Rodger Payne, a politics professor at the University of Louisville, contributes an interesting nugget of speculation about Saddam's ultimate fate.
Rodger was interviewed by Voice of America this morning, and he says the reporter seemed to be fishing for a response to something that hasn't even happened yet -- namely, a dispute between the U.S. government and the misnamed Iraqi Governing Council over where Saddam will face trial.
But I'll let Rodger tell it:
She [the VOA reporter] asked what I made of the difference between the positions taken by the Iraqi Governing Council and the US government on the potential trial of Saddam Hussein.This was the really odd question in the mix. So far, I have seen reports from the Governing Council that they want to try Hussein, but have not seen anything from US government officials that conflicts with that. I even asked her to clarify, but she basically repeated the question.
So, I said it was highly unlikely that the US would be opposed to a trial for Saddam, even if they want first to interrogate him. Iraqis naturally want to try their former leader themselves and there are a lot of obvious reasons for thinking that is a good idea.
She asked me if I thought Saddam Hussein should be tried in Iraq.
Since this question seemed related to the prior one, I started to wonder if this was a trial balloon by someone to see what the reaction might be if the US were to do something odd (like a military trial, or a US-based trial). Voice of America is voa.gov, after all, owned and operated by the US government. I might also note that the reporter seemed to be reading prepared questions.
That last comment is interesting. Does VOA have an official editorial party line handed down daily from on high, like Fox News? Probably: VOA, after all, is the official media arm of the U.S. government, while Fox is just the unofficial media arm of the Republican Party. It seems plausible the contingency propaganda plan for Saddam's capture was developed some months ago, and is now being put into effect by the various agencies, including VOA.
I realize I may be giving the administration more credit than it deserves, considering the absolute hash it made out of planning for post-invasion Iraq. But that was about a relatively minor matter like winning a war, while this is about a critical PR operation, one that could be crucial to the president's reelection prospects.
A military trial for Saddam would definitely seem to have its benefits: Limited, if any, media coverage. A limited discovery process. Limited testimony, limited cross-examination, a limited appeals process. In other words, the most favorable possible forum for keeping America's own dirty laundry out of public view, and for denying Saddam a soap box to appeal to whatever support he still has left in Iraq.
The aging dictator could then disappear into the anonymity of Guatanamo, or be turned back over to the CIA for whatever residual debriefing is deemed necessary -- or even (I think) executed under military law, all without recourse to messy international tribunals or Iraqi courts that might prove difficult to control.
I don't think that's what will happen. In the end, I think the pressure to hand Saddam over to the Iraqis, for trial in Iraq, and then execution in Iraq, will be too strong for the administration to resist. But it all depends, I suppose, on how much laundry has been soiled by America's 50 years of meddling in Iraq's internal affairs, and how many of the unmentionables Saddam is in a position to expose in public.
This could get very interesting.
EXACTLY the point I made on Dan Gillmor's weblog today. Should be very, very interesting.
I don’t believe that this is a time to politicize on either side of the political pendulum. This is a defining moment in this conflict. Regardless of the hows and why’s involved in this conflict. Regardless of the existence or non existence of WMD’s. Regardless of Haliburton or any of the other inside deals. Going forward, what happens now will define how the world sees this war, and how history records it. And it will also define and illuminate a story many would likely wish were never told. In the same capitals from which proclamations of congratulations were issued today, there are many people who are very afraid.
I doubt that Bush measured the potential of embarrassment his own father would face, as the Story of Saddam Hussien is finally told. There is no question of Saddam’s long CIA connections, and the connection to the Reagan/Bush Administration. Perhaps in his heart of hearts, Bush hoped that Saddam WOULD go out in a Blaze of Glory, but he did not. Like most tyrants, he chose the cowardly route. Now is the moment of truth. There are many individuals of power, and governments as well who should tremble at the thought of Saddam in an open court, but neither the Iraqi people, nor the world, will forgive anything less than a full rezoning.
If it is about, as Bush has stated, removing a ruthless, genocidal maniac from power, then let his people judge him based on forensic and historical evidence, and let America’s culpability in some of his crimes become part of the same historical record. Only through an honest and just prosecution can the truth really come out, and the world be satisfied with the results.
