French, Germans on Saddam Tribunal?

[Ed]

I am not sure whether a tribunal should be solely Iraqi or International. But, if it is international, should France and their fellow travelers participate? I vote yes since Saddam is in no position to bribe them. The difficulty is that the sensitive europeans think that the death penalty is barbaric and I believe that the Iraqi's have no such refined scruples. So, they might be torn between recognizing cultural diversity and their own higher sense of what is right. Perhaps, if the French do participate, we could get a nice patronizing lecture frome the Elysee Palace.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed, your trolling isn't quite up to Godliness standards. It's a fair attempt in general, sure, but I expect better of God. Heck, you didn't even mention Tundra Mammoths.

[American]

Ed votes yes. We'll pass that up the command structure.

[aerocontrols]

Amnesty (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141812003) has concerns about the recently established tribunal. Concerns which become all the more relevant now.

For instance:

We are particularly concerned that the Iraqi Penal Code provides for the death penalty for crimes under the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Because after all, if he is dead, how will he be able to run for president again? (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1001290.htm)

Realistically, Saddam's refusal to fight back during his capture may have significantly hurt his re-election chances, however.

[Supercharts]

After being de-briefed at Gitmo for 6-9 months I'd like the Iraqi people to put him on trial. It would serve as a basis for a real legal system.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ed, your trolling isn't quite up to Godliness standards. It's a fair attempt in general, sure, but I expect better of God. Heck, you didn't even mention Tundra Mammoths.


Listen, I'm in constant battle with Tundra Mammoths(tm). They evidentially crossed that ice bridge from Denmark that you have also been keeping secret. I have a suspicion that 9/11 was related to the emerging Tundra Mammoth infestation but it has, alas, been covered up.

Seriously, every post that begs a response is a troll, by definition. Just because the current one is sarcastic does not in any way diminish the seriousness of the question. A basic issue is whether Iraqi precident trumps european sensibilities. A side question, which is very sarcastic, is how the EU will patronize the Iraqis.

While I would have no problem with global representation (provided, naturally, that China, Japan and other countries that have the DP are included) I sort of think that a pure Iraqi deal would be for the best. A pan-arab tribunal would be interesting for it's innate hypocracy if nothing else. I do sorta think that he should be offed for the sake of closure, if nothing else. This notwithstanding my opposition to capitol punishment.

[Ed]

All of that said, if he ends up in retirement in France or Saudi Arabia I will be pretty pissed.

[Skeptic]

If Europe's treatment of other fallen dictators (Mobuto, Amin, etc.) is any indication, the EU's idea of punishment for Saddam is no TV for a week, and then retirement in the French riviera to enjoy the billions he stole and put in Swiss bank accounts.

After all, all he did is kill a few million people; no reason to use the "barbaric" death penalty or "violate his human rights" in an Iraqi prison.

[hammegk]

I have a strong "feeling" Saddam will never leave Iraq, and suspect he will soon wish he had eaten a bullet, or at least gone out guns blazing.

2cts.

[TruthSeeker]

On CNN right now, Saddam is being described as "disoriented".


If this persists (and he does look "out of it" on the clips of his medical exam), can he be tried?

I apologize if this is a stupid question. I know next to nothing about these types of legal issues

[Chad Noles]

hammegk wrote:I have a strong "feeling" Saddam will never leave Iraq,

According to a CBS report,Saddam has already left Iraq (probably on a military transport of some kind).

I guess we will get more on this later,wish I had a link,but alas......

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Chad Noles
hammegk wrote:

According to a CBS report,Saddam has already left Iraq (probably on a military transport of some kind).

I guess we will get more on this later,wish I had a link,but alas......


On CNN they said he had been taken "south"

[Ed]

In giving it some thought, he will never be hung.

We will trade his life for info, particularly WMDs. Look for him to be locked up in the Hague somewhere.

If he had (doubtful) any connection to 9/11, look for a Federal lockup over here.

[Chad Noles]

nothing much new here,but a link at least......http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

[Reginald]

And just to think. All those months ago, had he simply said "I have no WMD....anyone who wants to look, can come and look" and we would have sent in numerous inspectors and he would have carried on killing his own people, his son's would still be having families shot because their attractive daughter wouldn't have sex with them. Parents would still be paying for the paperwork after having seen their husbands and sons shot in front of them.....

..All that would have been "acceptable", simply because he said "ok come and look".

Unfortunately the primary voices in that course of action were the French, the Germans and the Russians.

He should be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis.......just Iraqis.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
On CNN right now, Saddam is being described as "disoriented".


