Saddam Captured: After The Interogation What Then?

[RT_1984]

Moderate Centrist:

I never liked that name anyway. Too meek. But anyway, I think people are reacting emotionally and irrationally when they advocate torture as well. Just like much of the irrational anti-americanism which is vomited up by morons who would do anything but give an ounce of credit to the stewards of global capitalism. No, they're not perfect. But no country is. And if you want to see arrogance, go to Europe. Germany has often been regarded as arrogant and they're people also. Ever read anything on the tour de France and what Lance had to do when he first raced there? Italians are the best in the world but can't even win a damn championship because of their egos in a team situation. And I'm not even going to go into the history of European foreign policy. So if the people want to praise the EU and China for what they are definitely not then go ahead. But you'd better burn your history books too. Bottom line: if it wasn't for the US in WW2, we might be speaking German by now. If it wasn't for them in the Cold War we might be speaking Russian. And you and others can go on with all the anti-American crap you want, but its really just eurocentric jealousy, and it makes me sick. All countries have greedy people. Move on. Because we all know that when it comes down to a choice between Bush and Hussein, or the Republicans and the People's Republic, we're gonna choose the Red white and blue. And if anything happens to Canada, we won't be screaming to France for help. Now I know what you're gonna say. I just commented on the death penalty. But this is the underlying theme to so many conversations on this board. Global capitalism, vs. welfare liberalism, social democracy, and socialism. Its all the same. Bottom line: the countries with the highest standard of living and those with the least regulated economies and the same is seen provincially within Canada: Alberta, Ontario, BC with Newfoundland and PEI at the bottom. Long live global capitalism. I hope it swallows this whole country and world as it seems to be doing through globalization. And you know what? There's not a damn thing Naomi Klein can do about it.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello RT 1984,

I don't really care for that name - Too bureaucratic.

" And you and others can go on with all the anti-American crap you want, but its really just eurocentric jealousy, and it makes me sick."

RT 1984

Once again I'm forced to point out I'm not anti-American.

I am well aware of the history of American and European foreign policy and if you will note from my posts did not address this issue at all here.

The question was what should be done with Saddam. In my opinion, if I'm allowed to have one, he should be imprisoned for life.

If other people have different ideas that's fine.

"Now I know what you're gonna say. I just commented on the death penalty. But this is the underlying theme to so many conversations on this board. Global capitalism, vs. welfare liberalism, social democracy, and socialism. "

RT 1984

You are right that is what I'm going to say. It seems to be a common tactic on this discussion forum to attribute to people points of view they do not share.

If you are interested in what I want to know on the above or any other topics the easiest way to find out is to ask me directly.

To say that because someone opposses the death penalty they are anti-American or anti-Capitalism is ridiculous.

[KrustyKidd]

Hm. What'll happen after the interrogation? Well let's see... First they'll torture Saddam to get the rest of the high-ranking Iraqi operatives. Then they'll probably kill him (hanging, blowing up by a firing squad, torturing to death, one of those). After that, the Iraqis will have a great new leader and a great government set up directly by the United States.

Is it just this board of is there idiots on others? Why did the US give him a physical? Why did they allow pictures to be taken of him with no bruises? What torture techniques will they use while under the close watch of every leftist news/humanitarian/amnesty organisation on the planet?

As for the rest of the rant read my answer to your fellow bridge club lady below.

After that, the Iraqis will have a great new leader and a great government set up directly by the United States.

Been watching the news lately? American kids dying while on patrol in Iraq. Whole operation going to cost $500 billion? Guess you missed all that. If things were what you say they woul have simply left everything in place and eliminated Saddam. No fuss, no muss and you would have a well heeled dictator.

This is democracy building. I know you don't like it but the only way it can be done is to treat the people with kid gloves. How easy it would be to simply install fear as before with secret police instead of getting rid of the secret police then ask for volunteers. How easy it would be to install a groomed dictator instead of trying to get people who have been slaves their entire life to try and write a constitution in less than a year. Your idiocy would astound me however, I see it for the ignorant poop for brains tripe that it is.

so in other words there screwed like the rest of the world. the US cant organize their own government let alone another nation.

i think he will be assasinated, by some one secretly working for the US, the US will deny it, and in 30-40 yrs it will all come out, after that wonderful nieghbor of ours is collapsed in ruins because of missmanagement.

Economy skyrocketing, the only thing preventing the world from being over run by crud. Yes, totally mismanaged. That's why it can reach across the globe to rip the corruption out of a country like Iraq without destroying it.

