Saddam Hussein arrested - Page 4

Harry Tuttle · December 14, 2003, 09:51

Press access? I doubt that. I could just see him saying something to incite more violence. Who knows, maybe the guy is a nutcase now. I'm sure he's a bit more mentally unbalanced now that he's been on the run for so long.

GePap · December 14, 2003, 09:56

Well, that is a problem, no? People wil be curious what he has to say on the issues of today (you have to assume the US will be asking him over and over where are te WMD's?)...so will his be a silent imprisonment? Or will the US periodically release statements (which will make very few people outside the US happy and few outside the US wlling to trust them implicitly), or will someone get access to him? I don't remember Milosevic getting interviewed, so I could be wrong-but then, of course, there was far less interest on him than there is on Saddam.

Drake Tungsten · December 14, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

3. What venue will he be tried in? An Iraqi court, or an international tribunal? (for acts committed against Iran and Kuwait as well). This wil be a tough decision to make.

I don't think it will be. The Bush administration isn't going to give the UN and other international bodies the opportunity to try a man they did nothing to help apprehend. I'm relatively sure that the Iraqi courts will be handling this one.

The Mad Monk · December 14, 2003, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro
Why doesn´t he have a Santa cap?

GePap · December 14, 2003, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't think it will be. The Bush administration isn't going to give the UN and other international bodies the opportunity to try a man they did nothing to help apprehend. I'm relatively sure that the Iraqi courts will be handling this one.

What Iraqi courts?

Question of venue is a question of who has jurisdiction and who can make a case: I am sure the Iranians could make a quick case for war crimes (use of chemical weapons) against them..and the Kuwaitis as well.

No, your pat answer don't work. Don't be a Winston.

Winston · December 14, 2003, 10:00

GePap,

It's just that all we've heard all along from the left, foaming at the mouth and all, is how this is not about the liberation of Iraq, the toppling of Saddam, bringing stability, democracy and a new sense of hope to the Middle East.

The left made it a mantra that it's about oil, big business and the re-election of that evil President.

But not today, apparently...

Shi Huangdi · December 14, 2003, 10:04

The interim Iraqi Council has set up a war crimes tribunal that was preparing to try Saddam in Absentia. Now it appears they will actually be trying him.

alva · December 14, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

I'm sure hanging will be the verdict, just as it was in Nuremburg.

I really hope they won't kill though.

Ming · December 14, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
No, your pat answer don't work. Don't be a Winston.

You want to stop with the personal stuff...

mrmitchell · December 14, 2003, 10:06

This is GREAT news. I can finally see a little spot of light at the end of the Iraq tunnel now.

The effects of his capture? We get a morale boost for the troops; if he's been coordinating those attacks, they drop (although he probably hasn't), and if the attacks were based on Iraqi tension that the US was ****ing up and not getting Saddam, then they'll drop.

(All of these things, however, don't mean attacks will completely stop. Another reason for them would be just causing havoc, or dislike at how slow things are progressing.)

Now, the next step is a trial. In an international court would be good...it's not like we need to worry about any court giving him less than life (of course death penalty probably.)

Combat Ingrid · December 14, 2003, 10:07

Good news they got him

I just wonder about that medical exam video. Is it really ok to display a prisoner like that? I understand the purpose is to show the people he is just an old fart, but still...

Spiffor · December 14, 2003, 10:08

I've just seen the news

At last we're now sure this dog will definitely not torment his people anymore. Ever

Let's hope this capture will sap the morale of the guerilla, and let's hope the Iraqi people can at last focus on the peaceful reconstruction of their country.

Congrats to the US army and to all those involved in taking the dog to his cage

Drake Tungsten · December 14, 2003, 10:09

Quote:

What Iraqi courts?

Quote:

The interim Iraqi Council has set up a war crimes tribunal that was preparing to try Saddam in Absentia. Now it appears they will actually be trying him.

Comparing me to Winston doesn't insult me, either. He's a rather good poster.

Pekka · December 14, 2003, 10:10

Combat Ingrid, I think it's ok. THis is a special case.. in normal condition I'd say it's not cool, but in this case I think it's almost important to do so.

It is also to humiliate him, so he'd brake down completely and maybe give us the info we want. I don't think he's easy to really brake down, but it's always possible with humans. Brake the spirit and you own the mind.

Snotty · December 14, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Combat Ingrid, I think it's ok. THis is a special case.. in normal condition I'd say it's not cool, but in this case I think it's almost important to do so.

It is also to humiliate him,

Its a Geneva convention thing though, right? No close up images of prisoners of war and all that. Just because we agree with it and want to see him doesn't make it right.