If this persists (and he does look "out of it" on the clips of his medical exam), can he be tried?

I apologize if this is a stupid question. I know next to nothing about these types of legal issues

Actually, if he was tried in Texas he'd get the death penalty no matter what his mental state.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Actually, if he was tried in Texas he'd get the death penalty no matter what his mental state.

Everybody's crazy in Texas ;)

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Ed
I am not sure whether a tribunal should be solely Iraqi or International. But, if it is international, should France and their fellow travelers participate? I vote yes since Saddam is in no position to bribe them. The difficulty is that the sensitive europeans think that the death penalty is barbaric and I believe that the Iraqi's have no such refined scruples. So, they might be torn between recognizing cultural diversity and their own higher sense of what is right. Perhaps, if the French do participate, we could get a nice patronizing lecture frome the Elysee Palace.

I think that Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Hans Blix should be tried in seperate courts. :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Actually, if he was tried in Texas he'd get the death penalty no matter what his mental state.

I hear four Salvation Army Santas have been convicted and executed there for loitering since Thankgiving:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Reginald
He should be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis.......just Iraqis.

Which Iraqis? Should Kurds be included, for example? If so, isn't the bias an issue? If not, isn't nonrepresentation an issue?

People are acting like "Iraqis" are one fairly homogeneous culture, and that just ain't the case. This is a big reason why American and European policies about Iraq have failed miserably since the British created it.

[Chaos]

What should happen...

- a fair trial, with ALL parts of his reign publicly investigated, including the times when the US supported him - let all the dirty deals become public!
- all assets confiscated (as far as they aren´t already)
- life in prison with no special treatment (like luxuries), but isolated from other prisoners

Under NO circumstances should he be executed or risked being killed by other prisoners - as might happen if he has contact with other Iraqis. A dead Saddam might be a martyr, a living Saddam is detention: "Look at him: we will NOT make you a martyr; we will make you spend a long, miserable life in prison."

[Ed]

Originally posted by Chaos
What should happen...

- a fair trial, with ALL parts of his reign publicly investigated, including the times when the US supported him - let all the dirty deals become public!


What exactly are you trying him for? It sounds like you would be happy if his trial became an inditement of the US. Why would his relationship with the US (or Germany or France or Russia who you left out thru oversight, doubtless) be germane to crimes against humanity?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Chaos
What should happen...

- a fair trial, with ALL parts of his reign publicly investigated, including the times when the US supported him - let all the dirty deals become public!
- all assets confiscated (as far as they aren´t already)
- life in prison with no special treatment (like luxuries), but isolated from other prisoners

Under NO circumstances should he be executed or risked being killed by other prisoners - as might happen if he has contact with other Iraqis. A dead Saddam might be a martyr, a living Saddam is detention: "Look at him: we will NOT make you a martyr; we will make you spend a long, miserable life in prison."

I am curious why you singled out US support -- and no, I'm not denying it nor is it any secret -- many countries had dealings with him, most notably France. Heck if I were Saddam I'd be making all kinds of accusation about every country.

[American]

Originally posted by Reginald

He should be tried in Iraq, by Iraqis.......just Iraqis.


The man with the red nose and antlers is right.

(You look SILLY, Reginald. Please be more presentable if you wish to be taken seriously...)

[geni]

Originally posted by Chaos
What should happen...

- a fair trial, with ALL parts of his reign publicly investigated, including the times when the US supported him - let all the dirty deals become public!


You going for the death penalty by old age? I we go through all his crimes the man will be dead before we get halfway.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Supercharts


Actually, if he was tried in Texas he'd get the death penalty no matter what his mental state.

That's because you can still be judged by a jury of your peers if you're crazy in Texas.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by American



The man with the red nose and antlers is right.

(You look SILLY, Reginald. Please be more presentable if you wish to be taken seriously...)

Seconded. I can imagine the debriefings:

US interrogator: "Okay, Saddam, where are the WMD's buried?"

French, German & Russian interrogators: "Okay, Saddam, where is the MONEY buried?"

[Skeptic]

a fair trial, with ALL parts of his reign publicly investigated, including the times when the US supported him - let all the dirty deals become public!

Yeah! SCREW those millions of dead on his consciousness--the REAL PURPOSE of the trial must be to show how it's ALL THE US'S FAULT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[espritch]

My only opinion on all this is that we definitely need to let the Iraqis be the ones to try him. After all, they were the ones who did the vast majority of the suffering.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by shanek


Which Iraqis? Should Kurds be included, for example? If so, isn't the bias an issue? If not, isn't nonrepresentation an issue?