As for Saddam 'mysteriously' dying. Unthinkable. He has a date with an Iraqi supreme court, a corination of sorts to signify the first 'true' government action of the new country of Iraq. I would imagine that he is watched and looked after with almost as much securtiy as the President of the USA is. He's kinda importent.

As for what to do with him. Pretty easy to answer question. America is Democracy building in Iraq. They are on the verge of allowing free elections. They capture the old dictator - in Iraq. Supposedly they are acting in the interests of the Iraqis.

Once there is a legitimate Iraqi government to turn him over to, turn him over.

As for International Courts and stuff, he was captured in Iraq, not on the high seas. Once Iraq has dealt their justice, the Hague can have what is left.

One other point; once the US is sucessful in getting the Iraqis to form a democratic government, I hope it contains the democratic legalities that we value as well. Innocent until proven guilty and all. To make their first legal act a public stoning of Saddam is a very bad move.

[Morgan]

Whereas some of us were whimsically thinking of poetic justice type punishments for Saddam[seeing left wingers getting their shorts in a knot was good fun but all good things must come to an end...to be honest, electric chair or hanging would be fine by me...pink juice however would be too good for him in my books], I feel strongly that the Iraqi government should do whatever they please with Uncle Saddam. Period, with none of our "higher moral ground" saccharin crap shoved in their faces.

Where were we 'high moral ground" types when Saddam was torturing his people? Modern Centrist, did you go out annually and protest his brutality? Hardner, did you write letters to Chretien and Graham and Kofi Annan? What about you, Communist Boy, did you write letters to the CBC to do an expose series on Iraq and Saddam's psychopathology?

I know what I did. I did nothing. Iraqis were the farthest thing from my mind all these years. I slept well, I ate well, I drove nice cars, I travelled abroad wherever and whenever I pleased. I even remember seeing Saddam's birthday party on CNN but I don't remember thinking about how ordinary Iraqis were doing.

While Iraqis were being raped, shot in the head, jailed underground, and while children were put in prison and others were orphaned due to their parents being gassed, I did nothing. I led my life and happily so.

Right now, for all the years I forgot about what this tyrant did to these suffering people, I say to the Iraqis...do what you please with Saddam, whatever gives you peace of mind and heals your souls. I'm sorry the world waited so long to give you this opportunity.

You self-righteous folks might want to take a minute...get off your high horses...and mentally walk in the shoes of these newly liberated Iraqis.

And if you still believe that after your wife was raped, after your child was imprisoned, after your parents gassed, that putting Saddam in prison for life is sufficient punishment to pay for the evil he's inflicted on powerless ordinary people who by unlucky Fate were born in Iraq and not in Canada, you have no heart.

[Moderate Centrist]

"Where were we 'high moral ground" types when Saddam was torturing his people? Modern Centrist, did you go out annually and protest his brutality? "

Morgan

Actually I didn't, like most people. Nor did I protest the war in Iraq although I didn't agree with it. My position at this point in time sways towards isolationism and non-intervention.

Many people in the world live under conditions similar or worse that Saddam Hussein's regime. They can not all be liberated. Intervention in other countries can cause problems equal to or beyond what came before.

I believe the fate of Saddam should be left to the Iraqis or the Americans. I have made no claims otherwise. I simply oppose the death penalty and thought I was free to express such an opinion.

I fully understand revenge and what drives it. This does not mean I should endorse torture or capital punishment.

"You self-righteous folks might want to take a minute...get off your high horses...

Morgan

I do not claim moral high ground. I'll leave that to others. My point of view is legitmate and I have every right to express it.

[Morgan]

Modern Centrist,

You have a right to express your opinion, just like everyone else, in this kind of open ended discussion.

But then when you turn around and sit in judgement of others' opinions, it should come as no surprise that you will be taken to task for the tone of your remarks:

I am bothered when I see people on this site advocating torture and then equating it with justice.

[KrustyKidd]

I believe the fate of Saddam should be left to the Iraqis or the Americans. I have made no claims otherwise. I simply oppose the death penalty and thought I was free to express such an opinion.

In my opinion as a right wing type, for the US to take justice for Saddam out of the hands of Iraq is unthinkable. They have worked too hard, weathered so many battles both militarily and politically to lose credibility now. In my world there is only justice for Saddam by a free Iraq. Failing that, I would join the anti US crowd in a big way. As I said before, this guy wasn't boarded on the high seas in international waters so the Hague can go stuff themselves and help Milosovik with his re-election campaign but Saddam is the symbol of a new Iraq. A better Iraq, a fair Iraq.

Will the new Iraq have a death penalty?