For now, I hope that the politicians will shut up. I hope that the Bush administration will refrain from gloating or using this for political gain. And MOST of all, I hope that Saddam survives to see trial and is not accidentally killed while trying to escape or blown up in a, “terrorist,” attack, because if that happens, we will NEVER know the truth, and that would be the biggest crime of all.
Posted by: David Scott Anderson on December 14, 2003 05:52 PM
I seem to remember the VOA having some sort of showdown with the Bush bunch a couple years ago when they refused to broadcast propaganda and insisted on putting out only the truth -- or lose the credibility of the entire world which depended on them for unbiased and accurate news. Less clear in my memory is that one of the head honchos of VOA actually quit over it. Maybe it has changed if this person is gone.
forgive anything less than a full rezoning.
uh, "reckoning"? Or is this a use of "rezoning" I'm not familiar with?
I hope that the Bush administration will refrain from gloating or using this for political gain.
Gloating? Well, at least so far (and it's early on), they seem to have learned a couple things from that little aircraft carrier stunt... though the Bush Fedayeen will undoubtedly indulge themselves.
Use for political gain? Oh absolutely they will!
Of course VOA is scripted by the RNC. All other new bureaus are, why should one directly connected to the government be an exception.
A trial would be very festive. Can Mark Geragos fit Saddam into his busy schedule? Too bad for Saddam that he can't call as a character witness the man who put him in power -- Ronald Reagan.
The record of the last three years can only lead one to believe that the bushies will fuck this up as much as they've fucked up everything else. So, whatever they decide to do with the Great Evildoer will turn out to have been the wrong thing.
THis would certainly deny Saddam his Herman Goering moment.
The question running through my head is what there is anymore to hold back the factions that want to take over. You know some of them had to be thinking that they'd put up with us only because it seemed like a better option than a comeback tour by Hussein. Now that he's out of the picture, US troops are the only thing left to fear.
If we had a competent administration running the show, it would be a good chance to mend things now that the US has got rid of someone that everybody hates. At the moment, though, that just seems like pie in the sky. What was it that was said about Bush before the war... someone wondering how much of a jerk you have to be to lose a popularity contest with Hussein?
There are two things we know for sure about Saddam's prosecution:
1) it will be stacked to make it a slam-dunk;
2) it will be fucked up anyway.
I have to think that, just like Ken Lay, the old goat still has some very embarassing stuff stashed in safe hands for if and when he is put on trial. So I would expect him to be kept on ice until after the 2004 election at least.
The dolts in charge of this show ought to grasp by now that there is only one, outside, chance to achieve a decent long-relationship with Iraq. That is to explicitly acknowledge the US role in their suffering under Saddam, and the moral responsibility to make it right. Some kind of truth and reconciliation commission, including but not limited to Saddam's offenses. Everything else is chickenshit in service of a corrupt war, and the Iraquis know it. Any chance that this bunch will do the right thing? Hah! This opportunity will be squandered, and the stage will be set for further decades of turmoil.
I've followed much of the VOA coverage on the war, and most of it is detailed and on the level. I did not hear this interview, but it could be the interviewer was an ESOL speaker and so needed a 'cheat sheet' for questions. (It happens). But over all their coverage has been head and shoulders above the usual Fox fare and compares favorably to NPR. Sure the government gets some healthy air time, but so do intellectual dissenters, who actually get more air time on VOA than on any other single daily broad cast that I'm aware of save for the Daily Show.
What are his "war" crimes. Kuwait? Wasn't he punished by UN sanctions and reparations to Kuwait for that? Iran? I don't know who started it but there's evidence that Iran used poison gas too, so wouldn't you have to prosecute them as well? As for crimes against his own people, how do you justify prosecuting him while shielding Pinochet, letting off Mugabe, and so many others. I can't see how the trial could have any legitimacy outside of Iraq. Not that the war & occupation have any legitiamcy either, it's all against international law, so who are they to capture and try Hussein? The media said "they don't know what to do with him." Weren't they looking for him since March? No one thought to come up with a plan for 9 months?
A naive question - has anyone anywhere considered that this might be one of the doubles?
Their existence was "proven" by experts before the war. Everyone agreed, yada, etc. Then, poof! they vanished. No doubles anywhere.
Conspiracies have been spun out of less.