People are acting like "Iraqis" are one fairly homogeneous culture, and that just ain't the case. This is a big reason why American and European policies about Iraq have failed miserably since the British created it.

Yes, as broad a spectrum of "Iraqis" as possible should be selected. It's not an easy job, picking a group of people for a thing like this will never be an easy job. It would have to include those who could be biased against, those who could be biased for and those who are ambivalent (though tricky to work out who).

It will be the job of the prosecutors to convince people that he has carried out the acts that they claim he has (and IMO has). However, the difference between taking someone 'round the back of the hut and putting a bullet in them and trying as far as possible to provide a fair trial is IMO a mark of type of thing that I think the war was all about.

[Chaos]

@several posters:

As with all crimes, it is not only the perpetrator himself who can and should be punished. It is also those who aided and abetted him - in this case, even until AFTER the much-cited gassing of the kurds.

Saddam has done enough for ANY sentence. But the world, especially the Iraqi population, will be very interested in who willfully ignored all this, and who even helped him. Do they know yet that Donald "Saddam Buster" Rumsfeld was - judging from the photographs - once big buddies with Saddam? Do they know how much their liberators cooperated with Saddam in the Eighties?
By the way - does the American public know that? Perhaps, if they do, there will be a little more of an outcry next time their government cozies up with a "friendly" dictator.

For your interest: I singled out US support because
- the US are the country that most loudly clamor about freedom and democracy and all that neat stuff, while cooperating with the worst kinds of tyrants
- the US are currently taking the credit for removing Saddam, so they should confess to supporting him for so long
- the US provided the most important part of his support

[dsm]

Originally posted by Supercharts
After being de-briefed at Gitmo for 6-9 months I'd like the Iraqi people to put him on trial. It would serve as a basis for a real legal system.

Actually, a 6-9 month secret debriefing (at Gitmo or anywhere) would probably do a lot to further anti-US sentiment in the region. There would be questions about what is being done to him and is he being made to say things that aren't true.

On the other hand, turning him over to the Iraqis too quickly might lead to a Lee Harvey Oswald-like exit (ie. gunned down before any trial). That wouldn't be very satisfying for a war that has cost so much. And that could be spun into giving Saddam martyr status.

Finally, giving Saddam a voice at a trial might be what he wants as it would allow him to use anti-US inflammatory rhetoric which might further sow the seeds of problems in the Middle East.

Hmmm. :(

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Chaos
@several posters:

As with all crimes, it is not only the perpetrator himself who can and should be punished. It is also those who aided and abetted him - in this case, even until AFTER the much-cited gassing of the kurds.

Saddam has done enough for ANY sentence. But the world, especially the Iraqi population, will be very interested in who willfully ignored all this, and who even helped him. Do they know yet that Donald "Saddam Buster" Rumsfeld was - judging from the photographs - once big buddies with Saddam? Do they know how much their liberators cooperated with Saddam in the Eighties?
By the way - does the American public know that? Perhaps, if they do, there will be a little more of an outcry next time their government cozies up with a "friendly" dictator.

For your interest: I singled out US support because
- the US are the country that most loudly clamor about freedom and democracy and all that neat stuff, while cooperating with the worst kinds of tyrants
- the US are currently taking the credit for removing Saddam, so they should confess to supporting him for so long
- the US provided the most important part of his support

The US, GB et al are guilty of supporting Sadam in the past. However as I have said before on this forum, having had dealings with Saddam does not disqualify the US, Uk from changing their policy towards him. We did change our policy, from wrong to right IMO. In the same way that guns in themselves don't kill people, support does not always kill people. If Saddam had been of a different outlook, then the whole thing would have been different. Bad call to support him in the first place? Yes. Bad call to try and get rid of him at this time? Not in my opinion, no.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Chaos

By the way - does the American public know that? Perhaps, if they do, there will be a little more of an outcry next time their government cozies up with a "friendly" dictator.

For your interest: I singled out US support because
- the US are the country that most loudly clamor about freedom and democracy and all that neat stuff, while cooperating with the worst kinds of tyrants
- the US are currently taking the credit for removing Saddam, so they should confess to supporting him for so long
- the US provided the most important part of his support

Of course we know that. Do you know that a dozen other countries did the same, because he was waging war with Iran, a dangerously fundamentalist state at the time (and only slightly less so now)?

