I'll just come out and say it: I think the distrust of Iraqis handling this is a case of cultural bias. I just keep thinking about how people said democracy in the Middle East won't work before the war (not as much now, though the issue is obviously not been put to the test yet). Now people are saying that due process isn't a reasonable expectation. There's absolutely no good reason why these concepts won't fly with Iraqis or anyone else in the region. Yes, it will take time and help as noted above, these aren't exactly familiar concepts nor do they represent human nature. But I sort of get whiffs of chauvinism if not flat out bigotry when people make these assumptions, as though Iraqis are somehow inferior to us Westerners with our long-standing representative traditions (about 200-250 years old in the best cases). I hope people don't really think like that, that the scent of cultural snobbery is just a misplaced sentiment for respecting our cultural differences.
People have to at least put some faith, support and responsibility to Iraqis. This could be something for Iraq to build on.
I don't care much about what happens to Saddam Hussein. The man's crimes are already known - and indeed were well known back when he was the ally of the West. He should pay for them. That's it.
As for the venue of the trial, I am not sure that there is a perfect venue. Whatever is the choice of the U.S. leadership - and it will be their choice, right or wrong - you can be pretty sure that questions of international law will not trouble them very much.
But keep in mind that if there are violations of international law in deciding Saddam's fate, they will be trivial in relation to violations that took place in the Iraqi campaign in the first place.
And also keep in mind - especially keep in mind - that considerations of his fate are trivial next to the fate of the Iraqi people generally. Screw Saddam and think about what's next for Iraq.
Exactly. And one big step towards welcoming Iraq back onto the world stage as a country that feels like it belongs, and not looked down on/oppressed by the west, is showing the Iraqis that they a) have the power to control their own destiny, and b) the rest of the world will support them in that.
Hell, start *that* little meme going in the Mideast and democracy will become much more viable.
The Iraqis will be the ones to try Saddam, not us. But even if we did, why would WE be tempted to not hold a fair trial? Saddam has a grisly record. Do you really think anyone would need to rig the trial?
I'm not saying we would try him, but people we put in place to try him. Rig the trial? It's not about rigging the trial, it's about making a trial legitimate. The Devil might be guilty, but if St. Peter is the judge, the trial just doesn't look legit.
I can't believe some people are arguing against a trial that would be somewhat impartial. Justice is based on an impartial jury and judge, but some of you laugh at the notion. Thank god none of you are in charge, you're too stupid to understand what's important.
I can't believe some people are arguing against a trial that would be somewhat impartial. Justice is based on an impartial jury and judge, but some of you laugh at the notion. Thank god none of you are in charge, you're too stupid to understand what's important.
Bunge, your position is entirely correct from a principled point of view. I think, however, from a realistic point of view, this will be a showtrial wherever it takes place and that the result is already determined.
Although I have not agreed with the way the U.S. has undertaken this war campaign, I am not spending much of my time worrying about Saddam Hussein. I am more worried about what the U.S. is going to do generally in Iraq - and potentially in other countries - in the future. Saddam does not deserve any particular consideration amid the larger problems affecting Iraqis or amid the larger issue of the illegality of this entire campaign.
I can't believe some people are arguing against a trial that would be somewhat impartial. Justice is based on an impartial jury and judge, but some of you laugh at the notion. Thank god none of you are in charge, you're too stupid to understand what's important.
Why are you against the Iraqis having an impartial trial?
The official said that Saddam avoided answering questions directly and at times appeared less than coherent. But when he was asked whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction the official said he said: "No, of course not. The US dreamt them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us."
You would have thought they would have shoved bamboo shoots up his fingers or something...
It seems like many of you are overlooking what needs to be a very important goal of this first Iraqi Tribunal. Of course it's important that Saddam "get his just rewards" and that the relatives of his victims be a part of that jury... but... it's a foregone conclusion that the guy is guilty.
So the larger question is: will Iraq demonstrate to the world that they can hold a professional and legitimate legal trial under the lights of television crews from all around the world? That is, the way in which the eventual Tribunal participants conduct themselves and reason through the sentencing stage, can either set a positive precedent for other ME nations which are considering democratic processes... or it can be a sideshow for the television cameras.
This is more about Iraqis taking it upon themselves to "do things right" than it is about "what happens to Saddam". If they come off as a frenzied or revenge-minded group, that court will have instantly lost any validity it gained simply by coming into existence in the first place. IOW, whoever gets tried after Saddam has a stake in all this too.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books, War On Iraq (Context Books) and The Greatest Sedition is Silence (Pluto Press). His book Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism will be available in August from Context Books.
Editor's Note: This article first appeared on TruthOut.org's Web site and is reprinted with permission.
Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of themÑthe soldiers as well as HusseinÑhave received pay from the United States for services rendered.
It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last 12 years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books, War On Iraq (Context Books) and The Greatest Sedition is Silence (Pluto Press). His book Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism will be available in August from Context Books.
Editor's Note: This article first appeared on TruthOut.org's Web site and is reprinted with permission.
Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, ....
When did the "American federal government" employ Saddam? Never? It's easy to write op-eds when you don't have to think and can make up what you want.
