Saddam captured

[Kitsune]

Out of curiosity, how is he going to be put to trial? Since the US withdrew from The Treaty of Rome and pretty much told the World Court to go fuck itself (you know, because we were afraid that the court could be used to try our own people), are we going to bring him stateside for the trial? Despite the fact that this man deserves to be severely beaten, it'd be nice to have some kind of world-recognized trial that is somewhat fair.

[Pie]

Originally posted by juju
My wife's reaction:
"No he didn't. Other people did that."

I think the real problem is that Dubya will not go the international route -- again.

Saddam will be tried in a US military tribunal, found guilty and put to death. All without the benefit of a real trial. "National Security" will be the excuse Rummy will use.

Let's face it, that's how they do it in Texas.

- Pie

PS: I sincerely hope he is tried in The Hague. That's the only thing that might lend some legitimacy to this whole fiasco.

[Undertoad]

A trial is partly intended to determine guilt or innocence and there is no question of that here. For those interested in "fairness" I'm not sure there is a "fair" result possible. The "fair" result would be that he gets chopped up into little pieces and that each piece should be given to various Iraqis for them to stamp on. The role of this trial will be to give the Iraqis a sense of how to administer their own situation IMO. I expect they will rule that Hussein should be chopped up into little pieces and stamped on.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The role of this trial will be to give the Iraqis a sense of how to administer their own situation IMO. I expect they will rule that Hussein should be chopped up into little pieces and stamped on.

I'd actually like to see him toured through the streets of each major Iraqi city, shackled to a post or at least held in a cage with very wide bars.

As for the trial, I think it is somewhat important that the US go the International route just because of the importance of seeming fair and allowing the world to have its say on what happens to a man who very much affected the world. This is not so much for the fairness of Saddam as it would be to improve the image the US has with war crimes trials, etc. Since Bush unsigned us from any involvement with the internaional criminal court in 2002, we don't exactly have a good image with other countries who are trying to bring other people to justice for war crimes.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Pie

PS: I sincerely hope he is tried in The Hague. That's the only thing that might lend some legitimacy to this whole fiasco.

If Milosovic can be tried in the Hague fairly, Hussein can be.

I don't think the bastard DESERVES a fair trial, but if he's going to get one, that's where it will be.

Edit: Now if we could only get Bin Laden.....

[be-bop]

Originally posted by Undertoad
A trial is partly intended to determine guilt or innocence and there is no question of that here. For those interested in "fairness" I'm not sure there is a "fair" result possible. The "fair" result would be that he gets chopped up into little pieces and that each piece should be given to various Iraqis for them to stamp on. The role of this trial will be to give the Iraqis a sense of how to administer their own situation IMO. I expect they will rule that Hussein should be chopped up into little pieces and stamped on.

What and turn the bastard into a martyr that will be card blanche for every muslim headcase to star jihad.
life in jail,in solitary,give him a lot of time to reflect.

[Undertoad]

In order to be in compliance with the ICC we would have had to change the US Constitution to allow a force of international cops to override the first and fourth amendments. At any time the ICC feels it has the right and ability to detain and search and arrest US citizens in the US and take them back to Belgium or where-have-you where they can be tried and jailed. And eight months ago they wanted to try Tommy Franks for war crimes.

Fuck that kind of noise, we like the system we already have.

[elSicomoro]

John McCain mentioned a short time ago on Fox News that he thought that Hussein should be tried by the Iraqis and the UN. That sounds reasonable.

I don't think Hussein could be moved out of Iraq at this point...oh sure, it COULD be done. But I think it would lead to a huge backlash by the Iraqis. And a war crimes tribunal wouldn't have to be in The Hague...the one for Rwanda is being held in Tanzania, for example. So, bring the gang over to Iraq...hell, have it in Saddam's hometown to add further insult to injury.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Undertoad
In order to be in compliance with the ICC we would have had to change the US Constitution to allow internationals to override the first and fourth amendments.

Well, we sure didn't have a problem with allowing an outside system to have the ability to override the US Constitution when we gave in to the deals of the World Trade Organization.

...and you're right -- it is a bad thing that the ICC has the ability to do this. But the problem is that by unsigning ourselves from the treaty, we got a good deal of bad press from it. Immensly bad press.

You ever wonder why so many populations in the world tend to dislike us? Its because, for years, we've claimed that we hate people who violate human rights and commit war crimes. We've gone into countries under the banner that we are going in to stop various criminals and help out people. But, for some reason, we tend to ignore a lot of human rights violators and war criminals. You don't see us marching into Saudi Arabia to free those people from the tyranny of a government that punishes its citizens by removing various body parts and torturing them. We also aren't going there to stop a government that we know funded the terrorists that commited the 9/11 acts. We aren't even going in to North Korea to stop a country that is openly threatening others with nuclear war. We also don't even blink when we do business with a communist Asian country that is violently against free speech. And there sure are a lot of ignored countries in Africa where people are murdered by the thousands when some leader tells one tribe to kill the other with any sharp object they can find.