To address your bullets one at a time:

1. We supported a secular tyrant against a tyrannically orthodox religious enemy. It's called the lesser of two evils.

2. The US has nothing to confess for. Our previous support is well documented and well known, especially in comparison to others who dealt with Saddam... such as France and Russia.

3. How do you determine the "most important part of his support" was supplied by the US? It wasn't by total dollars, that's for sure. I believe Denmark supplied more than we did, IIRC.

Also, did you also know that Reagan did not offer any support until the year after Iraq declared war on Iran?

I'm quite tired of this "The US created Saddam" charade. It's untrue, unfair and plain uninteresting. Let there be full disclosure from Saddam - I, as an American, would welcome it. Besides, it's not like WE built him a nuke reactor.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jocko


It's called the lesser of two evils.


And Bush II apparently agrees with the neocons; the lesser of two evils is also evil.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Which Iraqis? Should Kurds be included, for example? If so, isn't the bias an issue? If not, isn't nonrepresentation an issue?

People are acting like "Iraqis" are one fairly homogeneous culture, and that just ain't the case. This is a big reason why American and European policies about Iraq have failed miserably since the British created it.

:rolleyes:

The Kurds would be witnesses for the prosecution.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos
[B
- the US provided the most important part of his support [/B]

Actually not true.

The lion's share of his armament came from two countries: Soviet Union/Russia and France.

Witness Saddam's forces using T-72 and old T-65 tanks for his army and the number of Russian military advisors, etc.

Also, his air force was made up of MIGS and French MIRAGES.

I think the US was about 1 percent which was about the same as Denmark and some other countries.

(That is from a study which I will try to find a link from a Sweedish based organization.)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Actually not true.

The lion's share of his armament came from two countries: Soviet Union/Russia and France.

Witness Saddam's forces using T-72 and old T-65 tanks for his army and the number of Russian military advisors, etc.

Also, his air force was made up of MIGS and French MIRAGES.

I think the US was about 1 percent which was about the same as Denmark and some other countries.

(That is from a study which I will try to find a link from a Sweedish based organization.)

Do you really think facts will alter his beliefs?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
:rolleyes:

The Kurds would be witnesses for the prosecution.

Really? Every single Kurd will be called as a witness? How long will this trial last??? :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Really? Every single Kurd will be called as a witness? How long will this trial last??? :rolleyes:

I see. And do you want every single Kurd on the judge's bench?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Actually not true.

The lion's share of his armament came from two countries: Soviet Union/Russia and France.

Whatever the truth is, let it all come out at trial. This is no time for any country to cover its own ass. If we really believe in our principles, we'll let all that information out in the open at the trial.

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek


Really? Every single Kurd will be called as a witness? How long will this trial last??? :rolleyes:

Well assuming that we cover all his crimes about 200 years

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek


Whatever the truth is, let it all come out at trial. This is no time for any country to cover its own ass. If we really believe in our principles, we'll let all that information out in the open at the trial.

You are correct.

I was merely reacting to a statement that is often taken as a given:

"The US armed Saddam..."

I think people like to repeat this because it is a nice slogan, but I don't think the facts bear this out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I see. And do you want every single Kurd on the judge's bench?

No; I'm just asking if Kurds should have a representation. But your rolleyes-thingy strongly said that they shouldn't be on the bench because they'd be witnesses.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


Whatever the truth is, let it all come out at trial. This is no time for any country to cover its own ass. If we really believe in our principles, we'll let all that information out in the open at the trial.

I ask again, what is he being tried for? If it is murder of his population what relevance does the US have? A trial is not an investigation into all activities ever of the accused, unless they are germane.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


No; I'm just asking if Kurds should have a representation. But your rolleyes-thingy strongly said that they shouldn't be on the bench because they'd be witnesses.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be on the bench. What I am saying is that they will be represented. It doesn't matter so much if it is on the bench since they will certainly be represented by the witnesses.

That is the thing with tyrants. Their crimes are so great, it is impossible to have every victim, or family members of every victim, speak.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by espritch
My only opinion on all this is that we definitely need to let the Iraqis be the ones to try him. After all, they were the ones who did the vast majority of the suffering.

Wouldn't that be rather counter-productive, since trials are supposed to be more or less objective?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Wouldn't that be rather counter-productive, since trials are supposed to be more or less objective?

Ok, ok. We try him first THEN we hang him.

Stickler:D

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Ed


Ok, ok. We try him first THEN we hang him.

Stickler:D

Well, yes :)

[Mike B.]

BTW,

Does it make Saddam less guilty if he can show he bought weapons from countries all over the world?

