Asymmetrical Information

I think, in this case, it has to be the Iraqi people. Saddam may have threatened us, but his crimes were principally against his own people, and they deserve to try him.

Iraq had a version of "The Simple Life"? Who knew?

Now those jolly Germans collecting cash for anti-American purposes in Iraq can call for contributions to the Saddam Bail Fund.

Yep. We can put him in the cell next to Mumia.

meagan,
"I'm tenatively in favor of option two." i just want to confirm that that means the "slobo" route?

Good news to wake up to! This was the first site I checked this morning, and the first thing that drew my eye was that Saddam/Jerry Garcia/Gandalf picture, and right away I knew, even without reading the header.

Then, a few seconds later, thoughts of what the usual suspects would do in reponse started to creep in (human rights groups, complaining that putting out such a picture of him was a violation of international law, progreesives complaining that this, much like a bloodless US victory, is actually a bad thing since it will only embolden that crazy Bush further, etc, etc). I felt guilty immediately for thinking such things. I was sure that I was being totally unfair.

Then I checked instapundit. Sigh.

Russell is grossly unfair to Gandalf. For shame.

The legally established government of Iraq (when such exists) should try him. When convicted (not if), he should be sentenced to one of the forms of torture he and his sons devised. I tend to favor the plastic shredder, feet first and slowly. The other popular method seems unfair to the hungry dobermans.

Note: In deference to our pseudonomyous hostess' sensitivities, he should be sentenced to torture by plastic shredder, not to death. Once he has passed completely through the shredder, if he dies, he dies!

It should be the Iraqi people's call. Show them how to run a fair trial, but don't burden them with the modern American confusion about "cruel and unusual punishment", let alone Eurotrash squeamishness about the death penalty. In this particular case, there's no doubt that he is guilty of so many atrocities, that it's impossible to exact a penalty that exceeds what he deserves, so if the Iraqi's want to go medieval, that's their business.

And make it fast. The Iraqi people need to know for sure that he is not coming back.

I guess it would be nice if the Iraqi people were the ones who actually tried and sentenced Saddam. But I don't see them being set up to do that for quite a while. Maybe the Iraqi Governing Council could cobble up some sort of special tribunal?

Alternately, the Coalition could give him some sort of military trial and execute him. If there's any chance of Iraqis involved being threatened by former Baathists, I think the military route is the way to go.

I assume Saddam will be executed. (It'll be interesting to see what the Europeans say about that, being so anti-death penalty.) If we (or rather the Coalition) do it, the history books will just include his execution in with the invasion: "In 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom and a coalition of other nations invaded Iraq and overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein. Their military spent the next few months capturing renegades from the former regime, including Hussein himself, who was executed the following year."

If the Iraqis try and sentence Saddam, the history books will be slightly different. The big difference is that having the Iraqis do it may give their self-government a boost.

BTW, another option would be to have the Kuwaitis try him for crimes against them. That would be my third choice, followed by some sort of European-dominated international court. (Come to think of it, the Iranians may want a piece of him, too.)

If he were to be imprisoned rather than executed, you can bet that there would be hostage-takings aimed at obtaining his release. Opponents of capital punishment in this case should bear this reality in mind.

While I am in favor of the death penalty and certainly think if it applies for the most heinous of crimes, it should certainly apply in the case of Saddam Hussein, I’d be willing to commute the sentence to life in prison provided that he cooperated and provided useful intelligence in breaking up the B’aathist resistance (insofar as part of it is “organized”), finding out what happened to his WMD programs, accounting for disappeared persons, and the millions if not billions he looted from the Iraqi people which should be used to rebuild their country.

He deserves to die a million times over for what he has done but like it or not he may have enough valuable information to bargain for his life that the good of obtaining that information outweighs the evil of allowing him to continue breathing.

He victimized the Iraqis more than anyone else, so they should have first dibs on him. We should dust off the Nuremburg Tribunal template and give it to the Iraqis to use. Then they can hang the bastard.

How in the world can anyone be against the death penalty for this guy? It is absolutely impossible that he's innocent of the charges, so it's not like that's an argument against it. I'd thought Jane's opposition to the death penalty was based on that, the possibility of killing the innocent. If it's impossible that he's innocent, why worry?

“I thought the same thing about the death of Saddaam's sons, and it made little difference”.

The death of his sons made a huge difference in the number of people willing to turn in the terrorists.

The main effect of Saddam’s capture on our liberation effort is that even many more people will help us capture the bad guys.

