If American troops (or our allies) capture Saddam Hussein, who should judge him? Could the Iraqi government be stable enough to be trusted with this since Saddam committed so many heines crimes against his own people? Or, should Saddam be brought before the UN court and be put on trial for the charges againsts him of crimes against humanity and various war crimes?

Who should have this duty if Saddam is captured alive?

It should definitly be the International Criminal Court, but seeing as our government is dead set against any form of international justice system, it will probably be some sort of American military tribunal. However, I doubt he's going to allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Saddam is a brute, and he'll go down shooting, assuming we catch him.

We'll use the precedent that was set when Osama bin Laden was captured. Oh. Oops, well, I guess we can't do that then.

War crimes trials should not be conducted by the invader; that's just an invitation to abuse. At the same time, the Iraqi justice system is not capable of doing the job. The only realistic option would be an international court, either the ICC or a specially-constituted tribunal. Maybe we should at least let our allies participate in the process. If the Brits and Aussies were involved there'd be at least a chance of a fair trial.

I think the precedent was set for Milosevic and the leaders under him. There was an international criminal tribunal for (the former) Yugoslavia to handle those cases. The UN should establish the same for Iraq.

The Iraqi people, they were who he persecuted, they should decide his fate.

CP

I think he should be sent to the Hauge and sentenced there for war crimes relating to the massacre of thousands (mass graves) and other human rights violations

If we keep him in Iraq for a trial, he'll just become a reason for what's left of his loyalists to target our troops and attempt to free him.

Well, that is a good point. Very good point. Maybe we can take him to a secure area and have the Iraqis try him, as long as the Iraqis are the ones judging him, I'm okay.

CP

I would love to see him tried by Iraqis, and that would also lend credibility to his punishment, and would not make him another Martyr by the US. However, given the fact that the Iraqis won't accept any goverment forced on them by the US- any goverment in the forseeable future will just be seen as a puppet goverment doing the bidding of the US as well. I think the only realistic way is the Hague.

I don't think we have to worry about where his trail will be. When they find him he will be shot on the spot. They didn't take his sons and put them on trail. And I truly don't think they will take "him" alive.

Count me among the people who figure Saddam Hussein will never make it to court. For one thing, he has so much pride that he would not endure the humiliation of being prisoner to United States or other coalition forces. But even if he didn't get the opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory before being captured, some cynical soldier who felt he might not be punished to his satisfaction might "accidentally" discharge a round into him.

We don't allow victims to sentence their oppressors for a reason. They can't look at the situation objectively. There are too many emotions involved. If (and that is a big if) Saddam is captured, he should be tried by an international criminal tribunal.

Is the word 'Criminal', dependant in which chair you sit??.

Do Americans have a chair that sees 'criminals' as American unbelievers?.
Do Moslems sit in a chair that see 'criminals' as Moslem unbelievers?.
Is Bush a war criminal?.
Is Saddam a war criminal?.

There is NO answer, except that of 'right by deed of might'.

Regards.Al

Considering his sons brought about 200 soldiers, gunships and Humvee mounted missiles, I wouldn't expect Saddam to be facing any courts should he be seen by Coalition forces in Iraq. It would seem there is no interest in questioning the regime leader about such insignificant details like weapons of mass destruction or terrorist ties to al-Qaeda.

Were he by some chance to be captured and make his way to court though, the Iraqis should be the very last people to preside over the hearings. As Cyan pointed out, victims cannot be expected to hear a case and rule objectively against their assailants. And while the proper course of action would be an international cout such as the ICC, I think it most likely that he would face an American military tribunal.

That would create a controversial wave of bias judgement. The only way he can getr a fair trial is in The Hauge. Anything else and it's his automatic death sentence. Iraqis would rather see him hang on a flag pole and Americans would probably like to see his head on a platter for all to see.

I'm just wondering what the charges would be.

Maybe none during the war on Iraq. He didn't have a chance to do anything except have the Iraqi military shoot back, and I suppose when you're invaded, you get that right.

So we go back to violating UN resolutions? Well, then we need proof, eh? That's kind of a tough nut to crack, so maybe back farther.

Aha! Invasion of Kuwait! But what evidence might the defense bring out? That Kuwait was slipping drills under the border to steal Iraqi oil? That might be a problem.

Okay, then go to the torture & human rights violations in Iraq. But then there's China and its favored nation status. Dangit!

How about the Iraq/Iran war? That's when he gassed all those people!

But the US was an ally then. Shoot!

Guess we have to pop the dude.