I have to agree with Scott there. Psycho-left wing propaganda doesn't do anyone a service, anymore than right-wing propaganda. Hussein was never an "employee" of the US Govt. Assinine, Michael Moore-like drivle.
I have to agree with Scott there. Psycho-left wing propaganda doesn't do anyone a service, anymore than right-wing propaganda. Hussein was never an "employee" of the US Govt. Assinine, Michael Moore-like drivle.
Absolutely, one should not condone this badmouthing of the US govt. They _never_ employ dictators.
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1] Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
Comments
People have to at least put some faith, support and responsibility to Iraqis. This could be something for Iraq to build on.
As for the venue of the trial, I am not sure that there is a perfect venue. Whatever is the choice of the U.S. leadership - and it will be their choice, right or wrong - you can be pretty sure that questions of international law will not trouble them very much.
But keep in mind that if there are violations of international law in deciding Saddam's fate, they will be trivial in relation to violations that took place in the Iraqi campaign in the first place.
And also keep in mind - especially keep in mind - that considerations of his fate are trivial next to the fate of the Iraqi people generally. Screw Saddam and think about what's next for Iraq.
Hell, start *that* little meme going in the Mideast and democracy will become much more viable.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The Iraqis will be the ones to try Saddam, not us. But even if we did, why would WE be tempted to not hold a fair trial? Saddam has a grisly record. Do you really think anyone would need to rig the trial?
I'm not saying we would try him, but people we put in place to try him. Rig the trial? It's not about rigging the trial, it's about making a trial legitimate. The Devil might be guilty, but if St. Peter is the judge, the trial just doesn't look legit.
Originally posted by bunge
I can't believe some people are arguing against a trial that would be somewhat impartial. Justice is based on an impartial jury and judge, but some of you laugh at the notion. Thank god none of you are in charge, you're too stupid to understand what's important.
Bunge, your position is entirely correct from a principled point of view. I think, however, from a realistic point of view, this will be a showtrial wherever it takes place and that the result is already determined.
Although I have not agreed with the way the U.S. has undertaken this war campaign, I am not spending much of my time worrying about Saddam Hussein. I am more worried about what the U.S. is going to do generally in Iraq - and potentially in other countries - in the future. Saddam does not deserve any particular consideration amid the larger problems affecting Iraqis or amid the larger issue of the illegality of this entire campaign.
Originally posted by bunge
I can't believe some people are arguing against a trial that would be somewhat impartial. Justice is based on an impartial jury and judge, but some of you laugh at the notion. Thank god none of you are in charge, you're too stupid to understand what's important.
Why are you against the Iraqis having an impartial trial?
No Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam tells interrogators (The Independent)
The official said that Saddam avoided answering questions directly and at times appeared less than coherent. But when he was asked whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction the official said he said: "No, of course not. The US dreamt them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us."
You would have thought they would have shoved bamboo shoots up his fingers or something...
GWB/Blair can now concentrate on making some money.
So the larger question is: will Iraq demonstrate to the world that they can hold a professional and legitimate legal trial under the lights of television crews from all around the world? That is, the way in which the eventual Tribunal participants conduct themselves and reason through the sentencing stage, can either set a positive precedent for other ME nations which are considering democratic processes... or it can be a sideshow for the television cameras.
This is more about Iraqis taking it upon themselves to "do things right" than it is about "what happens to Saddam". If they come off as a frenzied or revenge-minded group, that court will have instantly lost any validity it gained simply by coming into existence in the first place. IOW, whoever gets tried after Saddam has a stake in all this too.
Originally posted by Aquafire
That's really interesting because
a) the group wants the UN over the US
b) saddams attacks on communists were greatly supported by the US
It's Not OverÊ
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books, War On Iraq (Context Books) and The Greatest Sedition is Silence (Pluto Press). His book Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism will be available in August from Context Books.
Editor's Note: This article first appeared on TruthOut.org's Web site and is reprinted with permission.
Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of themÑthe soldiers as well as HusseinÑhave received pay from the United States for services rendered.
It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last 12 years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.
(continues at Tompaine.com)
Originally posted by giant
That's really interesting because
...
b) saddams attacks on communists were greatly supported by the US
How's that?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9602
It's Not OverÊ
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times best-selling author of two books, War On Iraq (Context Books) and The Greatest Sedition is Silence (Pluto Press). His book Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism will be available in August from Context Books.
Editor's Note: This article first appeared on TruthOut.org's Web site and is reprinted with permission.
Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, ....
When did the "American federal government" employ Saddam? Never? It's easy to write op-eds when you don't have to think and can make up what you want.
When you send millions to financial support to a dictatorship... they are in affect on the payroll.
We were helping the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan too.
Originally posted by Moogs
I have to agree with Scott there. Psycho-left wing propaganda doesn't do anyone a service, anymore than right-wing propaganda. Hussein was never an "employee" of the US Govt. Assinine, Michael Moore-like drivle.
Absolutely, one should not condone this badmouthing of the US govt. They _never_ employ dictators.
Dictators work on a freelance basis.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1] Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]