The Iraqi terrorists are not able to replace their ranks so this is a significant step forward in controlling violence in Iraq.

“I thought the same thing about the death of Saddaam's sons, and it made little difference”.

The death of his sons made a huge difference in the number of people willing to turn in the terrorists.

The main effect of Saddam’s capture on our liberation effort is that even many more people will help us capture the bad guys.

The Iraqi terrorists are not able to replace their ranks so this is a significant step forward in controlling violence in Iraq.

Brent M Krupp wrote:

How in the world can anyone be against the death penalty for this guy?

I can think of three reasons:

1) It may be to our advantage to keep him alive for information (my argument above)

2) It may turn him into a martyr or mythical figure (I don’t necessarily agree with that) and it may be more of a PR coup to be able to show him as a broken, beaten, ragged shell of a dictator than the mystique he once had as the all-powerful warlord of Iraq.

3) Most people who are (wrongly in my view) opposed to the death penalty are probably savvy enough to try and pick a sympathetic candidate which Saddam Hussein is not. Anyone who spoke against executing for Saddam Hussein with the same arguments they make against capital punishment (e.g. cost, due process, unfairness, racism, immoral, etc.) would suffer a huge PR backlash which would probably hurt their cause more so than the inconsistency of picking and choosing when you are against the death penalty.

Like I said before, I think he deserved to die a million times over but I’m willing to use capital punishment as leverage while commuting his sentence to life in prison if that’s the best way to get intelligence which could save lives from further attacks, rebuild the country, provide some closure to the families of the missing, and find out what really happened with WMDs in Iraq.

hi thorley,
"1) It may be to our advantage to keep him alive for information (my argument above)"

this assumes that people want to hear it. there are quite a few people, from earlier us administrations, who would prefer that sh not speak too freely.

Saddam will be interrogated, and while any truthful information he provides will be useful, there can never be any bargaining away the right to execute him. Such a betrayal of the Iraqi people would be morally monstrous.

He will receive a fair trial, probably by the Iraqis with American supervision. And then he will die.

What would be the disadvantage of shipping him to Gitmo, treating him like the other criminals we have there, then trying him by military tribunal?

Rejoice at the foul lug's capture but no small wonder why it all took so long. He should've been removed after he gassed the Kurds in 1989.

Rejoice at the foul lug's capture but no small wonder why it all took so long. He should've been removed after he gassed the Kurds in 1989.

Many Iraqi courts are in fact still functioning, and even if not the IGC and CPA could cobble something together using something like the so-called "international law" of the various Geneva Conventions and Accords.

And it should certainly be an Iraqi court that tries him. As one Iraqi said when asked if he should not be tried in the Hague because he would not get a fair trial in Iraq, "Actually, we feel he wouldn't get a 'fair' trial at the Hague". The UN and EU have been clamoring to have Iraq given more self-control - well, here's a great chance, which they are screaming should not be taken.

I was watching CNN, they were interviewing Carol Mosley-Braun. She praised the leader of the force that captured Saddam, he too was from Illinois. She mourned the nearly 500 American dead and argued it was to no good purpose because the war was President Bush avenging his family honor against a man who tried to kill his father, but the war was a diversion from the true war on terrorism. And then it hit me, like a diamond bullet through the forehead. People that stupid. If our adversaries had 10 divisions of people that stupid, I could pacify Syria, Iran, the West Bank, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and the Bay Area counties of California.

I say turn Saddam over to the Hague tribunal. He will turn the proceedings into a circus the way Milosevic is doing, and he will prove the Europeans to be profoundly stupid, and we will be able to pacify them as well.

I was watching CNN, they were interviewing Carol Mosley-Braun. She praised the leader of the force that captured Saddam, he too was from Illinois. She mourned the nearly 500 American dead and argued it was to no good purpose because the war was President Bush avenging his family honor against a man who tried to kill his father, but the war was a diversion from the true war on terrorism. And then it hit me, like a diamond bullet through the forehead. People that stupid. If our adversaries had 10 divisions of people that stupid, I could pacify Syria, Iran, the West Bank, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and the Bay Area counties of California.

I say turn Saddam over to the Hague tribunal. He will turn the proceedings into a circus the way Milosevic is doing, and he will prove the Europeans to be profoundly stupid, and we will be able to pacify them as well.

I would like to see Saddam brought before an
international court. It would be interesting
to find out who put him in power and provided
the WMD that he is supposed to wield. I think
that the Bush administration is going to keep
this trial a local affair, less some damning
items come to light prior to this election
year.

Comments are Closed.