.

I feel my position that Saddam should not be executed is reasonable. Obviously he will be but I do not agree..

Why is it obvious? Why is it a given that the new Iraq will have the death penalty? Do you not think that it is quite possible that Iraq will become a place where justice for all is a given? A place wheree a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially in the begining? Saddam would send a clear message to all what the new country is all about, to spare him and send him to be pumped from behind for life is humane. Is the new Iraq humane?

This is legitmate. I am not expressing negative comments against those who feel otherwise. I have always oppossed the death penalty for any and all reasons

I believe the death penalty is a good deterrent. I am glad we do not have it as I believe that no state should lower themselves to the level of murderer. However, my biggest problem with the death penalty is that most who suffer from it do not get the high powered defense lawyers afforded to the likes of OJ, Beltway Sniper, Saddam etc. Just Joe Blow and the Judge working against a tee off time.

You want to go for the death penalty? Hand the defendant two million dollars and go for it. That's what I believe. You had better be sure of your case, you had better be sure of his guilt, and you had better be sure you really want it.

[Morgan]

KK,

IMO, the Iraqis cannot have their brutal past co-exist with their new beginnings. As long as Saddam lives there will always be hope lingering in the hearts of Baathist supporters that he will assume leadership again. You think that's insane? Look how that coward of a man had everyone in fear and in awe of his might for 30 years. And as long as Saddam is alive, ordinary Iraqis will live in fear that he will come back.

There's no question in my mind that he should be tried quickly with no fanfare in a closed tribunal of judges. He can have a lawyer to represent him if he wants, but all your idealism about being innocent until proven guilty is inappropriate for genocidal butchers.

If Hitler or Stalin were brought to trial, you'd still believe they had a right to the presumption of innocence? Saddam is in their league. The Napoleonic Code is more in keeping with this type of case.

To say that you don't want the state to reduce themselves to a murderer's level...I have a hard time with that comment.

Look around you...governments sanction the taking of lives everyday...there's rationed medical care for starters...sorry to tell you this, KK, but when you're past 50, don't expect the Dept. of Health Services to foot the bill for bypass surgery or heart/lung transplants...it's buns up. Nothing radical to save your life past cutting out cancer, and even that becomes more of an "economic burden" when a person is pushing 70.

Abortion is another area where gov'ts sanction taking of lives in a big time way, yet rarely do you hear worries about "barbaric" practice in those instances.

The only difficulty that "civilized" nations have in taking lives is when it comes to the life of a murderer. Strangely enough, that's the only time I hear the "worry about sinking to that level" argument ever come up.

[KrustyKidd]

IMO, the Iraqis cannot have their brutal past co-exist with their new beginnings.

As I said, this is their country. Will they have the death penalty? I think it is pretty messed if they make a special order just for one man. Kind of makes it like they change the rules case to case. Not a true democracy then is it?

Believe it or not, I would love to have him visit me for a weekend to burn him with a torch and try out my Mastercraft plier set. But that is not democracy and Iraq today is all about that. He is nothing compared to what the US and the Council are trying to say to the people of Iraq and the world.

As long as Saddam lives there will always be hope lingering in the hearts of Baathist supporters that he will assume leadership again. You think that's insane? Look how that coward of a man had everyone in fear and in awe of his might for 30 years. And as long as Saddam is alive, ordinary Iraqis will live in fear that he will come back.

All the more reason to be calm, collected and make sure justice is done in the way the new Iraqi constitution says. He is the test case. To throw him into a hole with a bullet in the back of the head is sending out a message that they are afraid. They will do this to anybody that scrrews with them. Is that the message that a democracy should send out?

There's no question in my mind that he should be tried quickly with no fanfare in a closed tribunal of judges. He can have a lawyer to represent him if he wants, but all your idealism about being innocent until proven guilty is inappropriate for genocidal butchers.

Seriously, I'd love to try out the pliers in my basement with this guy and a couple of two fours over a weekend. I can judge him pretty good already. Why go through the stupidity of a trial? I mean, when a kid is almost eighteen and commits a crime, let's throw the young offenders act out the window if we're pissed at him. As well, is the speed limit 80 KM as posted or is it 85? Are we making rules up as we go along to suit each case or trying all under the same set?

If Hitler or Stalin were brought to trial, you'd still believe they had a right to the presumption of innocence? Saddam is in their league. The Napoleonic Code is more in keeping with this type of case.

To say that you don't want the state to reduce themselves to a murderer's level...I have a hard time with that comment.

