Catching Saddam. Better if he was dead.?

Tmy

Philosopher
Tmy
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
6,487
I think having him alive is useful in convincing the world tha he is truely out of power.

But when we come to the whole trial thing, could Saddam hurt the US with his testimony??? I'm imagining a nothing to lose Saddam spouting all sorts of ANti US haterd on the stand. I mean this guy was sort of on the US's good side for a number of years and we did supply him wh weapons in the past. Could Saddam use that to smear the US. He coudl make up all sorts of stories about america telling him to do this n that, and trying to turn the blame on the US. Even if they are bold face lies Im sure the arabs would eat it up as truth.
 
Alive is way better. First of all, the fact that he surrendered without a fight has made much of the arab world think of him as a coward instead of the super human they believed he were. A fair trial will also help to convince many in the Arab region of his crimes, though of course there will always be the usual fanatics who will remain convinced that Saddam is a hero.
 
Better alive.

What ever he says during his trial had better be real inspiring... because I'm willing to bet that the Iraqi's are going to behead him on live tv if it isn't.

-z
 
Better alive, and better to try him. THose who want to believe in Saddam as a savior/symbol for the Arab cause (whatever that is), will see him as he wants to be seen (remember, many in Servia have been reported as being impressed by Slobidan Milosivich's trial skills). However, the truth will out, and it is difficult to see how the US will look any more entangled or be any more embarassed than than it already is with it historical footsy with Saddam (the history of US interest in Saddam is already well known).

However, in the end, Saddam is responsibile for his own actions. The US may not, for example, have actively opposed the Iraq war with Iran, but Saddam started it and commanded it. He didn't do it because the US wanted it. The point is, the blood on Saddam's hands is there by Saddam's doing....a trial will show that to be the case.
 
It hardly makes any difference at all if he is dead or alive. Not one person's belief system is going to be altered in any way. If he had been killed, it would have been seen by some as done on purpose to cover up our duplicity in his terrible regime. Being captured alive is a humiliation for Arabs and will make them mad at us and we deserve whatever happens next, blah, blah, blah...

A public trial will have transcripts which will be selectively boldfaced by both sides of the issues according to their beliefs.

Not even some future tyrant will take solace in the fact Hussein was treated humanely. Megolomaniacs don't factor in these kinds of things when considering whether or not to step down. It will always take force or old age to bring them down.

All the capture of Hussein is good for is some good old-fashioned gloating. And I say, gloat away. Don't be embarassed.
 
If Guantanamo is any indication, it's quite possible he'll never have a public trial. Even if he does, that didn't hurt us with Noriega who, if you recall, was both put in and removed from power by Poppy Bush. This administration has been so good at spin I doubt that anything short of tape of a W/Saddam love tryst could hurt us.
Of course there is a slim possibility that he'll go to Brussels (?) to face the War Crimes Commision there like Milosevic.
 
Luke T. said:
It hardly makes any difference at all if he is dead or alive. Not one person's belief system is going to be altered in any way. If he had been killed, it would have been seen by some as done on purpose to cover up our duplicity in his terrible regime. Being captured alive is a humiliation for Arabs and will make them mad at us and we deserve whatever happens next, blah, blah, blah...

A public trial will have transcripts which will be selectively boldfaced by both sides of the issues according to their beliefs.

Not even some future tyrant will take solace in the fact Hussein was treated humanely. Megolomaniacs don't factor in these kinds of things when considering whether or not to step down. It will always take force or old age to bring them down.

All the capture of Hussein is good for is some good old-fashioned gloating. And I say, gloat away. Don't be embarassed.
Click to expand...

Luke: some good thoughts -- I am not sure that Saddam's capture makes much difference on the ground today, or changes any minds made-up... on any end of the spectrum.

However, I have to disagree to the extent that it seems to me that putting someone like Saddam on trial, in public and infront of the world, does have real value. Trying the Nazis was more than gloating, as flawed as Nurenburg was (somehonw Stalinist Judges pronouncing on the evils of Nazism is historically disconcerting) -- it said that the world is watching.

First, it suggests that even the worst secrets can be exposed -- whether people choose to believe is another story.

Second, and more importantly, it suggests to oppressed Arab peoples that their brutal and corrupt leaders may be held accountable.

Third, it suggests that rule-of-law might be possible.

Now, Saddam's trial might not accomplish any of this. But I think it is worth the effort. I think without it, Iraq will have only hope of Saddam-lite in its future, instead of a chance for a true civil society.
 
Liberty and freedom come at costs. One is the right to a trial, which can have damning results for multiple sides. Were we not to give him a trial in which he could speak freely, we would be guilty of being just like him.

Liberty is defended in three phases (as the expression goes)

1. The ballot box.
2. The Jury box.
3. and the Cartridge box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom