KenWE'LL TAKE IT FROM HERE
Saddam Hussein's capture means he could face a trial by a newly created Iraqi tribunal -- and a possible death penalty.
The idea of involving the United Nations and eschewing capital punishment, as advocated by human rights activists and others, has so far found little favor with the United States or Iraq's U.S.-backed Governing Council.
"We want Saddam to get what he deserves," Amar al-Hakim, a senior member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shi'ite party, said on Sunday.
"I believe he will be sentenced to hundreds of death sentences at a fair trial because he's responsible for all the massacres and crimes in Iraq," said Hakim.
Sounds okay to me. But Human Rights Watch is horrified:
Such sentiments are widespread in Iraq, but rights groups say it is vital that any trial aims to achieve justice, not revenge. It must be seen to be independent, impartial and fair.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch group said the Iraqi Governing Council must not mount a political show trial.
"It's important that the Iraqi people feel ownership of (Saddam's) trial," said Kenneth Roth, the group's executive director. "But it's equally important that the trial not be perceived as vengeful justice. For that reason, international jurists must be involved in the process."
This is a complicated business, say some lawyers, and Iraqis just can't handle it on their own:
Some international lawyers question whether Iraq's battered judicial system could handle such weighty processes unaided.
"God knows how long it would take before normal life has resumed in Iraq and they can find competent people (for a tribunal)," said Dutch lawyer Michail Wladimiroff, who was a "friend of the court" appointed to ensure a fair trial for Slobodan Milosevic at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague.
So we really should bring in the UN:
Wladimiroff said the United States should consider involving the United Nations in putting Saddam on trial in a court like the U.N.-backed tribunal in Sierra Leone, which has indicted former Liberian President Charles Taylor.
Such a court would use both local and international judges and lawyers. "Start a mixed tribunal and accept the involvement of the U.N. I do hope they allow others to come in," he said.
Dear Lord, where to begin? I find it savagely ironic that (1) people who claimed that Saddam Hussein was no threat to any other countries now think other countries should have a part in his trial, (2) people who want Iraqis to run their own affairs right now don't want them to run this trial and, (3) people actually think that the UN should try him for the crimes it consistently refused to do anything about.
Submitted by Ken
at 12/14/2003 6:29:35 PM| Joe Leiberman (sp?) was on the radio today calling for Saddam to be brought to the U.S. to get what he deserved - DEATH. IMO, what a megalomania like Saddam should get is 20-30 years of rotting in a prison cell - forgotten. That takes away the glory of martyrdom. Whatever happens, I hope we get all the information we need before it happens. |
Submitted by Brian Carnell
at 12/14/2003 6:43:36 PM| If Saddam were taken to an international tribunal it is likely that the U.S. would be out of Iraq before such a trial were finally concluded -- look at how slow the court trying the cases of those accused of genocide in Rwanda have taken. |
Submitted by Filbert
at 12/14/2003 7:24:42 PM| I've been spluttering in an attempt to say what you said so well and succinctly in your closing paragraph re what you find so ironic (and that the Blogfather also quoted over at Instapundit, bringing me here). I need flounder no longer, for you have said it for me. Congrats and thanks. |
Submitted by Gary Kitts
at 12/14/2003 7:36:48 PM| How long will it take for the mayor of Paris to proclaim Saddam an honored citizen? Seriously, I hope and prefer that justice be sure and certain, rather than too swift. We do not want too many secrets to die with him, particularly those involving Syria and bin Laden. |
Submitted by Ofc. Krupke
at 12/14/2003 7:52:06 PM| Dead on. Still, in a certain cold-hearted way, an international tribunal might be a good thing, because of the discomfort it will cause so many disagreeable people:
1. Holding the trial in Iraq would be an excuse for minimal coverage in Europe. If it were in The Hague, the Europress would be all over it. The more details emerge about what a scumbag he was, and the sweetheart deals the French, Germans, etc. had with him, the more it will favor the US for getting rid of him. There has been a lot of posturing in the EU about human rights. Let's see them put their dreary unified currency where their mouths are. 2. The antiwar left will be in shambles over this. They have long piously maintained that they weren't pro-Saddam, just anti-war. How will it look when they're demonstrating outside his tribunal against the people who brought him there? You know they won't be able to resist. 3. From Bush's political point of view, it will negate the protests of Democrats who will be demanding an international trial. If it works out, Bush can point out that his reputation as a crazed unilateralist is overblown, which it is. If the trial is a disaster, he can point to it as a sign that America can only rely on America for America's security. Still, it would be best for Iraq if the Iraqis try and punish their tormentor themselves. Frankly, in Saddam's case, the record is so blatant that ANY trial, whether it's in Baghdad, The Hague, or Texas, is basically going to be a formality. I mean, is anyone prepared to make the case that he didn't do any of it? |
Submitted by Bill
at 12/14/2003 8:04:07 PM| Those last three sentences would make Strunk and White proud: they cut to the chase. The hagfish at the UN and the whining weasels--old Europe and the NGOs--will do anything to become involved. Let them eat truffles. |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/14/2003 8:18:55 PM| We can only lose by trying Saddam anywhere but The Hague. If we do it ourselves, the naysayers will call it a sham. If we let the Iraqis do it, they'll call it a kangaroo court.