Of course you do. I do too. It is however, more imprtent for the new state of Iraq to prove themselves true venders of justice than to kill the 'guilty bastard.' Think of the message that sends if he is given life in prison with hard labor; even the worst of society gets justice. Even the worst gets heard and suffers not under mob rule.

Serious, if mob rule were unleashed a parking offender might get a five dollar ticket from me on a monday when I'm not in a hurry to get to a clothing store but on a friday when I'm pissed and paying a lawyer a hundred bucks an hour to wait and there is some scum not paying for a space I need, only one verdict - death.

Look around you...governments sanction the taking of lives everyday...there's rationed medical care for starters...sorry to tell you this, KK, but when you're past 50, don't expect the Dept. of Health Services to foot the bill for bypass surgery or heart/lung  transplants...it's buns up. Nothing radical to save your life past cutting out cancer, and even that becomes more of an "economic burden" when a person is pushing 70.

Abortion is another area where gov'ts sanction taking of lives in a big time way, yet rarely do you hear worries about "barbaric" practice in those instances.

The only difficulty that "civilized" nations have in taking lives is when it comes to the life of a murderer. Strangely enough, that's the only time I hear the "worry about sinking to that level" argument ever come up.

I said earlier that I have no problem 'frying the guilty bastard' except for the fact that frequently he is not given the big money defense that high profile types get. Saddam, if Iraq ends up having a death penalty, I am sure will get his and it will be the right thing to do.

My message was simply that Saddam alive may well be worth more than Saddam dead. Solidtary confinment. They spare him, show Iraq they are humanitarian and he dies of despair in two years.

It's a golden opportunity to kick off a democracy.

The rest of this post is off topic but holds water very well. This is where government fails many. I have a pension that covers me as well as private insurance that also covers me as well as OHIP and life insurance. Many do not have this. I assume you are American and know that many of the Americans I come in contact with left jobs in the private sector to work in the factories that I go to specifically for this heath care reason. Why don't you start a thread on this subject? I'd join in to better understand it for sure.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hi Morgan,

I have no problem with people opposing my point of view. I do have a problem when people attribute a position to me which I do not hold and have never stated.

As I mentioned before if anyone wants to know what I think of a subject the best way to find out is to ask me directly.

As for my stand on torture - I am oppossed to this kind of treatment of any prisoner regardless of who it is.

From a personal standpoint if someone did great harm to my family I would want to hurt them back but these sentiments can not and must not enter into the law.

As I've stated many times the West must take the moral high ground. We should not be a party to advocates of torture.

Are you suggesting that opposing torture of prisoners is a low moral position?

From your tone I could assume you advocate torture but I'll give you the courtesy of a direct question:

What is your stance on the torture of prisoners?

[Lost in Manitoba]

I was just listening to a political analyst from Langley on the radio talking about Saddam. Believe it or not, there seems to be people willing to defend him. Halabjah(?) apperently may be defendable due to the fact it was occupied territory by the Iranians. He suggested that the #'s of deaths too, was fiction by the press. Interesting to hear different views on this.

As for Milosovich, I'm waiting to hear what's going on with Clark being in court.

[Morgan]

1. Modern Centrist,

I am only too happy to give you my answer as to my opinion on the torture of prisoners and capital punishment because both are somewhat "connected" discussion points.

First off, I believe in capital punishment. I don't think it's a barbaric punishment whatsoever. I view capital punishment the same way I view abortion. I believe both are necessary evils.

By and large, I don't advocate torture of prisoners except in instances of saving lives and where convention methods like sodium pentathol have failed to produce results.

Case in point is Saddam Hussein. He knows information that can lead to the apprehension of actual and potential terrorists [or "insurgents" as CBC and CNN like to call murderers]. Furthermore, I firmly believe Saddam can help us find his stash of WMD, whether they're still in Iraq or whether they've been trucked off to Syria or Iran. Innocent lives hang in the balance. So if Saddam is not forthcoming with this information in short order, then I believe any method is morally justified to extricate this vital information.

Lest you, Hardner, and Communist Boy fret I want to torture drunk drivers who mow down little kids at a crosswalks, I will re-iterate my position to save you anxiety induced ulcers: to save lives, torture is a morally acceptable, albeit an inefficient method, to extract information wherein lives can be saved.

Quite frankly, I don't think I'll ever convince you that lives saved is justification for torture. Nor will you ever convince me that assuaging Western instilled guilt about the evils of torture represents "high moral ground."

2. KrustyKidd,

First off, I put a high value on your opinions. Usually I agree with your positions, in fact, and on the rare occasion when I don't agree, [Palestine/Israel]at least I understand your position.

