Saddam Convicted

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Saddam, half brother sentenced to death

BrianIs AtYou

[vison]

Quel surprise.

I still think it's a shame the soldiers who found Saddam didn't just kill the vile brute right then. But they stayed their hands. "Pity"? Not likely.

Too bad, though. Think of the trouble it would have saved.

I think, myself, that the "capture" of Saddam was orchestrated, that the trial and verdict are part of the Bush administration's "plan" and that it has backfired and will continue to backfire to their discredit.

Eventually.

Maybe not quick enough.


So, how is this farce supposed to help the Republicans on Tuesday? I asked this same question elsewhere, but so far, no replies.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, astonishing.

My guess would be that the Bush administration intends this verdict to suddenly convince everyone that things are going brilliantly in Iraq and that Bush has struck a blow of vengeance for 9/11 (many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein helped orchestrate that attack).

My further guess is that neither of those points will convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in Bush's camp, and so it will have little effect on Tuesday's election.

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m a bit suspicious of the death penalty in this case – I’m concerned that it will create a martyr. OTOH, should certain factions take power in Iraq, he would not stay in jail forever, so this may be the only real option.

What this does show to me is the superiority of national courts over the international justice system – this has all been very swift. From now on, I think all dictators should be tried by their own people. I never really hated Saddam (not that I ever liked him or anything, I just had no emotional reaction to him), but I did hate Milosevic, and I felt cheated when he died in his cell at the Hague.

[Jnyusa]

Iavas was asking this question on B77 too, whether the sentencing was orchestrated so as to affect the Tuesday elections. My own feeling is that this was unlikely. Not that I take the administration at their word that they had nothing to do with the timing, but that an early conviction and sentencing is a double-edged sword. If the sentence causes violence to erupt in Iraq it will hurt the Republicans on Tuesday, imo, because too many Americans are already disillusioned by the war and any inability to control mob violence would further convince them that we are doing things the wrong way in Iraq.

Jn

[axordil]

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the obvious: they tried him on the counts related to anything but the gassing of the Kurds first, and in Iraq rather than the Hague, so that the fact that he bought the stuff to make the gas and the knowledge of how to do it FROM THE U.S. never gets out. That, and we could guarantee a conviction and an execution in Baghdad. You know, a fair trial and a good hangin'.

The guy is a scumbag. But as long as he was OUR scumbag, he could off any number of his own people and we didn't care. If he had toed the American party line, he would have died in his sleep, no matter how many Kurds and Shi'a died.

[Parmamaite]

I agree with Axordil.

[Jnyusa]

Well, the trial for crimes against humanity convened as soon as the other one finished. What I heard on the news last night though, it sounded as if both trials are taking place in Iraq.

Jn

[axordil]

Jny--

Right. They both have to take place in Iraq, since the US doesn't recognize the ICC, and neither Russia nor China would sign off on creating a special UN tribunal for our little adventure...not that we would want one. But if the appeals process runs on the expected schedule, the second trial, currently underway, will be interrupted by the execution of the condemned dependents.

[Jnyusa]

I do think it's important that the trial take place in any event. The families of the victims do benefit psychologically from having their story told and this can do a lot to mitigate the potential for violence within a society.

Jn

[axordil]

A trial makes for better theater, yes, and the sense of theatrical catharsis is definitely lacking in Iraq, which has gone off script for a couple of years now.

There's really no doubt that he's guilty of heinous acts. But I can't quite call what's going on due process...and if it can't be guaranteed for the worst among us, it can't be guaranteed for anyone. It's very difficult in a situation where you are trying a deposed head of state for it not to reek of victor's justice, even if the guy was a louse.

[Jnyusa]

That was basically the situation in Nuremburg as well. What Nazi would have been tried if Germany had won the war and ruled all of Europe?

When will the US be called to task for its acts of terrorism in dozens of countries around the world?

As asymmetric as the outcome is, there are only two alternatives: Utopia, where all are tried, which aint' gonna happen in my lifetime; Dystopia, where none are tried, and I sure hope that doesn't happen in my lifetime.

Jn

[Túrin Turambar]

Is it possible that great power invariably causes harm? IOW, is there a single recent U.S. President that would not be convicted and gaoled for something before a perfectly procedurally correct court? Naturally, what Saddam did went far beyond that, I’m just wondering if there would need to be a certain ‘tolerance’ in a utopian system to prevent countries, especially global powers, gaoling their former heads of government en masse.

[axordil]

Nuremburg, for all its issues, at least had some broad international support. But then, so did the war it followed.

I guess the ultimate question is which model of jurisprudence one follows--the Anglo-American trial of an accused, or the French inquest for the truth of a matter. Both have their pros and cons. In this case, though, I would vote for truth first and the gibbet later.