Shoud Sadam be reinstated?
Somehow, I can’t see Saddam stepping into the mess that’s present-day Iraq and doing a better job than what we’ve got now.
What was that anecdote Colin Powell told about breaking stuff at Pottery Barn again?
Regardless of the legality of the U.S. invasion, Hussein is being tried in a court of his nation by his own countrymen for actions taken against his own people.
This was not a police bust where a failure to read him his Miranda rights (guaranteed only to persons operating under U.S. law), precludes a trial from going forth.
And if everything over there dissolves, or he somehow walks out of the court, I think we should simply put a bullet in the back of his head (which is what I think we should have done as soon as we found him–his trial is a justice-mocking joke). I’m anti death penalty, but I wouldn’t view this as a judicial killing.
Ship him off to the Hague.
Individuals aren’t normally subjects of international law. The injured party, if any, isn’t Saddam Hussein, but Irak. What they do with him is an internal matter and irrelevant.
Gardening accident.
The Hague court isn’t competent for Saddam Hussein’s crimes. He would have had to be responsible for a war crime commited after the court has been installed, and whose victim would be a citizen of a signatory nation.
Ah, well…give him a little bungalow in Mosul…
Certainly. 
With the state of things in Iraq today it would probably be the fastest way to get him wacked…put him back into power. Officials are dropping like flies over there and I doubt Saddam would have much of a chance if we simply left and (somehow) convinced the Iraqi’s to let him go and put in back in charge.
tongue in cheek
-XT
Drop him off in the middle of Sadr city and look the other way.
But yea, regardless of the legality or wisdom of the Iraq war, I don’t think anyone (well, I’m sure someone, but no one who isn’t either a nut or a lawyer) is arguing that Saddam shouldn’t be tried and punished for his crimes. If he was being tried for hiding WMD’s, then perhaps the relavation that he didn’t have any (after 1991 anyways) would make a difference. But he’s being tried for the unjustified killing of his own people.
Of course not. Is this a joke? Saddam Hussein is under trial for crimes against humanity, of which he is clearly guilty and will likely be killed for. And since he is not being tried by the US, but by the Iraqis, how he ended up in court is irrelevant.
I came in to say the same thing that Mr. Clam said above me. He’s already on trial, whatever happens to him, happens.
Even so, with that being said, I wonder about that court sometimes. You know, fairness, legality, all that stuff.
Well, yeah. Obviously the court is not meeting in ideal circumstances- I believe two judges have now been assassinated- but I still think that it’s fairly clear the standards of evidence, proof, and the degree to which Saddam is allowed to defend himself is little shaky*. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that Saddam is guilty of, at the very least, ordering torture and murder of opponents. It is something of a problem.
*For example: he currently questions the legality of the court- a typical last-ditch defence for guilty dictators (Charles II, Herman Goering, etc.) On the other hand, it seems as though here he might have a point- after all, there is no real Iraqi government to try him, and the whole thing is undoubtably being stage-managed by the Americans. Obviously he can’t argue this in court, but the bans on reporting his statements make me… uneasy.
Exactly what makes me shaky too.
now go reply to me in the other post
I personally think that in cases where high crimes have been perpetrated by a former head of state and there was no mechanism in place for impeachment, a Bill of Attainder from the new government is entirely just. I also think this is the only time a Bill of Attainder is just. Yes, I know it’s the same as trying ex post facto as we are currently doing, but with a Bill of attainder you avoifd the trial becoming a circus as it so often does.
I’m not convinced this is an accurate statement. He survived for 30 years as the tyrant of Iraq; that suggests some skills. Of course, reestablishing power would involve bullets to the head of many, many people. Without his sons to follow, he may be happy to retire to a villa somewhere.
That said, he is under trial from the de jure government of Iraq, and they will decide what to do.
That said, trying him for executing attempted assasins just strikes me as strange.
Well, he still might be able to pitch for the Dodgers.
Is THAT what they are calling the women and children in the villages he gassed? :eek:
-XT
No, the trial hasn’t addressed the chemical weapon attacks on Kurds (I think they are having a seperate trial later for that). The current trial is limited to the reprisals Saddam exacted on a town where an assasination attempt took place.
That said, the reprisals were on the town as a whole, 149 people were killed directly, and much of the rest of the population relocated or imprisoned. Obviously they weren’t all assasins, as Frank seems to suggest.