Gangerolf · December 14, 2003, 10:15

he's not a prisoner of war. the war is over

Snotty · December 14, 2003, 10:15

Then what is he?

GePap · December 14, 2003, 10:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
GePap,

It's just that all we've heard all along from the left, foaming at the mouth and all, is how this is not about the liberation of Iraq, the toppling of Saddam, bringing stability, democracy and a new sense of hope to the Middle East.

The left made it a mantra that it's about oil, big business and the re-election of that evil President.

But not today, apparently...

And we have heard it all form the wirhgt about how this was all about fighting terrorism and ending the WMD threat before the war itself...but not after, apparently....

It is that kind of gross generalizing, both of the other side's motives, and your sides motives that leads to worthless debate.

Gangerolf · December 14, 2003, 10:17

a prisoner?

Pekka · December 14, 2003, 10:19

Snotty, Good point. I don't know.. I think we should just screw around with it a little and say he's not a war prisoner. Well, he kind of isn't POW, he's just a criminal against humanity and all that. And it's not that far fetched. Besides, active part of war is already over anyway.

Combat Ingrid · December 14, 2003, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
he's just a criminal against humanity and all that.

GePap · December 14, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

What Iraqi courts?

Quote:

The interim Iraqi Council has set up a war crimes tribunal that was preparing to try Saddam in Absentia. Now it appears they will actually be trying him.

Comparing me to Winston doesn't insult me, either. He's a rather good poster.

The interim council could set up a court trying Micheal Jackson for child abuse as well..does not mean that the court has valid jurisdiction, or that it can ignore claims of other courts (plenty of other courts do). Those are things to be worked out. I think the possible sentence for Saddam, how much of the trial is public, and the quality both of the prosecutors and defense will be the biggest factors in determining who gets the case, as well of course as political considerations.

An international tribunal would have better access to evidence and higher quality of judges and lawyers involved..but it might not be able to give a death penalty-and how public the trial can, or must be, is also a question...I agree that the US would push for an Iraqi court- but of course, in theory there is this thing called a coolition in Iraq right now....

Snotty · December 14, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party

From http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The convention still applies even if America says the war is over.

I've got no issue with showing pics of Saddam, and I think its really important for the Iraqi people. As you say, it's a special case and he wasnt shown being mistreated etc.

Theben · December 14, 2003, 10:23

Good.

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
The left made it a mantra that it's about oil, big business and the re-election of that evil President.

And how has that changed?

Ming · December 14, 2003, 10:23

Just reported... at Noon Eastern time today, Bush will hold a press conference. It should be interesting.

VetLegion · December 14, 2003, 10:23

@ the picture Mad Monk

Drake Tungsten · December 14, 2003, 10:26

Quote:

The interim council could set up a court trying Micheal Jackson for child abuse as well..does not mean that the court has valid jurisdiction

How could an Iraqi court not have jurisdiction over the actions of an Iraqi dictator?

You're grasping at straws here...

Winston · December 14, 2003, 10:30

GePap,

I wasn't aware that I was generalizing. The left's arguments on Iraq have been like a broken record in many aspects.

As to your points about the right's motives: The Iraq campaign has little to do with fighting terrorism. Ending the threat of Iraqi WMD's was a contributing factor which hasn't changed in my view.

Anyway let's be happy that for at least one grey day in December, the war wasn't about oil.

GePap · December 14, 2003, 10:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

The interim council could set up a court trying Micheal Jackson for child abuse as well..does not mean that the court has valid jurisdiction

How could an Iraqi court not have jurisdiction over the actions of an Iraqi dictator?

You're grasping at straws here...

Actuall, under what LAWS? Right now no new code of laws has been made, has there? A law must have a source of legitimacy, which is the point of creating a new consitution for Iraq. Right now the legitimacy of the governing council comes from the occupation forces-so how distinct would a court run by the interim council be from a court run by the occupation forces? What is the threshold of evidence? What are Saddam's rights?

Whenis the last time a dictator was tried in his own country? It really never gets to that point, now does it? So we are talking perhaps a lot of new case law being created. Do you have anything more than one sentence answers to what are complex legal questions? The politics here is a lot simpler that the law.

Shi Huangdi · December 14, 2003, 10:37

GePap: **** the law. Nobody gives a **** about the law. Nobody cares about venue or whatever, and there is no chance he will be tried in Iran or Kuwait. He is going to be tried before Iraqis, and will either be executed in Iraq or spend all of his days in an Iraqi prison.