:confused:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Well, yes :)

Justice triumphs.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mike B.
BTW,

Does it make Saddam less guilty if he can show he bought weapons from countries all over the world?

:confused:

No, and it does not diminish his culpability a whit.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
I ask again, what is he being tried for?

Well, that seems to be the relevant question, doesn't it? If it's for all his crimes as ruler of Iraq, then all that information is very relevant.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, that seems to be the relevant question, doesn't it? If it's for all his crimes as ruler of Iraq, then all that information is very relevant.

HIS crimes. Are you suggesting he bought weapons illegally?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Gosh It appears no one here really know's history, and if they do they put some kind of revisionist, vis-a-vis slant on it.
Saddam was a creation of the American....no that not quite right, he was his and circumstances own creation , but was nurtured and fed by ST.Ronald, like some kind of vile beast ( which he turned out to be. ). This was a continuation that was Americas war by proxy effort, with a new twist , the focus of the snarling dog was not the Soviet Union , but the fundamentalist radical regime in Iran.

You remember some of the friends we nurtured don't you? Great Democrats like Pinochet, Norieaga, Marcos, Freedom fighters like the fundamentalist Islamisists who would soon become Taliban and OSB's Al-Quida, Anastasio Somoza, ( this one was a good one , a 2 parter, American backed despot overthrown, commie -Orteaga, paid for insurgency, many years of war , lotsa peasants and nuns and priests killed and the Americaniestas win again ! yeah! ) meanwhile back in Iraq......
The US in the '80's while maintaining diplomatic neutrality in the Iran Iraq war that Saddam stared on the peripheral peripheral understanding that the US or NATO others would not interfere ( now remember this point for later ref. ) , gave ,GAVE Saddam, Intelligencr info, CBW warfare info and explicit dynamic instructions as to thier use, read that last one again , it will come in useful in the WMD debacle,including precursor chemicals and active anthrax cultures and we sold him machine tools that could be used for weps, and relaxed export controls , SPECIFICALLY designed to give him computer modeling hardware and software systems for weps programs
The guy gasses Iranian troops .We knew it .......We supplied the info...........We supplied precursor chemicals.
The Guy gasses his own people...""............""............"".................................................. ...............................................""
So on a fine day in April ( how ironic )we send April Gillespie, Ms. Gillespie's position , one that was explicitly stated to her by George I, was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Saddam seeing that and seeing the help he got from the US in the IR/IQ war, sez to himself by Allah let's go!
The bottom line is WE ( well St.Ronald and c. ) made this evil and the fact that we overthrow him and captured him is just, not independently just like our interssion in WWI and II , nut the price we must pay for the political oversights of our leaders AND our complicity by embracing them.
The observations and tenor of the remarks of certain people on this thread is something one could have heard in '72 from Archie Bunker or any half drunk steel worker on a Friday night in reference to Vietnam, it ignores history but conveys a sense of the depth of the poster.

[Troll]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Gosh It appears no one here really know's history, and if they do they put some kind of revisionist, vis-a-vis slant on it.
Saddam was a creation of the American....no that not quite right, he was his and circumstances own creation , but was nurtured and fed by ST.Ronald, like some kind of vile beast ( which he turned out to be. ). This was a continuation that was Americas war by proxy effort, with a new twist , the focus of the snarling dog was not the Soviet Union , but the fundamentalist radical regime in Iran.

You remember some of the friends we nurtured don't you? Great Democrats like Pinochet, Norieaga, Marcos, Freedom fighters like the fundamentalist Islamisists who would soon become Taliban and OSB's Al-Quida, Anastasio Somoza, ( this one was a good one , a 2 parter, American backed despot overthrown, commie -Orteaga, paid for insurgency, many years of war , lotsa peasants and nuns and priests killed and the Americaniestas win again ! yeah! ) meanwhile back in Iraq......
The US in the '80's while maintaining diplomatic neutrality in the Iran Iraq war that Saddam stared on the peripheral peripheral understanding that the US or NATO others would not interfere ( now remember this point for later ref. ) , gave ,GAVE Saddam, Intelligencr info, CBW warfare info and explicit dynamic instructions as to thier use, read that last one again , it will come in useful in the WMD debacle,including precursor chemicals and active anthrax cultures and we sold him machine tools that could be used for weps, and relaxed export controls , SPECIFICALLY designed to give him computer modeling hardware and software systems for weps programs
The guy gasses Iranian troops .We knew it .......We supplied the info...........We supplied precursor chemicals.
The Guy gasses his own people...""............""............"".................................................. ...............................................""
So on a fine day in April ( how ironic )we send April Gillespie, Ms. Gillespie's position , one that was explicitly stated to her by George I, was that the United States did not interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations. Saddam seeing that and seeing the help he got from the US in the IR/IQ war, sez to himself by Allah let's go!
The bottom line is WE ( well St.Ronald and c. ) made this evil and the fact that we overthrow him and captured him is just, not independently just like our interssion in WWI and II , nut the price we must pay for the political oversights of our leaders AND our complicity by embracing them.
The observations and tenor of the remarks of certain people on this thread is something one could have heard in '72 from Archie Bunker or any half drunk steel worker on a Friday night in reference to Vietnam, it ignores history but conveys a sense of the depth of the poster.