Let the international system handle it and we win regardless of the outcome. We get to parade hundreds of his victims across the world stage, like Nuremberg, providing incontrovertable proof of our moral standing. Even if, through some insane loophole, he got light treatment, the world would consider it a failure of the international system. Plus, it will make them feel good about themselves. What do we gain by doing it ourselves or with our allies? We will likely insure his execution, but do we really care about that? Death is a gift to this piece of garbage in my book. He should live on in daily contemplation of how far he has fallen, crying himself to sleep everynight in his cell, thinking of his psychotic sons death, knowing that he actually owes the US a debt of gratitude for improving his condition from hiding in a filthy hole to his nice clean cage. It means nothing to us; let the babies have thier bottle. |
Submitted by David
at 12/14/2003 8:56:01 PM| I don't know Doug. I wouldn't put it past the Hague, the EU and the ICC to determine that Saddam was the victim here and demand that the UN put him back in power in Iraq. |
Submitted by Shae
at 12/14/2003 9:03:28 PM| Doug -
Try Saddam for crimes against Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia & the USA (mistreatment of POWs) at the Hague, with the condition that afterwards he can be tried for crimes internal to Iraq by the Iraqis. That way we can have our cake & eat it too. |
Submitted by charles austin
at 12/14/2003 9:13:19 PM| When you hobnob with goblins, they will subsist on your small mind. Or something like that. |
Submitted by Peter C.
at 12/14/2003 9:38:45 PM| I think the French are afraid Saddam will start talking, so they want to control the trial. |
Submitted by Marianne
at 12/14/2003 9:53:55 PM| The suggestion that the Iraqis are incapable of conducting a fair trial and serving justice to Saddam Hussein stems from the same condescending notion that they can't govern themselves. They will prove the doubters wrong. We need no unsolicited weasel wisdom on this. There is nothing magical about The Hague, and the ICC is a dubious venue for anything. The Iraqi people deserve their day in court and first shot(s) at Saddam. |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/14/2003 9:59:48 PM| Shae: Sounds fair to me.
Peter C.: I think the French would prefer if Saddam had an "accident" long before trial. Marianne: You are right, of course. But the trial will not be about reality, it will be about perception. |
Submitted by Allen Lewis
at 12/14/2003 11:19:59 PM| Seems to me the same people who wanted us out and the locals to run things were hoping that Saddam would escape. Now that he's been captured they are all alather to "let the UN handle it." As Chris so pithily pointed out, when has the UN enforced ANY of its resolutions when it came to Iraq?
Maybe it would be a good idea to have a "trial" at the Hague, with the stipulation that the Iraqis get to try him afterwards for crimes committed in and on the people of Iraq as Shae suggested earlier. |
Submitted by Peter C.
at 12/15/2003 12:05:11 AMI wonder what the penalties are for gassing unarmed civilians under sharia? Of course, if they're Christians, I'm sure the sharia court would say, «Crime? What crime?» |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/15/2003 12:13:02 AM| people actually think that the UN should try him for the crimes it consistently refused to do anything about
Consistently hepled him perpetuate, actually. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/15/2003 12:15:03 AM| 'helped', I mean. (Can't type this early in the morning. It's 6 AM here in Blightey.)
Any international court with an ounce of integrity should indict the Weasles for aiding and abetting Saddam in his crimes. |
Submitted by TM Lutas
at 12/15/2003 1:27:41 AM| First of all, if Saddam goes to the EU for trial good luck getting him back without a military extraction. They don't give prisoners over to any jurisdiction with the death penalty. This makes any sort of multi-trial scenario pretty hard to work out.
Secondly, I find it petty and wrongheaded to make claims that the tribunal set up last week is not capable of handling the situation. This sets up a horrible precedent that international justice trumps local justice even absent any strong evidence that the local judicial system is incapable or unwilling to render justice. Iraqis should feel insulted. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/15/2003 3:21:02 AM| Spot on, TN Lutas. The Iraqis should indeed feel insulted because they are being patronized by the Weasles, as ever.