But with regards to the discussion of what's to be done with Saddam, I am confused about your position. There's lots of slipping and sliding.

On the one hand, I see you straining hard to be openminded about respecting the right of Iraqis to deal with Saddam themselves and not sending him to Brussels to be tried in International Court.

But on the other hand, you want the Iraqis to accord Saddam your version of Western "civilized" justice[ie. Saddam is presumed innocent, no capital punishment but rather hard labour]

You say:

All the more reason to be calm, collected and make sure justice is done in the way the new Iraqi constitution says. He is the test case. To throw him into a hole with a bullet in the back of the head is sending out a message that they are afraid. They will do this to anybody that scrrews with them. Is that the message that a democracy should send out?

Why do you assume that Iraqis would lose their heads and allow mob rule? Iraq as a known civilization has existed since 4000 B.C. ...far longer than Western civilizations.

Accordingly, Iraq has had a good set of laws on the books dating back to the days of Hammurabi ie. Iraqis are not without their own legal traditions.

Like all civilizations,there have been changes to the codified laws[apart from Saddam decreeing new laws at his pleasure]. But if you strip away Saddam's decrees, modern Iraq has a justice system and a Penal Code, that has evolved over time to ultimately represent an amalgam of Napoleonic Code and Islamic Sharia in the main, with hints of Ottoman and British law.

Exiled Iraqi lawyers have suggested that a special Iraqi court be struck to try Iraqis who have authorized or committed crimes against humanity and genocide like Saddam, high ranking Baathists and military officials.

These same exiled lawyers feel that run of the mill low level criminals... murderers, thugs could be tried in the regular Iraqi courts, which will work just fine now that Saddam's subversion of their powers no longer exists. I tend to agree with them.

With regards to your question about whether or not Iraq has the death penalty...the answer is yes and no.

Iraq has the death penalty in its Penal Code, but in the course of Saddam's 30 year rule, it's commonly recognized that he used the death penalty in the Penal Code to punish people for "political" crimes.

So this summer, because of Saddam's misuse of the death penalty and because of pressure from coalition partners, like the UK which has abolished capital punishment, Paul Bremer convinced the new Iraqi governing council to suspend use of the death penalty.

Now that Saddam is captured and his arrest may lead to other murderous thugs under his command as well as foreign terrorist operatives in Iraq who have committed heinous crimes, I would imagine that the Iraqi governing council will seek to "unsuspend" the death penalty.

With regards to the "message" the new Iraqi democracy would send with unsuspending the death penalty already on their books, I see no problems. No doubt, many Westerners will not agree with Iraq resuming the implementation of the death penalty, but IMO, the accompanying angst will not be the fault of the Iraqis.The ensuing "problems" stem from our self-deluded certainty about our "high moral ground" with regards to the death penalty.

[Galahad]

He replied "No. If I take a glass of water then I will have to use the bathroom. How can I use the bathroom while my people are enslaved?".

This seems like a made-up quote.

Hey there.... you accusing me of making up quotes!!

Even Mark Steyn knows it was true! In the following article Mark says of Saddam:

In his first interrogation at Baghdad Airport, he was asked if he'd like a glass of water, and replied: "If I drink water I will have to urinate and how can I urinate when my people are in bondage?"

I don't MAKE UP quotes!! :angry:

Here's the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../ixopinion.html

[Michael Hardner]

I don't MAKE UP quotes!!

"As one knows the poet by his fine music, so one can recognise the liar by his rich rhythmic utterance."

- Oscar Wilde

I don't know who the rhythmicist is - you, Steyn or Saddam. I guess I could see Steyn on bass, Saddam on drums and you playing the spoons or some other instrument with dulled edges.

[Moderate Centrist]

"Quite frankly, I don't think I'll ever convince you that lives saved is justification for torture."

Morgan

On this you are about 99% right. I would never endorse torture (my main concern is physical or mental torture which permanently damages the prisoner) under any circumstances.

If fighting a war we want to be able to hold our opponents to higher conduct. If we allow torture of prisoners then they will do the same. If we do not and they do we have a higher position and it's to our advantage.

You are also quite right that torture is inefficient. In most cases it's used to get false confessions.

[KrustyKidd]

You think my point is muddled. Wow, I thought it was starkly clear. Here it is again in different condensed words;

Saddam is Iraqi, captured in Iraq and first, a criminal to the Iraqis then second, to the world. Those are the priorities that he should be tried under.