I just emailed Juan Cole this question:
"Wouldn't Ayatollah Sistani have a great interest in an open, fair trial where everything is to come on table as evidence, in difference to Sunni and US Republican interest?
He could only win from that, and on so many levels, or not?"
My point - no matter what the NeoCons and Repugs and Sunni may want to hide - there is one political powerehouse in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, who must have a grave interest in giving Saddam his Herman Goering moment. The more Saddam says, the better for Sistani, right?
Saddam will be tried in Iraq, as he should be. He is not guilty, to my knowledge, of international crimes, in the sense of cross-border jurisdiction, like Hitler.
He oppressed his own people, committed mass murder and human rights violations, and used chemical weapons against rebelling domestic forces.
Of these, the human rights violations would beg for an international tribunal, but it's unclear why the rest is not solely of the jurisdiction of Iraq, and take precedence.
As for chemical bombing the Kurds, keep in mind that other than the use of the chemical weapons themselves, as tactic or weapon, Saddam was putting down a civil war in his sovereign area just as much as we did to the South during the Civil War and the Russians are currently doing in Chechnya.
The Iraqis deserve first shot to try Hussein. Think of it like the Rodney King trial. If he somehow goes free (which he won't), we'll be there to scoop him up and try him before an international tribunal.
As for talk of a military tribunal, it's a ruse. There's no justication for it all.
To reiterate, there is no momentum at all, or justification for, an American military trial of Saddam Hussein. It's a bogus issue.
With that in mind, I doubt anyone (in the Bush Administration) will be foolish enough to suggest it.
i think judge judy would set the record straight. and, after the trial, saddam and bremer could have a catfight outside the courtroom.
the actual proceedings will be more of a kangaroo court, however.
uh David, Reagan didn't put Saddam in power.
freelixir, Bush administration foolish? Surely you jest.
Yes, how could I have forgotten about the Demcratic member of the Bush Administration (my jaw is one the floor...really)...
For, as I state that sanity will prevent even Republicans from getting jiggy with Saddam's fate, I find out that Joe Lieberman is now chief executioner...
"This evil man has to face the death penalty. The international tribunal in the Hague cannot order the death penalty," Lieberman said on NBC television.
"If it can be done by the Iraqi military tribunal, fine. But if it cannot, he should be brought before an American military tribunal and face the death that he has brought to hundreds of thousands of his own people and 460-plus Americans." - AFP
Joe Lieberman is a menace. He should be summarily dismissed from the Democratic Party. Since I know that's not really possible, at least symbolically.
Joe, I pity you. You have no clue. Please drop out of sight.
Thanks,
freelixir
(think of the privileged life Saddam has led of late...why kill him...seems so much more applicable to put him back in another "hole" and let him ponder his fate)
Notice shrub's lack of joy today? The Iraqi people will demand an open trail of the muderous bastard - This bodes poorly for the neocon chickenhawks who propped him up while serving previous repub regimes.
The popular support for this debacle is slipping, despite the momentary boost it gets from capturing Saddam. The cost remain unchanged.
The shrub regime was out bright and early changing the spin cycle this morning. While 2 months ago capturing Saddam was the key to defeating the Iragi insurgents, now we are being told it may have little effect.
Mark my words. If Americans continue to die after the capture of Saddam, the shrub will be facing a very disgruntled American electorate.
Meanwhile, the VOA's ugly twin sister keeps cranking out impartial facts.
Apologies for the non-PC nature of the last post.
The Bush Administration is hedging their bets now. As they should have all along. Wise move. Too bad, for them, and too good, for us, they didn't realize that before the aircraft carrier stunt.
That image alone should be good for 5% of the vote, if handled properly.
sentence first, verdict after
Well, I don't believe that the capture of Saddam will bring any peace. I believe that the Shiite have been waiting for us (the USA) to catch him before they stretch out and claim their majority status. The showdown with the Grand Ayatollah Sistani over elections is already becomimg strained. Already I hear the Iraqi people claimimg the right to try Saddam. No appointed IRC has the legitimacy to try him. The urge for legitimate retribution should put even more pressure onto an Iraq free from the USA.
Frankly, I am surprised the USA took him alive, what with he could say : we sold him the gas used on Iran and the Kurds; we let him massacre the Shiite, etc. I don't trust my current government one bit, but do I expect them to screw up anything and everything. So Saddam alive is par for the course.