Justice is "an eye for an eye, a life for a life" - the punishment fitting the crime. There can be no equal scales in this case because Saddam tortured and killed thousands of positive, craetive and productive people, so taking his very destructive, less-than-worthless life doesn't come close to balancing the scales. Nevertheless, only the Iraqis are capable of actually bringing even a semblance of justice to the Butcher of Baghdad. Let them do their best and let the racist, arrogant Weasles shut their ignorant mouths and keep their unsolicited advice and opinions to themselves. Bush can point out that his reputation as a crazed unilateralist is overblown, which it is. (a) True, but the left and its lemmings haven't listened to reason yet, so don't hold your breath for them to concede to that, and (b) We haven't acted unilaterally (The UK, Spain, Italy, Australia, and Japan should feel insulted!) but who cares what those who make unilateralism a sin think? I say we should just do more of it and tell those who don't like it to lump it. Besides, every one of the sniveling Weasles would act unilaterally themselves, if they had any power. Just look how they've treated the freedom-loving countries of Eastern Europe who want to join their so-called European Union and who want to spoil their socialist Weasle empire! Maybe we should offer the Poles, et. al. statehood as an alternative to the EU. That would really gall the Gauls! |
Submitted by Katherine
at 12/15/2003 8:13:38 AM| Congratulations, Chris, on being quoted by Instapundit. You got it exactly right.
I'm astonished, especially considering your usual readership, at the number of comments in favor of an international trial, or leaning that way. His crimes were committed in Iraq and neighboring areas. Simple justice calls for trial, and punishment, to be in his country and according to their traditions. This business of "the international community" claiming jurisdiction over anything, anywhere, is dangerous. I even think the trend for Americans to sue, in US courts, for offenses committed in foreign countries, is dangerous. We don't have, and don't want, jurisdiction over the whole world. The left accuses Bush of being "imperial," but really, the creation of an international court with self-defined jurisdiction everywhere is judicial imperialism in the extreme. |
Submitted by Ofc. Krupke
at 12/15/2003 10:07:12 AM| J. Scott:
>(a) True, but the left and its lemmings haven't listened >to reason yet, so don't hold your breath for them to >concede to that, and I hear you, but I'm not concerned about winning over the far left. I'm thinking about the otherwise reasonable people who have bought even partially into this myth that we ignore our allies. As you point out, it's a lie; all the more reason to correct the misimpression. You're right that the loony left will continue to rant. Bush could heal terminal cancer by laying on of hands, and the left would sneer about "the uninsured." It will just make them look even more ridiculous than they do now. |
Submitted by Bill from Texas
at 12/15/2003 10:55:21 AM| I suggest a King Solomon approach. Cut him in two and let the U.N. vote on which protocol should supercede. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/15/2003 11:49:37 AM| I'm thinking about the otherwise reasonable people who have bought even partially into this myth that we ignore our allies. As you point out, it's a lie; all the more reason to correct the misimpression.
I hear you, too, but I'd just take it a step further and also make the effort to correct the impression that France and Germany are our allies. They are the worst kind of enemies to have: ones who pose as friends! |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/15/2003 1:15:49 PM| Surely those who support only having a trial in Iraq can recognize that the IGC does not have enough legitimacy to hold an untainted trial in the eyes of the world and the Arab street. If a trial were to be held in Iraq, it would be better to wait until after democratic elections to form a permenant government to avoid the appearance of a sham trial. Those who would prosecute Saddam in a trial at this point would not be democratic representatives of the Iraqi people.
Going to war was an important enough objective to override international opinion over, but trying Saddam just isnt worth the effort. Why rush or force the issue? |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/15/2003 2:42:00 PM| This trial is a mere formality and 'the world' and the 'Arab Street' know it.
If by 'the world' you mean the Weasles, they will seek to discredit any trial they're not involved in. But who cares? |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/15/2003 3:14:50 PM| Look, we need to win the propaganda war. We conclusively disproved the myth that we are weak. Now lets disprove the myth that we are arrogant by letting someone else take the meaningless trial with the predetermined outcome. If you just want to rub it in the weasels face, I can appreciate that, I just dont see what benefit it provides us. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/15/2003 9:27:37 PM| I just dont see what benefit it provides us.