I think in several threads now everybody has already agreed that we created him. we also acknoweldged the creation of others and hope that we learned that the enemy of our enemy may soon be ours. I was in the Marines when Ronnie backed the guy agaisnt Iran, I was in the Marines when we went and removed him from Kuwait. Hell, Washington and Jefferson weren't against slavery, but Lincoln took over and things changed. Get over it

[espritch]

We embraced Communist Russia in our fight against the Nazis. We embraced Islamic fundamentalists in our fight against Communist Russia. We embraced Saddam in our fight against Islamic fundamentalists. Sooner or later you’d think we would learn that you don’t go to bed with someone you don’t want to wake up next to.

Unfortunately, when you suggest this sort of thing, people accuse you of being an liberal idealist. Of course, considering the endless cycles of crap that pragmatism yields, I’m not sure idealism is really such a bad thing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
HIS crimes. Are you suggesting he bought weapons illegally?

No. Are you suggesting that they should not examine how he obtained the weapons?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shanek


Really? Every single Kurd will be called as a witness? How long will this trial last??? :rolleyes:

I have a feeling that Saddam will be tried in Iraq, using legal protocols set up by the UN. This trial will be a life sentence in and of itself. The testimonies will be played on all the major news channels at regular intervals. The horrors of 30 years of rule by Saddam will be laid out for all to see. The testimonies will go on and on and on.

My guess is that; politically, the capture of Saddam makes the whole WMD/No WMD thing into a minor background issue now. Oh, there will still be those ranting on and on about it, but no one will be listening. It's just not news anymore, and there is no Senate investigation into the matter. It could matter again if there is a Senate investigation, but I really doubt that there is any (legally binding) proof that Bush deliberately and willfully lied to start a war, so there will not be any such investigation.

How we handle the rebuilding of Iraq from here on out and if we can get control of security in Iraq will now become the dominating factors of the media blitz and the coming election with regards to the Iraq war.

Who do you think is more upset by the news of Saddam's capture? Howard Dean or Jacques Chirac?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by hammegk

And Bush II apparently agrees with the neocons; the lesser of two evils is also evil.

That may be the case; however, not choosing one "evil" will often put you in the uncomfortable position of it choosing you.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
By the way - does the American public know that? Perhaps, if they do, there will be a little more of an outcry next time their government cozies up with a "friendly" dictator.

Yes, we all know that, if for no other reason than every five milliseconds someone says to us "Do you know that?"

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Troll


I think in several threads now everybody has already agreed that we created him. we also acknoweldged the creation of others and hope that we learned that the enemy of our enemy may soon be ours. I was in the Marines when Ronnie backed the guy agaisnt Iran, I was in the Marines when we went and removed him from Kuwait. Hell, Washington and Jefferson weren't against slavery, but Lincoln took over and things changed. Get over it

The USA didn´t just decide that yesterday´s tyrant/terrorist ally was now an enemy. They backed them right until they turned on them or their allies.

Don´t you think it is time you LEARNED something of that? How many times do you want that to repeat itself? How many people do you want to get killed by attacks from former allies? If you go to bed with dogs, you will wake up with fleas, and if you go to bet with "allied" tyrants and terrorists, you will wake up with bombs - and can´t except any sympathy for that.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Chaos
What should happen...

- a fair trial, with ALL parts of his reign publicly investigated, including the times when the US supported him - let all the dirty deals become public!
- all assets confiscated (as far as they aren´t already)
- life in prison with no special treatment (like luxuries), but isolated from other prisoners

Under NO circumstances should he be executed or risked being killed by other prisoners - as might happen if he has contact with other Iraqis. A dead Saddam might be a martyr, a living Saddam is detention: "Look at him: we will NOT make you a martyr; we will make you spend a long, miserable life in prison."

What really should happen is that IDIOTS who have been railing against everything the US has done in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have been screaming for our withdrawal should JUST SHUT THE HELL UP!

