Saddam & International Law (that we don't follow)

[rucky]

Bush fans and armchair warriors can hoot & holler all they want now that the bogeyman has been captured. Let 'em, because soon they'll be asking themselves the question of what the hell do to with Saddam now that we have him in custody.

The options as I've seen em so far:

1) Take him to gitmo & try him here. That's already been ruled out. The fact that it has already been ruled out simply underlines the fact that Saddam was not a threat to America. What could we try him for in our courts? Terrorism? There's no link. They know that, we know that. Maybe 70% of Americans will be puzzled when we don't parade Saddam's head up & down the streets of New York.

2) Try him in International court: Well, Bush better get a lawyer, then. he's thumbed his nose at international law, denounced Geneva & the Hague, and called the UN irrevelant. He has the same problem he's had with the international community. The photos of the medical exam and the Geneva references made today lead me to believe that this is still an option they're considering. Shows an obvious double-standard, but it would be a typical nervy PNAC maneuver.

3) Try him in Iraq. The most likely scenario except for one problem. With what laws? Saddam's? Under which court? Are there even courts in Iraq? If it's under Bremer's Iraq, then what's the difference between that & taking him to Gitmo? All attention will be on Iraq's infrastructure. The pressure will be on * more than ever to get that system running.

No matter what the scenario is, we will not be able to convict Saddam for any of the prewar accusations we've made about him. What he gets convicted for will be the legacy of this war. Anything he doesn't even get accused of will just give us more proof to the lies that got us into this imperial pickle in the first place.

The only case they have (oil) is the humanitarian case... Which leaves us with the same questions: Why the lies? Why the urgency? And why did we fail to make that case to the UN, and many Americans who may never have opposed a war that was fought for the right reasons?

[Silverhair]

1. Let the Iraqis try him. And the legal decisions and legal forum

and legal procedures should be theirs to decide.

[rucky]

2. Ideally, yes. But I don't see it happening

with control freak CEO colonists in charge.

This is the PNAC mistake that will at least cancel out the Saddam capture - if not bite them on the ass.

To paraphrase Kenny Rogers: The best thing they could hope for is for Saddam to die in his sleep.

[Silverhair]

3. Actually, I see exactly that happening. Where is it written that

CEOs are stupid? Although that does seem to be the prevailing opinion for many here. CEOs are bound to know the PR value of the Iraqis trying him and then executing him. The arrangements for a show trial by the Iraqis should not be too hard to make.

[rucky]

4. The pattern has been:

unilateral attack on Iraq
unilateral control of Iraq

maybe we'll put on a show to give the appearance, but we'd never give up control on something this big. another empty gesture to the Iraqis. We're going to be there for years.

I think we're arguing and agreeing at the same time.

[Silverhair]

6. Yes, I would agree.

Sometimes for the sake of brevity, I tend to use a verbal shorthand without realizing it and it sometimes causes misunderstandings. I am afraid I did that this time. When I talked about an Iraqi trial, I negleted to state that we would be pulling the strings from behind. I left that as an unspoken assumption, as a given.
My OOPS. Naturally, in such a trial, as the Red Queen says, "Punishment first, then verdict." or something to that effect.

[Gore1FL]

5. I'd rather see it in the Hauge

that way when Bush admin officials show up to testify, they will be easier to arrest and put on trial.

Really a time saver.