...but we go into Iraq and claim that its because Saddam is a really nasty guy and is hurting a lot of people. This raises suspicion with the world and its why a lot of people yell that we are doing it for monetary gain and not really for justice. Even worse is that because of our rather shady dealings in the past (Hello? We INSTALLED the man we just captured.) the rest of the world tends to think that we actually do commit war crimes and that we do support violating leaders with money and weapons.

And the unsigning that Bush did in 2002, while it saved us from having citizens detained, appeared as proof to the world that we really are cheating bastards and it underlined the notion that we go where we want to, not because we're out for justice, but because we are greedy.

That's why I think that handling Saddam Internationally instead of locally is a good idea and that it might actually repair some of the damage we've done.

[ThisOleMiss]

One down, one to go!! Bet the 4th ID won't have any trouble getting laid when they get back!!!!

Yeah, we got the bastard, now what do we do to him. The one quote I heard today that I liked came from a Republican congresmen from California, don't ask me who I can't rember his name, or the exact quote, but the gist of it is:

"He's basically bargining for what's going to happen with the rest of his life, and just how long it's going to be."

At least Hitler and his henchman had the good grace to kill themselves. We're going to be stuck with this peice of human garbage for years.

Wonder how many libbies out there would be willing to bond him out. I sometimes think the worse thing we could do to the man would be to sentence him to be chained to Hillary for the rest of his life. Bet suicide would start looking good after a few hours of that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by be-bop


What and turn the bastard into a martyr that will be card blanche for every muslim headcase to star jihad.
life in jail,in solitary,give him a lot of time to reflect.

I'm afraid as long as he's alive those "muslim headcases" will be trying to free him through hijackings and extortion.

Aside-It's a lie. Delayed news. Actually Bush captured Saddam single-handedly, on Thanksgiving day. He's just too modest to take the credit, therefore this elaborate ruse.

[ThisOleMiss]

Uh, since when did the ICC, the World Court, the UN or any other international institution mean jack shit to America? Do they realize that damn near all their funding and what little power they have is because of America? The Europeans were certainly singing an entirely different tune when we were keeping the Russians off their ass. My, but gratitude certainly has a very short half-life.

We got him. We as in Americans. We got him and we're gonna try him and find him guilty because god knows we got enough evidence to convict the bastard on multiple counts of human rights crimes, murder, theft, crimes against humaity, and a host of others. And if the death penalty is enforced, he'll get strapped to a gurney and a nice clean needle, which is a hell of a lot more humane than the way the Husain crew executed their prisoners. Or maybe we should simply let him loose in the public square and let nature take it's course. Either way, Husain is history.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by ThisOleMiss
Uh, since when did the ICC, the World Court, the UN or any other international institution mean jack shit to America?

Last week, when the tariffs on imported steel were dropped by the US after a WTO ruling against them.

I definitely don't think we should have signed onto the ICC, as I think it would have affected our national sovereignty. And let's see how the signatories feel when one of their countrymen is in the crosshairs.

The US needs the rest of the world as much as the rest of the world needs us. Economically, we cannot survive on our own anymore. Historically, we helped start the UN (and for that matter, the League of Nations). And from a humanitarian perspective, we only have this one world. To me, it makes more sense to work with others as much as possible rather than against them.

The UN is by no means perfect...it simply can't be when you have the interests of 200 nations clashing against each other. But it provides a vital forum for countries to air their grievances and to work together as best as possible to take on issues that could affect us all.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by ThisOleMiss
Uh, since when did the ICC, the World Court, the UN or any other international institution mean jack shit to America?

Sure meant a lot to us when weapons inspectors were there and we were screaming that we needed to go into Iraq because they were in violation of UN regulations.

...but then, again, the UN meant nothing to us when they said, "Hey, give us more time. You'll be in violation if you invade Iraq prematurely."

[Undertoad]

That's one perspective. Another perspective is that the UN has almost always failed to address every major world problem, and so if it really is/was a question of the security of the US, solving the problem of national security was easier and more important to do than solving the problem of the UN.

One could argue that it wasn't a problem of national security, but the President AND both houses of Congress agreed that it WAS a problem of national security. On the world scale, the diplomatic scale, it was the position of the US that it WAS a problem of national security.

What do other nations do at that point? We said, basically, "We have a gun pointed at us, and we want the OK to go remove it." An ally of the US would say "We don't like the idea of using force, so we won't help you; but since you think it's a serious problem, we won't stand in your way."

Instead, they basically said "We know about the gun, but we don't think it's loaded. We know you have evidence that it is, but we figure as long as we're looking at the gun it's not going to go off."

Oh yes, and in the back room, the guy with the gun was making outrageous deals with the naysayers... to basically give them the wealth of the country, as long as he controlled it.