I’ve heard accusations on this board that Saddam has put live people through plastic shredders.
Is there any concrete evidence of this?
I’m not doubting that Saddam would be capable of such an atrocity, but the memory of the outrage over the tales of Iraqi soldiers dumping infants out of incubators that later turned out to be untrue nags at me.
Is there any evidence that the plastic shredder accusations are true?
The (London) Times reported that a witness made this allegation to researchers investigating war crimes. Pretty gruesome.
I also remember hearing that a young woman testified before the US Congress that she had seen the Iraqi soliders throwing the babies out of the incubators.
A documented allegation isn’t evidence. As I said, I have no doubts Saddam would be perfectly at ease doing something like that, but I’d like to know if there’s any evidence, beyond allegations that this has actually happened.
It seems a pretty common story, at least one of the human shields who recently escaped from Iraq has said that the story was told to him while he was in Iraq. So it might be an UL. My guess is that you’ll have to wait until the war’s over for anything approaching concrete evidence to surface. (I’m betting that we won’t find any documentation of the act, but we will have eyewitness testimony from someone who participated in this.)
The story I read and is mentioned in Usram’s cite is that Saddam’s elder son, Qusay, was the one supervising the shredding. Accounts report that he is even more violent and erratic than his father, which is a key requirement of the “regime change” has to include getting the Hussein Bros. out as well.
For those who missed it, here is the story regarding the top paragraph.
[nitpick]
A documented allegation from a witness is evidence. I think what you meant was that it’s not proof.
[/nitpick]
Actually, I wonder if an allegation rises to the level of evidence? If it’s not admissible in a court of law, then I don’t think it’s evidence.
You won’t be getting any evidence based on personal experience. 
The important thing to note is that Indict’s entire purpose is to document atrocities for a putative international trial. As such, they have to try and produce evidence that can persuade a jury. They are not about trying to promote a war in Iraq; in fact I think I saw a 2002 article by Anne Clwyd in which she counselled against it. I can see why; despite the American doctrine of pre-emptive attack, it seems unlikely to be widely used (at least by America), and potentially dangerous to the USA is not the same thing as dangerous to their own people (several nations are the second and not the first). In contrast, a successful international trial against Saddam or some of his ministers could help enforce the idea of international justice on all nations.
Despite Indict’s confidence in this, it is possible that it is faked, and the man who claimed to have been locked up in Saddam’s jails for 15 years could be lying (um, no cite on the 15 years, I read it last night on what I’m sure was the Yorkshire Times, but I can’t find it today. He was accused by the Iraqi authorities of using a false name, again as I recall). It might be an Urban Legend, (although the fact that two people from Iraq both knew about it is hardly enough evidence of that, as you know). It has always bothered me that some people can make up allegations of atrocities, about people who already commit atrocities. It is so utterly unnecessary. Saddam is a dictator who rules with the help of fear, which means that he commits acts like this, by definition (although he is in a select group when it comes to vicious dictators. Few are as horrible). If the shredder story is false (which I doubt), then something equally horrible will be true, which makes it unnecessary to lie about the shredder. In Kuwait, there were several Warcrimes committed, which makes the fact that someone decided to make one up even more shocking.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think that statements from several witnesses can be enough to convict (in which case we’d need a few more). Would we need to find a blood-stained shredder or video-tape footage to bring a trial? I’m not sure how high the bar is but that seems unlikely. Any lawyers out there? What would we need?
It is possible that there is more information on indict.org or in parliamentary records (anyone know how to find these on the web?). I’d search myself but I have very little free time this week. In fact, I shouldn’t even be writing this letter.
And in what way is this particular allegation not admissible in a court of law? What grounds are there for excluding it?
To save you some time… it is admissible. I’m very curious to hear why you thought it wouldn’t be.
I say blue aliens and Bigfoot have been secretly aiding Saddam Hussein in putting people in the shredder. I guess that’s an admissible allegation. But is it proof?
In a criminal trial, in the United States, the finder of fact (the jury, or the judge in a becnh trial) has the job of listening to testimony and weighing evidence.
As long as there is credible evidence to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a conviction may be had. The finder of fact may, in other words, convict on the testimony of only one witness, provided that the witness testifed to facts that, if believed, establish each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, if Saddam brought his plastic shredder to, say, Virginia on vacation, and fed a few victims into it, the testimony of one eyewitness would be sufficient to convict him.
Quite obviously, it is not proof. The point here being, there is much difference between “evidence” and “proof”. Evidence, may or may not lead to conclusive proof of a crime. Eyewitness testimony does indeed constitute evidence. It does not automatically find “proof” of anything.
Uday is his oldest son and the one thought to be more violent than Saddam. Qusay is thought to be intelligent and ruthless… Uday is violent and a playboy.
Is it just me, or does the rape bit sound a bit odd; aren’t these people hardcore Muslim fundamentalists?
Iraqi colleagues have told me some abominably horrific stories concerning Saddam, and especially his sons. These may be Baghdad ULs, but in the case of Saddam, it’s hard to believe no smoke without fire.
I think whatever the exact details and circumstances may be, the truth that he has committed atrocities on his people is not in question.
Returning to the ‘evidence’ part, now you understand why the death penalty is so unfair. On the basis of circumstantial evidence, i.e. no proof, it is possible to sentence a person to death. That is why it is better to consider a person who has been convicted to be just that, convicted, but not necessarily guilty. Leave guilt for God and the judgement day.
Saddam may be a terrible, cruel person but remember, he had a lot of helping becoming that terrible, cruel person. Do you think he could do such things if others did not let him? Was he really alone with the victim when he fed him/her into the plastic shredder, for example? We need to do a great deal more than execute one person.
My gosh, Mangetout, you’ve been thinking that the entire time Iraq has been under international pressure? No wonder it was so easy for the US to make Americans think Iraq was responsible for 9-11. No, Sadaam is not a “hardcore Muslim fundamentalist”. He is an extremely secular ruler (I believe the Ba’ath party is inspired by Marxist thought) and has drawn criticism by more religious Arabs for his style of rule. While he does call himself Muslim, possibly just for appearances’ sake, he does not at all let Islam influence his style of rule.
UnuMondo
What was the purpose of this preamble?