As for Iraq having a four thousand year old highly civilized set of rules and regs - whatever. Doesn’t mean squat now. This is democracy, a whole new game unless I’ve missed something. If you figure the old ways are going to be the same ways, prepare to be disappointed.

They have not set up a constitution yet so to surmise that it will or will not include the death penalty is just guessing.. I guess that it will, but it may not.

You and others assume that 'the guilty bastard' will be strung up or whatever like he actually does IMHO. However, what if their constitution has no death penalty? it would send a message to the world if a special court is not set up and he is tried by the same law as every one else and subsequently is spared. The message would be that Iraq truely is a democracy with one set of rules for all.

On the one hand, I see you straining hard to be openminded about respecting the right of Iraqis to deal with Saddam themselves and not sending him to Brussels to be tried in International Court.

Straining? They can do what they want. Why do you use that term? Because you think that I think they are dumb? The two places on earth I do not want to see Saddam are the USA and The Haugue. It's not being openminded, it's common sense.

But on the other hand, you want the Iraqis to accord Saddam your version of Western "civilized" justice[ie. Saddam is presumed innocent, no capital punishment but rather hard labour]

Is the democratic belief that all men are created equal and justice is blind a western belief? I think that it is an inherrent part of democracy no matter what race, color or religion you are. You know, what they are building in Iraq at this moment. For the first time in it's history.

Why do you assume that Iraqis would lose their heads and allow mob rule? Iraq as a known civilization has existed since 4000 B.C. ...far longer than Western civilizations.

Where did you read that into what I said? These people are working on a constitution so that mob rule does not take place. I said that to try him fair is the only way. I also said that to have different rules for different people is crap. One for you and another for me? That sends out the same message that Saddam did by giving prefferential treatment to regieme members, you know, the system that the US spent $500 billion and a lot of lives to rip out.

With regards to your question about whether or not Iraq has the death penalty...the answer is yes and no.

The answer is no. There is no constitution yet so there is not, nor is there no death penalty, there is nothing.

Accordingly, Iraq has had a good set of laws on the books dating back to the days of Hammurabi ie. Iraqis are not without their own legal traditions.

So first they have one and now they don't but here they are shooting from the hip using an old set of laws that they had lying around. Why don't we simply call a spade a spade and say that they don't have a set of laws in place YET for the new Iraq? Granted they will use lots of stuff from everywhere, maybe even some stuff from the US, to say what is going to be is as I said, just guessing.

As for me and my stand on the death penalty, I am for it with a provision. That provision being that the defendant be given two million dollars so that he may hire the best lawyers money can buy. All too often proper proceedure is not followed because those on trial do not have either the money or publicity that high profile deffendants get. I say let 'em fry, torture them before you do it too, but make sure you have the right person. I was, in Saddams case making an intelligent observation that it would send out a clear message that if his life can be spared then truley they are a democracy in every sense of the word. Open for business.

[Morgan]

Krusty Kidd,

Maybe "muddled' was what I implied, but I think what I meant to say was that you seemed to be "conflicted," not dirct, linear in your thinking. I still feel that's the case.

The crimes of Sadam and his co-horts are different from crimes committed by ordinary Iraqi citizens. How can anyone pretend otherwise? Just like the crimes of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi pals were different than crimes of ordinary Germans. Ergo, the Nuremberg Trials. Germany was still open for business after the Nuremberg Trials concluded.

William F. Buckley had a pithy article in Nat'l Review today about this very subject:

Try Saddam? Justice in War, Wm.F. Buckley

This is a man[saddam], finally apprehended, who killed by the thousands and tortured his country, committing genocide north and south. His "trial" should be of the order we'd have given to Adolf Hitler if he had been taken alive. Exhibit him, make him dwell on what he has done, satisfy the Iraqi people that we share their concern, and that having dispatched an army to their country to contain and disarm him, we will back the Iraqi court that sends him to the gallows. If anybody around wants to plead his cause, go ahead. There will always be fever swamps from which they can make their nescient calls.

P.S. I'm a Canadian, not American, citizen.

And I've already posted articles and made comments about the failed Canadian health system. More money won't help. Universal health care needs to be chucked out the window.

Right now the US system is better than Canada's hands down, but its costs are sky rocketing. If the US tort system were reformed and illegal immigration were stemed, the US health system would get more affordable for American citizens and legal residents. So the health system is good but external malfunctioning "systems" are negatively impacting on health care services.