The joint should be jumping by July, just in time for our elections. You know that every Iraqi knows about that!
RWC, the new Iraqi government, under the new Iraqi constitution, will try Saddam Hussein. Under the rule of law.
I believe the possible venues in descending order for positive effect on world opinion in this matter are:
1) International Court of Justice (sorry, Joe Lieberman, no death penalty to satisfy your blood lust)
2) Iraq (problematic because there is no government other than the occupation's provisional government unless a constitution and elections happen before the trial)
3) The US (this would serve to polarize the Arab world even further against us)
So, if one agrees what the worst possible venue is (with a probable identical guilty verdict in each) we can guess which one the administration will go for...
And I go for the rare quadruple post! Sorry about that... glad to see you return from your undisclosed location, Billmon...
"sentence first, verdict after
xian Dec 15 03:41 AM
Please, fill us in xian.
Remember, you were thinking "Rule of law" and then, something really wired and tingely happened to you.
When you came back to, xian, what happened next?
Very concerned and curious, yer pal,
Ouch, orthographic newbie immigrant I am: “weird” should have been my snotty choice of words. Mea culpa!
"Tingly" would have fared better in the spelling contest, too!
Tomorrow, I'll stop drinking! Day after, for sure!
(As long, as I stay under quadruple post, I should be fine.....)
And, yea, where did that Lieberman get a free-range licence from anyway? He runs around and blabbers, and Mark Twain had to die? That doesn't seem right!
Let's all hope, Dean employs smart folks, his foreign policy address being due today, and all...
(I'll make it up! Here:)
Greg Palast posits that Saddam surfaced because his old buddy James Baker was just appointed to a role in Iraq: "'Hey, my homeboy Jim owes me big time,' Mr. Hussein stated. He asserted that Baker and the prior Bush regime, 'owe me my back pay. After all I did for these guys you'd think they'd have the decency to pay up.'"
The Iraqi dictator then went on to list the "hits" he conducted on behalf of the Baker-Bush administrations, ending with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, authorized by the former US secretary of state Baker.
Mr. Hussein cited the transcript of his meeting on July 25, 1990 in Baghdad with US Ambassador April Glaspie. When Saddam asked Glaspie if the US would object to an attack on Kuwait over the small emirate's theft of Iraqi oil, America's Ambassador told him, "We have no opinion... Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction... that Kuwait is not associated with America."
Glaspie, in Congressional testimony in 1991, did not deny the authenticity of the recording of her meeting with Saddam, which world diplomats took as US acquiescence to an Iraqi invasion
"sentence first, verdict after"
xian Dec 15 03:41 AM
Please, fill us in xian.
Remember, you were thinking "Rule of law" and then, something really wired and tingely happened to you.
When you came back to, xian, what happened next?
Very concerned and curious, yer pal,
Posted by Werner Dieter Thomas, Vancouver, BC, Canada at December 15, 2003 05:09 AM
I think it is obvious, we had painted the roses red!
"I think it is obvious, we had painted the roses red!"
link doesn't work
I'll be surprised if a trial for Saddam proves to be an embarrassment for the US, because I expect that a combination of the US government, the Iraqi governing council, and most of our mainstream press will do a fairly successful job downplaying the friendly relations the US had with Saddam throughout the years when he was murdering people. The NYT has been running some great stories about the sordid role the US played in setting up dictatorships in Guatemala and Iran in the early 50's--based on that schedule you can expect similar honesty about US/Iraq relations sometime in the middle of the current century. The NYT might even admit that the US deliberately destroyed Iraq's civilian infrastructure in the First Gulf War and intended the sanctions to hurt the civilian population. If I'm still alive, I'll clip or download that story.
And it's not as if people don't know about the old alliance with Saddam, but the polite Orwellian way to deal with it is to make a passing reference and then move on, or better yet, to ignore it altogether as old news, a regrettable policy that used to be followed by some guys in the past (what was the name of that American who shook Saddam's hand--Rums-something?). Just not relevant anymore. Let's get back to talking about all those people Saddam killed.
What another trial! No Saddam has to wait, the oder of TV 24/7/365 trials is already set for 2004:
Rpbert Blake
Scott Peterson
Kobe Bryant
Michael Jackson
And that old rock producer guy.
