Saddam Captured

Originally posted by bus77
But you have to think about the type of charges they will bring against him. Genocide against the kurds will be the main one.

That's never going to be tried. The US had exceptionally dirty hands over Halajba and other such atrocities.
I think we'll see him charged with charges that the US can be sure they're left out of, and given the death penalty as quickly as possible to prevent any embarressing interviews...
.... assuming of course, he doesn't do what his son did and shoot himself in the head. Twice.

You cant put a strong case like that before a court and simply recomend life imprisoment.

What's wrong with life at hard labour in siberia?
You guys are far too eager to put him out of his misery. I mean, think about it - he did commit atrocities - why give him a quick, clean, painless end to things?

But the only person Ive heard compared to Saddam is Hitler and he's a martyr to no one.

Except the neo-nazis and the BNP, who are now in government in the UK, don't forget.

Originally posted by SearrarD
the DNA tests will be comparissons from his son's DNA....so i'm told

And what exactly did they compare his son's DNA to when they "captured" him?

Originally posted by dahamsta
Even as a troll it's sick.

I thought about it....and decided that although distasteful, it is correct.

There is unquestionably an amount of those who were against the war who did want Saddam to remain in power. He and his cronies, for example, were definitely anti-war, and I'm sure that there are still some of them out there who are disappointed that he's been captured.

So, from that perspective, it struck me as a comment which is pedantically defensible...which is why I let it slide....I didn't think anyone would actually rise to the bait.

jc

Originally posted by Cork
Pat Rabbitt seemed to mention this idea but Connor Lenihan seemed to rule it out:

There can be no soft option for Saddam Hussein, offering him asylum sends out a message to other dictators that they can break international law in the knowledge that when the time comes they too can seek asylum."

"If we were to act on the recommendation of the Labour leader Ireland would also run the risk of being completely isolated internationally. We cannot be seen to offer Saddam a get out of jail card."

I haven't ssen much news today, but if this refers to Pat Rabittes commments back in February / March, I believe they were for teh purposes of avoiding the war, not allowing dictators off scott free. Perhaps Conor Lenihan likes the bloods on his^H^H^H other peoples hands - oh sorry FF were against the war weren't they?

Originally posted by Johnmb
He single handedly brought Iraq into the 20th century

And Il Duce made the trains run on time. Somehow, I doubt Saddam dug every drainage canal in Iraq.

Great news. The coalition have shown they can capture at least one of their "big" targets - got to be hope for capturing Osama. Its good to see the Iraqis out celebrating in the street, this spells the absolute end of Saddams regime and its cruelty. Its also nice as it disproves claims that the coalition would never take Saddam alive because of embarrassing details which may come to light. The major question now is how and where hell be tried - hopefully the Iraqis will be allowed to try him but he will and hed probably be right that hed never get a fair trial from Kurds and Shi'ites. An international court may be the answer but it needs to be careful to ensure the UN is given its proper role - As minor as possible and preferably none.

Given his condition and living quarters it seems highly unlikely he was masterminding the resistance so I dont think it will have a major effect on their operations right now but given a surprisingly high level of support for Saddam and Bathists this will hopefully serve to undermine that support and thus provide a smaller base of support for the resistance. It will also reassure the Iraqis that the coalition can and will beat the resistance, that Saddam and his regime is finished and again reduce the level of support for the terrorists.

As for the reporters cheering when they saw pictures of Saddam were sighs of dissapointment honestly expected? Im sure when people heard Hitler blew his brains out reactions were a bit more lively than "Oh".

This and the trial will probably mean another 4 years of Bush - Bush and co will certainly milk it shamelessly. With the economy on the up and Saddam behind bars Bush is giving his democratic opponents a good deal less to attack him on.

Murder, torture, human rights abuses etc. Type of thing.

Surely as the head of a state hes protected by his nations sovereignty? Thats what I gathered from before the war anyway:|

Originally posted by bus77
But the only person Ive heard compared to Saddam is Hitler and he's a martyr to no one.

Because Hitler committed suicide, martyrs don't commit suicide.

Originally posted by utility_
So...What exactly will Saddam be tried for? As people have already mentioned, the gassing of the kurds wont be brought up, but what other major crimes are there? He was in bed with the Americans for so long, that surely he knows a few things that they wouldn't want us to know..

He can be charged with beligerance in the Iranian and Kuwaiti wars.*


*Oops the Americans promoted and partook in the first and permitted the second.

Originally posted by Sand
got to be hope for capturing Osama

How do you make that out? Saddam was effectively turned in, not captured. They didn't find him from their own efforts...someone said "he's over there" and they mounted a 600-main mission to find him.

So the hope of capturing Osama would surely be better expressed as "hopefully Osama will be stupid enough to hide himself somewhere he can't move from, and will then trust his whereabouts to someone who will dob him in to the US".

I very much doubt it.......but I'd be quite happy to be wrong.

An international court may be the answer but it needs to be careful to ensure the UN is given its proper role - As minor as possible and preferably none.

Never pass up a chance to get a dig in at the UN, eh?

Tell me Sand....if "International" means "preferably not UN", and clearly cannot mean "ICC" (given the US' opposition to said body) then what does it really mean if not "American"???

that Saddam and his regime is finished and again reduce the level of support for the terrorists.

One can't help but wonder whether or not the constant "Saddam is linked to the terrorists and extremists, is bestest buddies with Osama, and is masterminding the entire resistance" verbosity is going to come back and bite the administration squarely in the ass.

Personally, I don't think his capture is significantly going to alter anything in terms of the resistance that the US currently face in Iraq, because I don't believe that resistance was significantly reliant on Saddam in the first place - which would seem increasingly likely given the "base of operations" he was supposedly masterminding everything from turning out to be apparently little more than a hole in the ground.

As for the reporters cheering when they saw pictures of Saddam were sighs of dissapointment honestly expected?

More flawed binary logic. No, they were not supposed to sigh in disappointment. They would be expected to maintain a neutral stance. They can report it as a great day for America, the liberation of Iraq, etc. and they can go on to say how good this is for the respective bodies, but once they start cheering, then they show that they are not reporting impartially...which would make them propagandists, not reporters.

Thats why the media should be criticised. But I think we had this discussion before, and your take was that you would expect the media to support "their own" , whereas I would expect media to strive to be neutral.

The US has, over the past year, taken several different actions against Middle-Eastern media outlets on the grounds that certain news agencies were clearly showing an anti-American slant in their reporting style. Obviously, this is bad, but not because its propagandist, but merely because its anti-American propagandist. Here we see that pro-American propagandism is perfectly acceptable.

Personally, I consider that level of double-standards to be worthy of criticism.

Surely as the head of a state hes protected by his nations sovereignty? Thats what I gathered from before the war anyway:|

So why is Milosevic on trial?

jc