When the Democrat takes the WH in Nov., should we return Sadaam?

[INTELBYTES]

Since the war was illegal to begin with, and no WMD's were found, should the democrat that takes office in January of 2005, release Sadaam and return him back to Iraq. Although he is a murderous dictator, we illegally removed him from his country. Although I think he should face judgment for his crimes to humanity, I believe that it should be done within the framework of the U.N.

[WatchWhatISay]

1. Turn him over to the Intl Criminal Court

To prove that we are NOT a bloodthirsty and vengeful country.

[INTELBYTES]

4. I agree in away...

but do we have a right to be holding him in the first place? If not, we shouldn't turn him over to anyone, but guarantee his safety back to Iraq. That isn't the position I'm taking, but for the sake of argument if we wanted to do what is legal after getting bush out of office, wouldn't the U.S. look more legitimate if they correct their wrong?

[LeahMira]

38. Yes! Is that "other"?

I'd like to see the U.S. turn him over to the U.N. for trial. I think that in that way he would have a better chance to speak his piece and while I don't think it will do him much good, it certainly might flush some other skunks out of their holes.

[INTELBYTES]

41. Wern't they disbanded? I thought Brussells did away with the ICC.

[sadiesworld]

2. W should be the next President of Iraq.

[Dr.Phool]

3. I thought he already was.

[sadiesworld]

5. True, but perhaps he should reside there

and bring them democracy firsthand. Nah, we've done enough damage.

[INTELBYTES]

47. I think they would ask for Sadaam back if they had a choice...

between him and W.

[INTELBYTES]

6. For those voted to keep him in custody...

Doesn't that validate us going to war to begin with? If we should not have gone into Iraq anyway, how can we justify keeping their "elected" leader?

[anti-NAFTA]

7. How can we, indeed.

He was their leader and kept his foot on religious extremists, who are our enemy in the war against terrorism.

[PretzelWarrior]

20. think: if Saddam was in our custody through ANY means...

we should see that he is tried for his crimes. get real, people. while we're at it: try Bush for his war crimes as well. Have a double header at the Hague.

[maggrwaggr]

24. because he's not the "rightful" leader of anything

he's an old CIA operative and a dictator who took power by murdering people.

I don't think anyone ever thought an Saddam-free Iraq was a bad idea. The question was should we go to WAR against a country that was NOT A THREAT to us.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. I totally agree

Hussein had no legitimacy as a representative of Iraq, and the only reason he lasted as long as he did is with help from the United States, Russia, France, and Germany.

[Womblestuffer]

39. No likey saddam

very bad man

[mobuto]

45. Huh?

No. Saddam is one of the most evil men alive. His capture is the only good thing about the invasion of Iraq, the only positive side to what was otherwise a pandora's box of evils.

[tom_paine]

8. This is one hell of an interesting point you raise

Certainly I am torn. I cannot countenance returning Saddam to his throne...illegal war or not.

Saddam should be tried for his crimes.

And Bush should be in the next dock...and also tried for Crimes Against Humanity.

[Rainbowreflect]

9. I say keep him locked up. Maybe he can share his cell with

bush & company.

[historian]

10. saddam

Let him have an open trial with a good defense lawyer who can then ask him questions about bush and his dealings with saddam. That should set many a h air on end

[ulysses]

11. I voted "other"

I'm torn between releasing him for trial back to the Iraqis once a stable government is in place (should it ever be) and trying him in the Hague.

[INTELBYTES]

14. I think he needs to be tried but I don't have any faith in the Hague.

Too many chiefs and not enough indians there. Nothing has been determined about Molosevic yet. He's been there awhile. I wouldn't send Sadaam to the Hague.

[ulysses]

21. I'd rather it be more true than speedy.

The international tribunal is certainly less than perfect, but I don't see another option unless a strong, and accountable, court system is established quickly in Iraq. We can't try him here.

[PragMantisT]

12. Have him share a cell at Leavenworth w/* n/t

[ComerPerro]

13. Lets just focus on trying to prevent the inevitable civil war

That will be breaking out sometime soon.