Nope, don't see how we can sqeeze him in. Its GITMO has an opening.
i agree- remember his trial will be in a different language than English! So that will help reduce the replays on TV and the interest of American public.
Another interesting thing to remember is that didn't the Iraqi Governing Council just recently finish completing it's work on the guidelines for tribunals and war crimes? The timing and nature of this capture is certainly interesting. I am not a big tin foil hat person, it's just now I don't trust anything that Bushco says or does based on the multiple lies, deceptions and actions it is has taken in order to pursue it's agenda. Common sense tells me that the Iraqi's and an international court should handle this, but common sense is something that Bushco does not possess.
...bold off...?
aha, wasn't bold but anchor... try this...
Once upon a time I used to trust western institutions...there is not actually any reason to trust people as such anywhere but I used to believe that west world as a leading force in a development of this civilization managed to make strong independent institutions to guard what was achieved through bloody history...WRONG...that was a dream of my youth that went down the toilet practically a minute I started to live in a "western" world...
I don't know about Saddam...everything smell fishy and will even more I suspect...This is kind of game that we will not be allowed to understand but it will not matter at the time...people will move on as someone said...it will be an old news...like Milosevic is today.
Does anybody care about what's happening in Hague today? Don't think so...
Tonight there was a short news on SBS here in Australia that W. Clark is going to Hague tonight to participate in Milosevic's trial...What ever he has to say ( and that's a lot I suppose) public are not allowed to know. His testimony will not be open for public and even as unprecedented practice some parts of his testimony will never be available to the public eye for obvious reasons...
Truth...what do we know about it...Law…what a joke…
It's all razzle - dazzle...always have been...
We are actually as a civilization quickly approaching the era of total chaos and lawlessness...
What a nightmare for some of us naive enough to believe in human race...
I give up. The broken link "painted the roses red" has no closing anchor tag, but the posting input filter won't let anyone close it. Only Billmon can repair this thread now.
And that old rock producer guy.
My goodness DC you're dating yourself as "young". Phil Specter. The Wall of Sound. Mr. Major Weirdo Genius.
Hey DC... Paul Simon says: "I've been Phil Spectered, resurrected... I've been Rolling Stoned and Beatled 'til I'm blind. And I've learned the truth from Lenny Bruce. And all of my wealth won't buy me health. So I smoke a pipe of tea a day."
The Jack Ruby question looms large.
"This evil man has to face the death penalty. The international tribunal in the Hague cannot order the death penalty," Lieberman said on NBC television.
I wonder exactly which judicial institution at the Hague Lieberman was thinking of.
Perhaps he meant the International Criminal Court, which cannot prosecute crimes committed before it was established.
Or perhaps he was thinking of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which, as its name suggests, is concerned exclusively with events in the former Yugoslavia between 1992 and 1995.
Lastly, there's the International Court of Justice, which rules on disputes between sovereign states.
Then, of course, he could be referring to a "Hague-type" tribunal with an inconvenient preoccupation with the niceties of international law...
DING! Donald Johnson is our winner.
Regardless of venue, verdict or sentence, it would be an act of the purest optimism to suppose that the US role in any of Saddam's many crimes will be put under any bright light.
But since there is no way for us as Americans, left or right, to avoid thinking of the impact on American society and politics, let's dig into this.
When I was a boy (it was in the 70's), I heard of a thing called a "show trial." I was given to understand that this was a terrible thing, imposed by our enemies, the Soviet Communists, on their internal political prisoners. Such "trials" would, I understood, be a mockery of justice. Their purpose was to demonstrate the absolute power of the regime and to act thereby as a deterrent to any other dissenters. The term "show trial" itself illustrated the point -- there was not to be a real trial, only a show, a demonstration.
This was the perfidy of our enemies.
In my youth, I did not consider the possibilty that the "victim" of such a trial (and I naively saw only the accused as the victim) could in fact be guilty of something terrible indeed.
Nevertheless, this idea of "show trial" was quite formative for my character, my perception of justice and my understanding of what an enemy is.
I had not then heard yet of Nuremberg. What I have learned in the intervening years has led me to the sad conclusion that Nuremberg was also a "show trial."
The claim of Nuremberg was that high moral principles were involved, which apply to ourselves as well as to our official enemies. I have yet to see that rhetorical stance take practical form, and I have come to never expect it. The current moral position of many Americans is, to my mind, so debased that we may speak of "victor's justice" and indeed, do so without embarrassment when we are the victors.
