Saddam's Dark Future

The US has announced it will turn over Saddam Hussein to an Iraqi war crimes tribunal before June 30.

Salem Chalabi said 100 officials of the former regime, like Tariq Aziz and "Chemical" Ali Hasan Majid, would also be returned ahead of any tribunals.

"They will be transferred to us before the transfer of power," he told reporters in Kuwait….

Mr Chalabi, who is in Kuwait to collect evidence against the detainees, said trials would begin early next year.

"We will put 100 people… including Saddam Hussein, on trial," he said.

"The punishments against those criminals will include executions," Mr Chalabi added, in remarks quoted by Reuters.

Whole thing here.

Comments

[Bob Basil]

What Iraqi is going to testify against these Baathist hoodlums at a public trial in Iraq?

You will therefore have:

100 trials.
100 verdicts of not guilty.
1 more collossal Bush/Republican failure.

[Todd Fletcher]

I try to be moderate about things, but - Bob, you're an idiot.

[Skippy the Bush Kangaroo]

What are the chances there will be anything resembling due process at these show trials in Iraq?

You will therefore have:

100 trials.
100 verdicts of guilty.
A number of executions.

[Bob Basil]

Skippy,

If you are right, then it still adds up to one collossal Bush/Republican failure, certainly in the eyes of the non-American world.

And Todd,

I appreciate the fervor that this topic evokes, but you might want to look at the numerous stories told by Iraqis themselves saying the same thing I said.

[R C Dean]

Way to condemn the process in a total void of information, Skippy.

Maybe there will be "adequate" due process to US standards, maybe not.

I would be shocked if the due process shown wasn't far in excess of the standard in region, and more than satisfactory to the Iraqis.

What benchmark should we use? Should the Great Satan "impose" his Western ideas of due process on the Iraqis, or should we honor whatever process the Iraqis come up with themselves?

[Walter Wallis]

Nah. We should just hang the sonofabitch in that square where his statue used to be and let the nattering class vote on what to do next.

[Skippy the Bush Kangaroo]

R C

I was employing hyperbole to demonstrate the converse of Bob's position. I was trying to point out that it will be extremely difficult for the Iraqi authorities to produce a credible result.

"If you are right, then it still adds up to one collossal Bush/Republican failure, certainly in the eyes of the non-American world."

Exactly. They're screwed either way.

[Sir Real]

A fair trial followed by a quick execution.

Why would anyone doubt the justice of that?

[Dan]

If you are right, then it still adds up to one collossal Bush/Republican failure, certainly in the eyes of the non-American world.

Yeah, whatever.

There are only likely possibilities here:

(1): The accused receive fair trials and get jailed or executed.
(2): The accused receive unfair trials and get jailed or executed.

They're guilty, Bob. If they truly received fair trials, they'd be convicted.

And with all due respect to "the eyes of the non-American world", anyone who has a problem with the execution of Ba'athists isn't worth listening to. Offending a person who disapproves of Hussein's execution isn't an example of "failure"; it's an inevitable side effect of success.

[thoreau]

Several months ago this forum was indignant over the prospect of Saddam Hussein getting a trial.

Me, I have 100% confidence that Saddam Hussein will be convicted and executed, unless the entire jury consists of relatives of Saddam and the defense team is headed up by Johnnie Cochran (note to self: frame Cochran as a Baathist insurgent and have him sent to Abu Ghraib prison 🙂

I'm looking forward to seeing the Iraqi people hold the tyrant accountable for his crimes. It will be a powerful moment in history.

[Bob Basil]

Nobody has addressed the problem of getting witnesses to testify, when all witnesses who are called -- let alone those who testify -- and all of their families, will immediately be sought out for slaughter throughout Iraq. There is no getting around this.

[Bob Basil]

Nobody has addressed the problem of getting witnesses to testify, when all witnesses who are called -- let alone those who testify -- and all of their families, will immediately be sought out for slaughter throughout Iraq. There is no getting around this.

[Larry Edelstein]

It should be painfully obvious to all but the and the that despite the widespread hatred of the US in Iraq, there are hundreds of thousands of people who will be ready to testify against Saddam Hussein.

(I couldn't leave in the vitriol I typed first, but neither could I remove it entirely.)

[Bob Basil]

Yes and of course:

There are probably millions who would wish to testify against Saddam and the Baathists.

But, when the country is not secured, the dangers of retribution are not at all remote.

There will be no true witnesses, unless the United States will give ten million dollars and free land in Utah, and protection, to a thousand Iraqis convinced that they and their families will be safe.

Read the Iraqi press.

It is hopeless. Bush cannot think ten seconds ahead.

[Douglas Fletcher]

No, but maybe we could try you in it.

We're still working on the indictment. Keep writing. 🙁

[Gabriel Milland]

all a bit moot....

10.25 GMT

@EX TEXT:intjw 222 08 cai bag Saddam to stay in American hands for now, Iraq?s war crimes chief says
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) ? Saddam Hussein will not be handed over to the Iraqi authorities for trial before June 30, date of planned transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government, and no trial will start before 2005, according to Iraq?s war crimes chief .
Salem Chalabi, the head of Iraq?s war-crimes tribunal, told reporters Tuesday in Kuwait that Saddam would definitely be handed over to the Iraqis before July 1, when Iraq assumes sovereignty, and trials would begin early next year.
U.S. authorities disputed the timetable, and later Chalabi told The Associated Press tat the Americans would turn over Saddam and other former regime figures ?if we are able to hold them in custody.?
In a statement Wednesday, distributed by coalition authorities, Chalabi said the United States ?has indicated that it is willing to hand over individuals in custody - when indicted - to the special Iraqi court dealing with those cases, if that court is ready to take them.?
Chalabi said that it was ?unlikely? that the tribunal would be ready to assume custody of the defendants before June 30.
Individuals may be indicted within the next few months and trials would ?likely be in 2005,? he said.

[John]

You don't need witnesses to testify, the paper trail will be more than enough to convict them. The Baathist regime, like all totalitarian regimes for some strange reason, kept maticulous records of their atrocities. Just because they don't adopt as strict a form of the hearsay rule as we have, doesn't mean the trials are not fair or meet basic due process standards.

[Walter Wallis]

What if Saddam's defense is, as is likely, let me loose to stick it to the United States?
Nope - hang the bastard now.

[Jean Bart]

Ask yourself this question when determining the merits of Iraq's court system:

Would you want to be tried in it? 🙂

[Will]

This is the Muslim world, where they stone people to death in the streets for the most minor of suspected offenses.

Evidence? That's really more of a Western concept. Innocent until proven guilty? Sorry, never heard of it.

Who is in charge of seeing Saddam executed? Chalabi is. Is Saddam's execution in Chalabi's best interest? Of course it is.

Case closed.