Yep, only losers have to worry about trials. An international court is the only way to go to lessen the "might makes right" perception.

Well, he did violate the orginals set back in 1991.

Here's something else: Copy of Resolution 1441



Mass Grave containing Kuwaiti POW's from Gulf War

Oops



He never offered proof of that. He just "said so" and so he gave his justification for attacking them. he was broke from the Iran war so he needed some money & his oil rich neighbor had it




What about Mass Graves full of women and children? Does China do that?

Can anyone say Tianamen Square?

The situation that we need to be careful about is that if we find him (Saddam), we must be sure that he is disposed of in a way that makes him look like the criminal that he is for what he has done, and be SURE that he cannot be looked upon as a martyr. The last thing any anti-American groups need is a figurehead.

Thales - please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you were the last person to post, you merely need to go in & edit your last post if you want to add more information. If 12 hours have passed since your last post you may start a new one because your edit window will close. Thanks

I'm doubtful we'll see Saddam in any sort of court....he'll be either dead, or never found. I'm guessing (predicting) dead.

The U.S. government (maybe not this administration, but previous administrations, starting with George the First), along with Russia, France and the U.K. (maybe not this administration, but previous administrations, starting with George the First) would be implicated in these crimes, simply by giving him either money or weapons, and covertly supporting his activities during the 80's and early 90's.

MASS GRAVES. Not slaughtering people in the streets. BTW, saddam did that too


Andy:

Knowing Saddam, he'd rather die then be humilated by a trial

It will be a UN tribunal ala the Milosevic trial.

Bush will not want to appear to be "judge, jury and executioner" and I don't think Saddam has many supporters at this point in the UN.

BTW, crimes of other parties does not excuse the crimes of the accused. So, China (and any other government) is irrelevant.

Also, the US being an "ally" of Iraq does not make us complicit in their crimes. Giving military support is not a crime (were any Soviets indicted with Milosevic?). The choice of the use of the aid that was given was all Saddam's.

Amlord, what makes you think Bush would do that? He's been a huge opponent of the ICC and international justice. In fact, he's pretty much against any form of internationalism, unless it's everyone doing exactly what he wants.



We sold him chemical weapons for the specific purpose of killing Iranians. It's illegal to even posses chemical weapons, and even worse to use them. I don't see how the American government isn't responsible responsible. If some dude asks you to lure young women into his house, and then he rapes them when you do, and you turn a blind eye, you're just as responsible as the perv. What exactly did you think he was going to do? Serve them tea? What else was Saddam going to do with his chemical weapons? Sell them for food?

Didn't stop Bush from trying to be judge, jury and executioner. He tried it with bin Laden (anyone think he EVER wanted him alive for trial?) and he tried it with Saddam (sure, a couple dozen bunker busters is always the way to bring someone in for trial). He has no interest in having these people tried for their crimes, he just wants them out of the way (read: dead).

What's wrong with killing the 2 biggest criminals in the World?

Dunno, can we get Bush while we're at it and make it a threesome?

Let's try and avoid the one-liners and be constructive please.

Just responding in kind. The very idea that it should be acceptable for the US to simply murder people we don't like, simply because we have the ability is ridiculous.

Why?

Saddam has killed thousands and dumped them in mass graves & families are just now finding out what happened to relatives now that Saddam is gone and everyone is digging bodies up.

No matter how horrible his crimes, that does not mean we should abandon our principles - including due process - to "get" him. Even the Nazi war criminals got trials at Nuremberg, if they survived the war.

If he's tryly as evil as we all believe, the result of a trial is obvious. What are we afraid of, that we should forego one?

I'm hoping there will be no need for a lengthy expensive trial...

While for the most part I agree with you, but it all depends on where the trial takes place, if a trial for SH is held in Iraq, as GoAmerica said, it could be a safety risk with all of these Saddam supporting terrorists all over the place.

CP

Platypus, i respect your opinions but i waws not talking about anything in the way of NOT giving him due process & a fair trial.

I was just pointing something out to Cephus

I wonder how much money has been blown on Milosevic's tribunal, and he is still years away from any possible death sentence. Plus, MSNBC reported on Aug 9, that his rantings from the courtroom are rallying the remnants of his loyalists.

I'm tempted to side with something along the methods used by the Russians when they liberated the death camps in Nazi Germany (giving his victims rifles and seeing what they do), but the slighty more civilized part of me would rather see him strung up legitimately for the entire world to see, as a reminder of what awaits these oppressive, Dark Age governments if they don't follow Libya's lead and at least make an effort to improve.