So, barring assassination (which everyone seems to be considering as a possibility or liklihood), or escape, there will now be some form of judicial action taken against Saddam Hussein.
I put it to you that to allow this to become a "show trial" will prove to be a grave mistake for America. I now see what I didn't in youth -- that the victim of the "show trial" is also the audience.
Some have raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein could "cop a plea" before his judges to mitigate his sentence -- providing only testimony that the judges want to hear in exchange for his life. There are of course other ugly scenarios.
A world audience, outraged already by America's illegal war, will be unlikely to view such a show with the same relish that Americans may.
I doubt very much that this will redound to our ultimate benefit.
xymphora suggests today that Saddam is like a gun held to the head of the neo-conservatives in the administration.
I've listened to the Voice of America on shortwave radio for about 25 years. I have friends who work there. I can tell you that the news side of the station does not take direction from the political side. There have been fights over the years about this, but the news side has always prevailed and maintained its committment to impartial reporting.
There is an editorial side to the VOA that is given a few minutes every hour to explain US government policy. These editorials are always identified as representing US government policy, in contrast to the rest of the programming on the station. This part of VOA does take direction from the State Department, and these editorials can be described as coming directly from the government.
There has long been dissatisfaction among newsies at the VOA that the existence of the editorial section of VOA provides an opening for VOA opponents to tar the entire station with the label of being irredeemiably infused with political influence. But the people I know on the news side tell me it isn't so, and I've heard nothing over the years of listening to the station to make me doubt what they tell me.
Joe Lieberman is frothing at the mouth. He apparently had a nervous breakdown around 9/11 and the man has become certifiable. Besides, he would do anything for Israel's benefit, even fight the entire Muslim world, and makes no secret of that. Sometimes, I think Gore would have won by a landslide if Lieberman wasn't tagging along.
Saddam was putting down a civil war in his sovereign area just as much as we did to the South during the Civil War
Thanks freelixer. A lot of people forget that hundreds of thousands were slaughtered to prevent one part of the United States from leaving the other part and forming its own country and alliances. I suppose by the same standards they are using in Iraq, we can consider Gettysburg and the others as mass graves, and cite war prisons such as Andersonville as atrocities, and lay them all at Lincoln's feet and yell for a war crimes tribunal. Makes you wonder how future history will interpret those cemetaries both here and in Iraq.
A lot of people misunderstand the role and purpose of the International Criminal Court, including many of its supporters. It exists to try war crimes and crimes against humanity when the country in which they were committed will not or cannot prosecute them, as an alternative to the ad hoc 'victor's justice' tribunals of the Milosevic variety.
You could make the case that right this minute Iraq is in such a position, with no internationally legitimized legal system, but there's no real rush to try Hussein on anyone's part as long as he's in secure custody, is there? I can't see any argument for trial other than by the Iraqi people, his victims.
there's too much baggage there for him to ever make it to trial. i believe he will end up in the very near future hanging from a bar in his cell, the victim of an apparent suicide. isn't that how rudolf hess went out?
It is true that Joe Lieberman is a neoconservative double agent that has infiltrated the enemy party ... but then again so are 95% of elected Democrats. The buzzer has sounded for America, people. Game Over.
Actually, I suspect it is even worse than that, Drunk. I think that Lieberman is to America what Agent Smith is to the Matrix. The Game is not Over, unfortunately--it has only just begun, and it's going to get uglier with every sequel....
Base on past performances over the past 8 months, the Bushies will find a way to screwup the trial.
I think Rove is already planning how the trial will be run. I heard a local congressman talking on the radio last night (a local right wing show) saying that he expected that Sadam would be brought to trial in about 6 months, and that he expected the trial to last about four months or so. How convenient. My guess is that this will be an Iraqui trial with all testimony about any US deeds relagated to behind closed doors, no transcript available status - (like that of Clark's Kosovo testimony this week) but with witness after witness paraded before the camera to talk about the atrocities Sadam committed. This will be a true show trial and you can count on it being set up for political advantage.
Great press conference.
The man needs a job commiserate with his intellect. He's too nasty to be very successful in retail, however.
Maybee survin turkee?
