give up guarding him?

That has "bust him outta jail" written all over it.

I would think that Saddam has more enemies in Iraq than in any other place on earth. He was not a very popular ruler...I get visions of the ignomious end of Mussolini or Ceaucescu.

The people that were harmed the most by his actions were the Iraqi people. They should be the ones to bring him to justice.

I suspect he'll be put under the nominal control of the Iraqi government, who'll request that - for the time being - Saddam remain under US guard.

Anyone hear about this insane "civil rights" group who wants the US to free Saddam because they feel that the US isn't treating him well?

Yeah, GOOD IDEA!

Interesting question. According to international law he should be turned over to the Iraqis on June 30th If they truly have a sovereign govt. then they should also control all prisoners in the country. But the truth is that Saddam is probably safer in US hands than anywhere else. I'm sure there are lots of people in the current govt who would like to see the guy dead.

It's kind of silly, but I don't think Saddam is really a threat to anyone. They just need to put together a war crimes case and get this thing over with.

Translation: The Red Cross thinks he should either be released or charge him with a crime. What an "insane" idea! :rolleyes:

I wouldn't turn him over as there isn't a proper infrastructure to administer him. The Iraqi police force is a joke. What makes anyone think their prison system is in better shape? The US should hold him until there is a stable enough environment to transfer him to Iraqi custody.

There are international rules against detaining someone indefinetley.
If the Iraqi's aren't ready, we need to either start proceedings or turn him over to the International Court so they can. I'm sure the IC will allow plenty of input by Iraqi leaders.

IMO, he should be tried by Iraqis. No doubt the Iraqis agree. The last thing we want is for Saddam to not be held accountable for his alleged crimes. The current infrastructure doesn't generate much faith that he can be held without significant threat of release or escape. Charge him under Iraqi law and hold him in a secure detention center (right now that means US controlled detention center).

I agree, but we do have to charge him in the next month and set up a reasonable timeline for his trial.

They should of dropped the grenade in the spider hole like they were about to do. All the hand wringing would be over.

Please.

Saddam is guilty.

Period.

You know it and I know it and the world knows it.

You are talking like Saddam might be innocent and possibly let free, when the reality is that Saddam is destined for a date with a blindfold and a bullet.

Talking about "reasonable timelines" for Saddam is equivalent to talking about "reasonable timelines" for the Nuremberg trials and is foolishness.

It doesn't matter who it is. Yes we all know he is guilty but it sets a bad prescedent if we start detaining individuals indefinetley, no charges filed. If they can do it to him they can start doing it to someone else.

It's the same thing with the Gitmo crew and Padilla guy. Padilla is looking increasingly less likely to be guilty.

If we believe ourselves to be more civilized than Mr Hussein than we must conduct ourselves in a civilized manner. That rules out torture, detainment without due process, murder, etc, etc., regardless of whether you are the "good guy" or not. The Red Cross is simply following the civil guidelines that they have set before themselves. The chance of Saddam ever being released are nil, but that does not excuse turning our backs on the traditions of justice that were a given rationalization for the invasion in the first place.

He'll get his day in court. He won't be jailed indefinately, so there's no point in suggesting that. The question is when exactly he'll be tried.

*I* don't think it's unreasonable to have him tried today, given the extensive evidence against him. However, his lawyers will probably object to that, because the judges wouldn't be impartial...

Sometimes, the rule of law is pretty silly. Officially you have to assume someone is innocent, but if it's just plain obvious someone is guilty, the whole thing simply becomes a charade.

I'm waiting for the day when the Iraqis personally stone him to death...

if they do that wouldent we invade them for all being stoners?

i'm an american sorry

Ok, let's publicize it, then free him in the middle of any major city in the US or Iraq. I give him fifteen seconds.

Um, am I the only one who was watching the news when he confessed that he was planning to blow up 20 apartment and hotel buildings across the US?