How will caving to the demands of the Weasles benefit us? How will it help "disprove the myth that we are weak?" ISTM it will do the opposite. "Rubbing their noses in it" benefits us by sending the Weasles and their ilk the clear message that we don't need them and they've chosen the wrong side, that opposing us in our fight against terrorism and tyranny is foolhardy. I think too many people are buying the myth that we will someehow benefit from making nice to enemies like France and Germany who are de facto pro-terrorist and pro-tyranny. |
Submitted by Andrea Harris
at 12/15/2003 10:09:32 PM| What's wrong with being arrogant, Doug? And by "arrogant," I mean the definition that has been cooked up by the internationalists: thinking we have a right to defend ourselves againsts terrorists and their sponsors, thinking we have a right to fix any of the problems in the world (including those we may have had a hand in starting, even if unintentionally and with the best will in the world; see, the disastrous results of many of our past campaigns in the world are supposed to remain in force, despite the misery of the people under them, because Teaching America a Lesson is more important than saving Third World peasants from a tyrranical government). And anyway, having a few fascists here and there provides the all-important ingredients of diversity and excitement to the world that is so important to the jaded Eur-- I mean, civilized palate. I mean, imagine -- Americans are even worse than the British were in the days of Empire: at least they had the monarchy and the pomp and the stuff; we just want to turn the whole world into (shudder) the Midwest!
[end satire] |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/16/2003 12:21:27 AM| J. Scott:
It is a simple cost-benefit analysis: we gain nothing from trying Saddam ourselves, save perhaps losing the opportunity to execute him. We dont really GAIN anything by letting the ICJ have him either, but it would help out Tony Blair and Aznar and every other leader who bucked his nation's public opinion to help us. They deserve a reward more than we need to execute Saddam. At work, would you prefer to work for the boss who respects you and asks your opinion, even though he makes the ultimate decision, or would you rather work for the guy who tells you to "do it because I told you to"? Some people, like some countries, need to be kicked in the butt to get in line, but others simply need to be treated with some respect in order to do what they are supposed to. Treating someone with respect doesn't mean you are "caving in", it means you aren't a jerk. The United States is this planet's boss, everyone knows it. Some people convinced themselves that might not be the case, but we showed them they were wrong when we "fired" Iraq. Now we need to motivate some reluctant employees. Being a good boss means knowing how to motivate different personalities, not just yelling at people. (Forgive the painfully extended analogy. I had some more like about France being the old guy who was passed over for manager a bunch of times and thinks he should be the boss, but it was a bit much, I thought.) |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/16/2003 12:24:24 AM| Andrea:
By your definition of arrogant, nothing is wrong with it. But I was speaking of the showing-off variety. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/16/2003 6:19:14 AM| Interesting analogy, Doug but I don't think it really makes a connection with reality. IMO, you underestimate their arrogance.
The pompous Franco-German patronizers don't see the US as their boss but as an unruly and impolite adolescent whom they must find a way to curb and control. They don't value our respect because they think we're beneath contempt. If you think they'll become less anti-American if we're nicer to them, I invite you to come and live here in Europe for a few years and get to them! Treating them with respect, protecting them with our military, and shedding our blood for them is what has got us to the current place with them. They hate us partly because they have no real power and partly because they owe us so much. For a taste of their extreme and irremediable brainwashing and arrogance, read some of the articles and archives at Merde in France: http://merdeinfrance.blogspot.com/ |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/16/2003 6:20:04 AM| Correction:
I invite you to come and live here in Europe for a few years and get to know them! |
Submitted by Bret
at 12/16/2003 6:39:22 AM| If it hadn't been for the Nazis, but had been some less evil and vile group leading Germany in the 1940s, we, the Canadians, and the Brits would have saved ourselves a lot of lives, money and trouble to have let the French and the Germans alone on the continent. If the Germans (non-Nazi version) had beaten the French in 1940, then we should have left the two of them to alone, the French and Germans deserve each other like a mutually abusive and dysfunctional couple. If these two are our "friends", then I hope we may soon be freed from such "friends." |
Submitted by Katherine
at 12/16/2003 8:15:23 AM| The point of the invasion of Iraq was that a tyrant made a cease-fire agreement, and then broke it continuously for twelve years. He was thumbing his nose at the US, Britain, the UN, and civilized standards of national behavior in general. What we need to do, and have gone a long way towards doing, is to convince other tyrannies in the area (and elsewhere) that they defy civilized standards at their peril. Saddam must be given over to justice among the people he ruled. To send him off to some kind of international court would be letting him off the hook, and would encourage Assad, the Iranians, Saudis, Kim, etc., to think they can get away with it after all.