[KrustyKidd]

This is a man[saddam], finally apprehended, who killed by the thousands and tortured his country, committing genocide north and south. His "trial" should be of the order we'd have given to Adolf Hitler if he had been taken alive. Exhibit him, make him dwell on what he has done, satisfy the Iraqi people that we share their concern, and that having dispatched an army to their country to contain and disarm him, we will back the Iraqi court that sends him to the gallows. If anybody around wants to plead his cause, go ahead. There will always be fever swamps from which they can make their nescient calls.

Looks like your OJ buddy Buckly has a little of the view that Iraq has no law to deal with it either. See how he writes about how 'we' should show the Iraqis? Go ahead WB, show the Iraqis justice American style. A sure way to lose total touch with what we are trying to achieve there - their independance.

As for not being linier, here, I'll try again.

Saddam should be held, as a prisoner of war, interrogated and guarded by the US until there is an ELECTED Iraqi government to turn him over to.

Once done, it's done. That's it. Their business until they see fit to turn him over to somebody else such as Iran's revolutionary Council or the Hague.

I said that it would be a good gesture to give him a fair trial One without a pre determined conclusion. You see something muddled about that? I also said that if Iraq has no death penalty then they sould not make a special case for this as it sends out as message that there is diffeent laws for different people. That seems pretty clear to me as well.

I think where you and I part ways is where I say try him in the highest court in Iraq using the laws that they have for the normal citizen. You, on the other hand figure that he is guilty and therefore, because the crimes are of such magnitude that he should have an 'extra special' court to go to. Are not all courts that are set up properly able to hear evidence and refutations? I mean, there is ample opportunity to show how much of an evil being he is in any properly set up court. What better way to show how the Iraqi Democratic Court is set up than to try thier old Dictator in it?

Nurembourg was not a German court, it was an post war occupying power's court. That's why it was different. What we are talking about here is the Iraqi people trying one of their own, and if they have no death penalty, he does the max time on the book

Any clearer or should I try again?

BTW, where did I touch on health care?

[righturnonred]

The death penalty needs to be an option, here's why:

Hussein has knowledge of, or knows who had knowledge of the location of WMD's, whether they be in country or inside Syria. I think interrogators can provide Saddam a plea deal: WMD's in exchange for life in prison.

Saddam went to extrordinary lengths to preserve his own life. If this lunatic is willing to volunterily live like a vagrant in a hole in the ground for months on end, prison shouldn't seem to bad to him.

Saddam on trial at the Hauge... un no.

US trial? last I check, Saddam's not a citizen of the US. US military tribunal maybe, but not a criminal trial.

Iraqi war crimes tribunal? Bingo. They're the ones that suffered the most under Saddam's fist.

---------------------------------

Keep talkin Communist boy, everyone's listening.

[KrustyKidd]

The death penalty needs to be an option, here's why:

That's up to the Iraqis. If the US pulls crap like that then what message does plea bargining put out? Just what they are trying to avooid, special stuff for special people. They can interrogate him till the cows come home, put sand bags over his head and dunk him in a toilet, whatever they do in secret but on trial he has to be like everybody else, subject to the same laws and the same punishments.

US trial? last I check, Saddam's not a citizen of the US. US military tribunal maybe, but not a criminal trial.

Iraqi war crimes tribunal?  Bingo.  They're the ones that suffered the most under Saddam's fist.

Morgan anbd Righturn. in retrospect, I will conceed a special war crimes tribunal verses the normal Iraqi court. Not for the reasons of justice but rather ease of dealing with the sheer volume of suspects facing justice. Given the fact that much of the evidence will be overlapping with same dates/locations and orders given, it will require a specialized court system to keep track of it. Here, is where the penalty may differ from the normal Iraqi justice system. It may, scince it is specialy set up, have different punishments from the normal court system as well.

[Morgan]

KrustyKidd,

1. You asked:

BTW, where did I touch on health care?

This is where:

The rest of this post is off topic but holds water very well. This is where government fails many. I have a pension that covers me as well as private insurance that also covers me as well as OHIP and life insurance. Many do not have this. I assume you are American and know that many of the Americans I come in contact with left jobs in the private sector to work in the factories that I go to specifically for this heath care reason. Why don't you start a thread on this subject? I'd join in to better understand it for sure.

2. With regards to Buckley, his concerns are with regards to the Western system of justice, not with the Iraqis' system of justice.

3. The Iraqis' Penal Code was last revised in 1969. It is not Stone Age. The Iraqis have the death penalty in their Penal Code. Bremer temporarily suspended its use.

4. I know that the Nuremberg Trials were not conducted by Germans. I used Nuremberg as an example of special tribunal to deal with special crimes rather than using the regular legal system.