If it were up to you, Chaos, and others like you...Saddam would still be living in tacky Las Vegas splendor, murdering his people and generally scareing the UN into gridlock.

Just do us all a favor....admit you were wrong,...have been wrong all along. Only then should we allow your particiapation.

NOTE TO ALL LEFTIES.....if you've been crying for the US to cease it's "cruel war for oil(tm)" you are not allowed to tell us what we should do with Saddam.

-z

Sic Semper Tyrannis

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Gosh It appears no one here really know's history, and if they do they put some kind of revisionist, vis-a-vis slant on it.
Saddam was a creation of the American....no that not quite right, he was his and circumstances own creation , but was nurtured and fed by ST.Ronald, like some kind of vile beast ( which he turned out to be. ).

Speaking of slanting things, let's not just gloss over the acts of St. Jimmy. He did encourage Saddam to start his war with Iran, after all. And while we're at it, let's keep in mind that nearly the entire world backed the Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war. And that while the US said little about Saddam's atrocities in the 1980s, the rest of the world was silent as well.

Since we're trying to avoid slanting history, that is.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jocko


That may be the case; however, not choosing one "evil" will often put you in the uncomfortable position of it choosing you.

Perhaps you don't understand that the neocon ideal is the US triumphant over the world. Who is going to choose?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Whatever the truth is, let it all come out at trial. This is no time for any country to cover its own ass. If we really believe in our principles, we'll let all that information out in the open at the trial.

If we really believe in our principles, the media will also accurately report everything. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Luke T.]

There seems to be an impression around some circles that we sold the chemical weapons to Hussein that he used against Iranians and Kurds. I have not seen anything yet to convince me of that. I think it has gone from rumor to fact without any evidence. So what is the real deal?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Luke T.
There seems to be an impression around some circles that we sold the chemical weapons to Hussein that he used against Iranians and Kurds. I have not seen anything yet to convince me of that. I think it has gone from rumor to fact without any evidence. So what is the real deal?

From the evidence I've seen, he got his chemical weapons equipment and material from the Germans, mostly.

The French sold him his nuclear power plant.

The US sold or gave him biological agents.

MattJ

[Troll]

Originally posted by Chaos


The USA didn´t just decide that yesterday´s tyrant/terrorist ally was now an enemy. They backed them right until they turned on them or their allies.

Don´t you think it is time you LEARNED something of that? How many times do you want that to repeat itself? How many people do you want to get killed by attacks from former allies? If you go to bed with dogs, you will wake up with fleas, and if you go to bet with "allied" tyrants and terrorists, you will wake up with bombs - and can´t except any sympathy for that.

What was all that above? An attempt at a jab at the US? I already stated that I hope we learned by now that the enemy of our enemy may soon be our own. So your question was answered before you asked it.

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:Listen, I'm in constant battle with Tundra Mammoths(tm). They evidentially crossed that ice bridge from Denmark that you have also been keeping secret. I have a suspicion that 9/11 was related to the emerging Tundra Mammoth infestation but it has, alas, been covered up.Although I hate to brag, you have to admit that it does take a certain skill to cover up rampant attacks by our Tundra Mammoths. Our partners in crime, the Illuminati, are quite good.
Seriously, every post that begs a response is a troll, by definition. Just because the current one is sarcastic does not in any way diminish the seriousness of the question. A basic issue is whether Iraqi precident trumps european sensibilities. A side question, which is very sarcastic, is how the EU will patronize the Iraqis.There was a serious question burried in there?
While I would have no problem with global representation (provided, naturally, that China, Japan and other countries that have the DP are included) I sort of think that a pure Iraqi deal would be for the best. A pan-arab tribunal would be interesting for it's innate hypocracy if nothing else. I do sorta think that he should be offed for the sake of closure, if nothing else. This notwithstanding my opposition to capitol punishment. Your last two sentences are wonderfully self-contradictory, my dear Ed. That said, I think the end result will be an Iraqi war-crimes court.

[whitefork]

Of course, with enough Sunni Iraqis on a jury, Saddam just might be acquitted.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
[B. . .Realistically, Saddam's refusal to fight back during his capture may have significantly hurt his re-election chances, however. [/B]
Yeah but he got a 100% of the vote last time, if he can still swing 51% he's in there.

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:What really should happen is that IDIOTS who have been railing against everything the US has done in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have been screaming for our withdrawal should JUST SHUT THE HELL UP!Why should they (in regard to Iraq)? They've been right all along.
If it were up to you, Chaos, and others like you...Saddam would still be living in tacky Las Vegas splendor, murdering his people and generally scareing the UN into gridlock.Rick, Rick, not this old tired false dichotomy, again!