I think Rove is already planning how the trial will be run. I heard a local congressman talking on the radio last night (a local right wing show) saying that he expected that Sadam would be brought to trial in about 6 months, and that he expected the trial to last about four months or so. How convenient. My guess is that this will be an Iraqui trial with all testimony about any US deeds relagated to behind closed doors, no transcript available status - (like that of Clark's Kosovo testimony this week) but with witness after witness paraded before the camera to talk about the atrocities Sadam committed. This will be a true show trial and you can count on it being set up for political advantage.
He is not guilty, to my knowledge, of international crimes, in the sense of cross-border jurisdiction, like Hitler.
This was way upthread, but I felt it needed a reply. Saddam's invasion of Iran in 1980 was a textbook example of naked, unprovoked aggression. Saddam also initiated chemical warfare against Iran (with a covert assist from the Reagan Administration)-- a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a second example of illegal aggression. While some of the more lurid charges (babies being dumped out of incubators, etc.) appear to have been trumped up by the U.S. propaganda machine, there's no question that Iraqi forces committed a number of real war crimes, like looting, summary reprisals, the forced transport of civilians across international boundaries, etc.
The sanctions imposed on Iraq following the Kuwait War can hardly be considered as personal punishments against Saddam. He remains fully liable for any war crimes committed by his regime -- even if they were not committed on his express orders.
All that said, the United States is not exactly in the strongest position to press the charge of aggressive war against Saddam, having just committed the same crime itself.
Surely the 2004 election will determine Saddam's fate. Bush will want the bogeyman around as long as possible, to wring every last advantage from his triumph. The networks just cannot resist this story, so it will not be truncated prematurely. Handing him over to the Iraqis, who will probably just get on with the job of executing him, will not occur anytime soon.
Adolf Eichmann's capture and execution is the only other modern instance that strikes me as similar to Hussein's miserable end. I agree with others here that say the adminstration is going to milk this one for all the political points it can. I think key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee knew this was about to happen, as they hinted at good news coming some weeks back. The intelligence on the ground was probably getting more refined, and the timing right before the holidays, when news is continually recycled, is curiously convenient.
Noticeably absent is any suggestion by the U.S. adminstration that Saddam be tried by the World Court at the Hague.
Ok, OK, Ok, enough already. Here is the plan for the cable "news" services. No deviations.
We can bump Kobe from the line up with plea bargain, and slot in a Fox News series called "Saddam - Evil On Trial: Operation American Justice Served" (working title until Karl sends over the final) into the June-Oct slot with the verdict and sentencing scheduled in the 2nd week of October. We will do it in Iraq (using Halliburton Legal Services, Inc.) and we can use the time delay to edit it down to a soundbite-of-evil-day to keep things "fresh." Here is the most important part : The OBL "capture" (DOA!) will occur on the final of day of trial before defense closing arguements so we can blend the two character's plotlines seamlessly.
All that said, the United States is not exactly in the strongest position to press the charge of aggressive war against Saddam, having just committed the same crime itself.
That was sort of my point. It would be best to let Iraqis try Hussein for the internal stuff (torture, rape rooms, etc), which he can't really blame on American support of his regime in the past. The problem is, Iraq has no justice system to speak of right now, and the CPA-appointed Iraqi Governing Council is not popular, so this would have to wait until some Iraqis who are representative of the population's interest are elected.
Well, they could indeed have a nice little secluded military trial, or they could, before the trial, accidentally let Saddam fall into the hands of an angry mob who will Ceaucescu (sp?) him on the main square. That way the Iraqis are happy and so is the US Gov, having avoided any sort of embarrassing testimony.
Off topic: When are they going to make a tv movie out of the capture of Saddam?
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
"The Jack Ruby question looms large." RonK
Exactly! If this Meme is talked about loudly enoough, it might not happen.
Thanks, Sloo, for bringing up the 1961 Adolf Eichman trial in Israel for Nazi war crimes. I remember it being televised with translation, Eichman enclosed in a box of bulletproof glass, but I was still a bit young to really want to concentrate on it. I do remember it was done with dignity though. I understand that both PBS and ABC had a two-hour special on it that they showed about five years ago, and mention that full transcripts can be gotten of the trial.
Thanks freelixer. A lot of people forget that hundreds of thousands were slaughtered to prevent one part of the United States from leaving the other part and forming its own country and alliances. I suppose by the same standards they are using in Iraq, we can consider Gettysburg and the others as mass graves, and cite war prisons such as Andersonville as atrocities, and lay them all at Lincoln's feet and yell for a war crimes tribunal. Makes you wonder how future history will interpret those cemetaries both here and in Iraq.
My point really was to distinguish between internal policing and the use of chemical weapons to do so. Otherwise, how different than Chechnya?
Otherwise, I am not questioning the integrity of the American Civil War, or any trying to lay any thought of "war crimes" at its feet.
As for Saddam's illegal agression across borders, Billmon is right to point out I left off Iran. Off the top of my head, I'm not to familiar with the circumstances of that war, but am aware that Saddam used chemical weapons. Thus, this is international tribunal-type stuff (I did acknowledge Kuwait).
Still, the case for crimes committed against Iraqis, and in the jurisdiction of Iraq, far outweigh and outnumber the crimes that would call for an international tribunal. This would be the greatest gift and incentive to Iraqis of all...get that government and constitution in place and try Saddam as the first trial of your new rule of law.
Off the top of my head, I'm not to familiar with the circumstances of that war, but am aware that Saddam used chemical weapons.
Damn I hate not clarifying the first time. What I mean by the "circumstances of that war [with Iran]" is how it begun, who was most responsible, who prolonged it, and so on.
Somehow, I remember that we were involved in the shadows too, and supporting Saddam, so the possibility of war crimes there seems slim (by realpolitik).
The use of chemical weapons against Iran should still rightfully be tried. Saddam should be tried twice perhaps, once in Iraq and then internationally Nuremberg-style.
Sorry Joe, but the death penalty doesn't look to be in order.
Saddam's invasion of Iran in 1980 was a textbook example of naked, unprovoked aggression.
Kinda like Bush's invasion of Iraq, huh? :) Maybe they should both be brought to trial at the saem time.
You can't drive across Baghdad without hearing gunshots. So exactly how do they have a trial where Saddam Hussein is sitting in a dock int the Green Zone.
The security problems would seem to be insurmountable when you think about it.
Steve, there's no rush to try the man. We need time to interrogate him. Hold him as a carrot for the new Iraqi government and Constitution. They get that done, and then they get to try Saddam as the first exercise of their rule of law.
Though I am being swayed a bit by other arguments for international tribunals (by the Human Rights Watch executive director and in today's LA Times editorial page).
Either way, if Iraq is still a security clusterfuck even a few years from now, then Saddam, like Milosevic, will likely have to be tried elsewhere.
When both sides are voluntarily using chemical weapons against each other, it's rather unfair to find one a war criminal and the other innocent. Who got tried after WWI when the Germans lobbed their canisters into the American, British and French trenches, and the American, British and French lobbed canisters into the German trenches? Which side was guilty? You can't hold one to a higher standard than the other. The UN is perfectly clear in their investigation of the Iran/Iraq chemical attacks that both sides used them against each other. Neither side gave a golly Godd*mn.
When both sides are voluntarily using chemical weapons against each other, it's rather unfair to find one a war criminal and the other innocent.
This is outside my expertise (such as it is) but I think the Geneva Conventions give a combatant who has been attacked with chemical weapons the right to respond in kind. All the accounts of the Iran-Iraq War that I've read have stated fairly clearly that Iraq was the first side to use poison gas.
Who got tried after WWI when the Germans lobbed their canisters into the American, British and French trenches, and the American, British and French lobbed canisters into the German trenches?
Use of poison gas wasn't illegal during World War I. The relevant convention was approved after the war -- as a result of the horrors experienced during it.
"we can consider Gettysburg and the others as mass graves, and cite war prisons such as Andersonville as atrocities, and lay them all at Lincoln's feet "
a couple of links for you, cjw
anti-Bush southerners and
deconstructing the Gettysburg Address
irregardless of venue, i don't see how or why the US would allow this man a public forum.
period.
i say he'll likely die in custody before going to trial.
I'm looking forward to an [edited] trancript of the [edited] trial held behind closed doors wherein Saddam gives [edited] details of the whereabouts of all [edited] WMDs and the close working [edited] relationship with Al Qaeda.
Should make for great [edited] reading...