Oh and BTW: Yes, try Saddam.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. I'd rather have him as a material witness or whatever. . .

to testify against Bush and Co. when their sorry asses go to court on high treason charges.

:kick:

[maggrwaggr]

16. one of the most asinine questions I've heard on DU

you can't be serious.

Is this bait?

I say put Saddam on a public trial and let him tell the truth about how Rumsfeld, Reagan, Cheney and the rest of them used to kiss his ass and give him whatever he wanted.

That's what I want to see.

[Fescue4u]

17. Id rather see Rumsfield/Cheney/Bush on trial

And have Saddam as a witness.

We don't need to try a man to elicit testimony.

[maggrwaggr]

22. yes, I'd like to see that, too

May they all rot in jail together. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Osama bin Laden, Perle ....

(who am I leaviing out?)

Kissinger! Of course!

[INTELBYTES]

30. How do you figure it to be an asinine question?

Or is it just to hard of a question for you to answer? Either you believe it was an illegal war and his capture thus so was illegal or you think it was a just war and his capture was just.

By your reasoning, we could illegally snag any dictator, and as long as we "already have him" we may as well try him.

Bait? It's a political discussion. Isn't that why your on the board to begin with? To have "bait" you have to be expecting to catch something.

[Fescue4u]

18. Like it or not, Saddam is the rightful ruler of Iraq

And we illegally deposed him and look at the mess it has caused.

Unfortunately for the Iraqis, life under Bush has been far worse than life under Saddam

[maggrwaggr]

23. define "rightful"

I don't think dictators who obtain their rule by murdering, and then proceed to rule by fear of death and torture can be called "rightful".

[Wonk]

25. Does being installed and supported by the CIA for decades count?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4685

(snip)

"As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein....

"According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures." (Roger Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, March 14, 2003, p. A29.)


(snip)

From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)

At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.)
 
more...

[TexasMexican]

26. Yeah Right...

So if Saddam is the "rightful" ruler of Iraq, does that mean if Bush steals the next election that he is also the "rightful" ruler of America?

[2004Donkeys]

29. But his mass rapes weren't illegal!!!

God damnit

[mobuto]

46. How is Saddam the rightful ruler of Iraq?

He illegally deposed his own predecessor.

[LWolf]

19. How about we turn him over to the

newly, independently, openly, elected Iraqi government and let them decide?

[GRClarkesq]

35. ICC not a court of first resort

Iraq should get a shot at him.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Literally

I find it disgusting that numerous people have voted to return him to power.

Oy.

[DiverDave]

27. War Criminal

He should be sent to the Hague and tried for Genocide,Murder, and crimes against humanity.

He should hang for his crimes, but life without parole is O.K. too.

We need to become citizens of the world again.

[2004Donkeys]

28. The Democrat is NOT going to take the WH with dumbass polls like this.

JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST

[INTELBYTES]

31. I noticed you took the time to look and respond.

Thanks for your participation 2004Donkeys! :eyes:

[RapidCreek]

32. MAKE HIM AND BUSH CELLMATES!

RC

[htuttle]

33. All the kings horses, and all the kings men...

...Can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

No way to turn back the clock. Iraq today is not the same Iraq as existed March 19, 2003.

It's too late to undo what was done, illegally or not. Restitution and reliance on international legal rulings is probably the best course at this point.

[Heyo]

34. What I wanna know is...

why would anyone in their right mind vote to put him back in power?

Jeez, that is one twisted vewipoint there.

Heyo

[htuttle]

37. Nobody is saying he should be put back in power

That's just coming from a bunch of trolls trying to put words in our mouths.

[mikehiggins]

36. As if Saddam will survive a Bush defeat

The last thing BushCo wants is to have their Iraqi canary singing songs of all the Halliburton deals, or where he got the chemical weapons he used against Iran and the Kurds, or all the connections with BushCo over the decades or why he felt safe in invading Kuwait.

He's a dead man walking if BushCo loses this election and he knows it.

But who can he blow the whistle to now that he's safely in BushCo's hands?

[INTELBYTES]

40. kick

[mobuto]

44. Is this a joke?

The war was wrong. But Saddam is still a genocidist and a war criminal. Put him on trial for the world to see, then send him to the moon.