French, Germans on Saddam Tribunal?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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.]

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.

The Kurds would be witnesses for the prosecution.

 

[Mike B.]

[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]

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]

The Kurds would be witnesses for the prosecution.

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

 

[Luke T.]

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

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