By all means, we can hold him in US hands until a new government is solidly in place in Iraq, and then turn him over. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/16/2003 8:20:51 AM| we can hold him in US hands until a new government is solidly in place in Iraq, and then turn him over.
That appears to be exactly what the President is saying he's going to do. In the meantime, we will milk as much intel out of the valiant Arab leader as we can. That's what I call a cost/benefit ratio! No point in wasting political assets on trying to please the Frankenreich or Coffee Anus and his band of tyrants at the not-United Nations. |
Submitted by Ed the Roman
at 12/16/2003 8:26:51 AM| One advantage to NOT heavily internationalizing the trial is reemphasizing to our friends that there are consequences to trying to subvert our policy. Their complaints can be easily dismissed on the grounds that had their advice been followed there would be no trial at all, similar to Hamid Karzai's retort that 'American influence is the only reason that there is an Afghan Provisional Government in the first place' to those who complained of excessive American influence. |
Submitted by J. Scott
at 12/16/2003 9:05:06 AM| reemphasizing to our friends that there are consequences to trying to subvert our policy.
Friends? The meme that the Euro-peon cronies are our friends dies hard. With such friends, we don't need enemies. |
Submitted by Katherine
at 12/16/2003 9:25:47 AM| Thanks, J. Scott. Precisely!
What we have is a developing Alliance of Free Democracies. These countries have representative elected governments and reasonably free-market economic systems. If France, Germany, and Russia wish at some time to reform themselves and join this new alliance, they are encouraged to do so. Arab countries and Asian countries are being encouraged to do likewise. The old post-WWII alliances and structures are no longer useful. In many cases, like the UN as it presently operates, they are counterproductive. |
Submitted by Ed the Roman
at 12/16/2003 9:47:42 AM| NATO is not actively counterproductive, yet.
One of the problems of becoming an enemy of the US is that historically it usually requires a fundamental change in one's system of government to correct it, and I don't want to imply that France and Germany need that. Yet. |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/16/2003 11:11:44 AM| Waiting until their is a true representative government in Iraq and then turning Saddam over to them for trail is perfectly reasonable.
I dont advocate the ICJ route in order to appeal to France and Germany, who are lost causes (well, France anyway, Germany may come to its senses), but to the countries who listen to their point of view. What do they call a leader without any followers? Just a guy taking a walk.` |
Submitted by Doug
at 12/16/2003 11:25:33 AM| Katharine:
"letting him off the hook"? They just hauled the guy out of a hole in the ground that he has been hiding in for 9 months! He put up much less of a fight than the average drunk on COPS. He is on TV right now looking like a guy a gave a quarter to yesterday, getting handled by the US military like he is at the local free clinic. No matter what happens to him, at best he will spend the rest of his life pacing an area 5 feet by 8 feet. You call that "letting him of the hook"? Do you think those two-bit dictators are more frightened of some trial or being humiliated in front of the world on international television by the very country they hate the most? At least half those guys look forward to death, what with all the virgins they think are waiting for them on the other side. I can think of no greater punishment than exactly what happened to him. Last night Letterman said that even Micheal Jackson put up more of a fight than Saddam Hussien. Good one. |
Submitted by Katherine
at 12/16/2003 5:19:41 PM| Some of these folks aren't talking about a 5 x 8 cell and solitary. They're talking about a relatively comfortable confinement, or even about an exile -- think Idi Amin.
The most important thing is how it looks to Arabs in the area. Execution is the appropriate punishment, and it should be administered. By Iraqis. |
Submitted by wolfgang
at 4/6/2004 10:01:45 PM| Thanks for being one of those folks who dragged us into Iraq. Beautiful. Wonderful. So, what's the exit strategy?
Please, please, in the future, don't be so utterly stupid & cavalier about how you advocate we use our military. The troops are not toys, to be deployed willy nilly every time Wolfowitz gets a bright idea. |
Submitted by Nair
at 6/16/2004 2:18:03 PM| Dictators and their cronies gets thrown out, spends a few years in comfort in Jail and them tries to come back to political arena under the guise of democrazy. Idi Amin certaily didnt get punished, Ershad in bangladesh made a come back.
I mean Saddam did have some supportors, whose coffers he filled. They will regroup again once we have left. Maybe Saddam himself wont make a comeback, but his sons or wife herself?? remember Imelda Markos? Mussolini's daughter? Kabila's son in Congo still? Once a few years have passed and people have forgotten, he would surely spent his days in comfort (unless they hang him, which i doubt ;) ) |
How 'bout this for an answer: Put Saddam in a cell with Jack Kevorkian......