5. As far as I'm concerned, the UN waived their rights to try Saddam,several years ago, when they turned a blind eye to Saddam's well publicized payment of $25,000 for Palestinian suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli citizens. The UN's deafening silence on this matter was as good as saying we"pass;" let someone else deal with Uncle Saddam. I hope Bush doesn't buckle under pressure from the EU, Kofi Annan, and Colin Powell. The UN can blow their "moral outrage" out their ears.

6. It will probably take another 6 months to drag all the information out of Uncle Saddam, using TLC Geneva Convention rules. That's about time for the Iraqi governing council to put together a tribunal of 5 judges from the ranks of Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite population. I'd say 2 each for Kurds and Shiites and 1 Sunni. I don't see any need for waiting for a new elected government and a new constitution. This is a judicial matter. It's not a constitutional matter.Saddam could easily get a fine stable of ACLU lawyers working pro bono for his release. Since Napoleonic Code assumes guilt with the burden of proof on the defendent to demonstrate his innocence, I think the trial should move along quite swiftly. Saddam could use the Twinkie defence, I guess, but what else?

7. As for death penalty being unfairly applied to poor people, no I don't believe that's the case these days. The poor get very good representation and countless opportunities for appeal.

In fact the only reason that I've thought made good sense for abolishing the death penalty is because the costs of defending a death row inmate are so astronomical and law abiding taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Some studies have placed the cost of a death penalty case from arrest to execution at approx. $3 Million, which is 3 times the cost of incarceration for the same case.

8. BTW, OJ did not win his case because of his expensive lawyers. OJ got off because the prosecution lost the case due to their ineptitude. Remember Chris Darden and the infamous ill-fiiting glove? Also, the case was tried with a downtown LA jury pool which was a plus factor for the defense. Had OJ been tried with a jury pool of "peers" from suburban LA where Nicole was murdered, the OJ trial may have had a very different verdict, inspite of the prosecutions' screw ups.

[KrustyKidd]

3. The Iraqis' Penal Code was last revised in 1969. It is not Stone Age. The Iraqis have the death penalty in their Penal Code. Bremer temporarily suspended its use.

and

I don't see any need for waiting for a new elected government and a new constitution. This is a judicial matter. It's not a constitutional matter.

I see a need to wait, right now the council in charge is viewed as an American Puppet. To have any credibility to the Arab world, Saddam must be tried by Arabs. Like I said, Iraq has to try him. Not a transitional Iraq but Iraq. Free, elected Iraq. Will the free elected Iraq reinstate the death penalty? Probably, but not for sure. If they don't, it will definitely be a gentler nation than any other in the Middle East.

The poor get very good representation and countless opportunities for appeal.

Here are some stats.

CAPITAL CASE LAWYERS FEES

Lucas County caps its fees at $25,000 per case for the two attorneys It is among 36 of 88 Ohio counties

that pay $25,000 or less, according to statistics assembled last year by the Ohio Public Defender's Office. Forty-three counties cap the fees at  $40,000 or more - of those, 13 pay up to $50,000.

Last year, one death-penalty case went through a full trial in Lucas County, costing about $24,700, according to the court administrator's office.

Counties such as Franklin and Montgomery allow the two attorneys to split as much as $50,000 Even some of the area's rural counties like Paulding and Williams have caps of $40,000, according to the state public defender's

office.

Not a hellofa lot of defence is it? I'd certainly say that I would have my reservations about many of these cases.

I guess you are right about the appeals though. However, if the job had been done right the first time then there would be a lot less of them.

SOME DEATH ROW STATS

How many wrongfully executed?

At least 23 people this century have been executed and later found innocent according to Michael Radelet and Hugo Adam Bedau in their book entitled Inspite of Innocence.

Recent Numbers Nationally:

Released nationally from death rows because of innocence since 1971: 101

Total number of people executed between 1973 and February 3, 2000: 610

Number of people executed for every person released for innocence: 7.18

Georgia Numbers:

Total executed since 1976: 29

Number of people released for wrongful convictions since 1970: 6

BTW, OJ did not win his case because of his expensive lawyers. OJ got off because the prosecution lost the case due to their ineptitude. Remember Chris Darden and the infamous ill-fiiting glove? Also, the case was tried with a downtown LA jury pool which was a plus factor for the defense. Had OJ been tried with a jury pool of "peers" from suburban LA where Nicole was murdered, the OJ trial may have had a very different verdict, inspite of the prosecutions' screw ups.

Yes indeed, a lot of luck, for sure. With lesser lawyers he would have lost in a big way. Another thing, if he had lost, we would have known that it was not for lack of legal representation. That's my point.