"Either you are for a unilateral, un-provoked invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq or you love the butcher Saddam and all his deeds".

False dichotomies are cool, though. Here's some more:

"Either you are pro-illegal-search-and-seizure or you love difficult-to-prosecute mass-murders."

"Either you are pro-democracy and support the Allende or you love ruthless murdering dictators and suppport Pinochet."

Just do us all a favor....admit you were wrong,...have been wrong all along. Only then should we allow your particiapation.They weren't wrong. There were no WMD.

Some war-mongers seem to have forgotten the source of disagreement. It wasn't whether ruthless dictators are bad, but whether there was sufficient evidence for the international community to invade a sovereign country.
NOTE TO ALL LEFTIES.....if you've been crying for the US to cease it's "cruel war for oil(tm)" you are not allowed to tell us what we should do with Saddam.Of course we are allowed. Standing up to bullies is quite noble, you know.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Actually not true.

The lion's share of his armament came from two countries: Soviet Union/Russia and France.
...
I think the US was about 1 percent which was about the same as Denmark and some other countries.

(That is from a study which I will try to find a link from a Sweedish based organization.)

Try here: http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

Edited to add:
You're right... the US contributed only sold Iraq about 1% of its arms (Russia, France and China are the top 3).

And as others have pointed out, the US wasn't a supplier of chem weapons to Iraq. (I believe Germany, and maybe the Swiss and France did that). They did give Anthrax, but it should be noted that anthrax can be used in devising treatments.

The worse thing the US did was look the other way, during both Saddam's suppression of the Kurds, and his use of poison gas in the war against Iran. (I believe the US also gave Iraq strategic intelligence at the time.) However, it should be noted that at the time, Iran and Islamic fundamentalism was considered a more serious threat. (Does that make it right? Perhaps not, but if the US had not supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, we could have more Fundamentalist governments in the middle east.)

[Sundog]

Hmm, I can't delete a message I just entered? How quaint.

[reprise]

And as others have pointed out, the US wasn't a supplier of chem weapons to Iraq. (I believe Germany, and maybe the Swiss and France did that). They did give Anthrax, but it should be noted that anthrax can be used in devising treatments.

I'm not sure that the US senate would agree.

According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical- warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment. (bolding mine)

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.

The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.

Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:

* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.

* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.

* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).

The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH

Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol.

In 1994, a group of twenty-six veterans, suffering from what has come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome, filed a billion-dollar lawsuit in Houston against Fisher, Rhone-Poulenc, Bechtel Group, and Lummus Crest, as well as American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and six other firms, for helping Iraq to obtain or produce the compounds which the veterans blamed for their illnesses. By 1998, the number of plaintiffs has risen to more than 4,000 and the suit is still pending in Texas.

A Pentagon study in 1994 dismissed links between chemical and biological weapons and Gulf War Syndrome. Newsday later disclosed, however, that the man who headed the study, Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, was a director of ATCC. Moreover, at the time of ATCC's shipments to Iraq, which the Commerce Department approved, the firm's CEO was a member of the Commerce Department's Technical Advisory Committee, the paper found.

from http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

However you justify the sale of raw materials, you cannot approve the sale of chemical war-head filling equipment to a nation and then claim that you didn't know what they were going to use it for.

[Supercharts]

One way to get International support for the trial is to include some member states of the U.N. as part of the jury. In order to ensure fairness and avoid the trial as being a Western Imperialist kangaroo court I suggest the following as jury members:

Burkina Faso
Comoros
Gambia
Guinea-Bissau
Kiribati
Nauru
Palau
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Timor-Leste
Vanuatu

It's a shame that GWB did not send Powell to these places before the U.S. & U.K. invaded. We might have gotten U.N. support as part of the broad coalition.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Mike B.
BTW,

Does it make Saddam less guilty if he can show he bought weapons from countries all over the world?

:confused:

No...none of this makes Saddam any less guilty but it does take some of the sting out of the moral outrage shown by the US and others.

According to reprise's excerpt, the US continued to export chemical and biological substances to Iraq"despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984."


The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja,in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572


Troll in his wisdom says there's been a change of leadership since the US and Saddam were cosy and we should all "get over it" as though it's all a gigantic bore. But if we aren't expected to *get over* Saddam Hussein why should we shutup, forget or bury the history behind his rise and fall.