Sorry for goin on so about this as I know I’ve strayed somewhat from the topic. Again Lex I respect you thoughts and the last thing I wanted to do was offend you. I really would enjoy a continuation of this intelligent debate by email if you are interested :).

Wally, you lost me on this one. You and I live on different planets populated by entirely different species of humans. I have never met anyone motivated solely by “interests” who did not have some set of moral values, however poorly articulated or formed. There are no such people, except clinical sociopaths. If you then want to say, “well, they act on their interests as they perceive them”, all you are doing is turning your comment into a tautology “people do what they want to do because they want to do it.” So, a soldier who goes into battle and dies in a just war (say, against Saddam’s regime) out of devotion to his country, his comrades and his sense of duty is morally indistinguishable from, say, someone who dies while robbing a bank because it’s “all about interests”? No, that is not a “more rational” way to look at things.

I disagree that using terms like good and evil impedes rational judgment. Failing to use them to describe something like Saddam’s regime is an affront to rational judgment because calling it evil is a manifestly correct moral judgment, which in turn requires some response. Ends precede means. You need to make an ethical judgment, then act on it. Reason is implicated in both steps.

Anyway, this is too big an issue to take up here. You may go last if you want, but I’m done with it.

And, as to the amateur psychoanalysis, my differences with my father in law are substantive not psychological. I am not “frustrated” by him, I am tired of listening to him. I use him as an example of a common and incorrect mindset, nothing more.

As to giving it real thought, I have had to choke down this guy’s opinions for years now, in my own home yet. I’ve thought about it plenty. My conclusion: it is wrong to categorically want the United States to suffer a military defeat, on the false basis that the United States is categorically a force for evil in the world. Wrong and wrong.

The only thing in the old boy’s favor is he comes out and says what many people think.

Lex you have done what I would expect from a pundit the likes of Moore or Coulter. In this case you have taken an intelligent argument and simplified it beyond recognition. It’s just as easy to say he wanted to save our future protectors from an even greater tragedy which is war with a worthy opponent. His argument is not that distant from Bush’s arguments that some innocent people would die but for the greater ultimate good. But you have simplified it to “He just wants our soldiers to die” Do you honestly believe he just wants people to die period? Taking things out of context like this just really bothers me so I’m sorry if it’s not as interesting to the rest of you. In that case please forgive my rant. BTW i also dont like his argument but please at least give it some real thought.

I kid you not, they are already spinning like tops.
They don’t get it that he has tons of dirt on Chirac, Cretien, Putin and friends (and certain Germans too).

The CIA are supposedly going to be allowed to pump him for some months, and then he’ll be turned over to the Iraqi war crimes trials (which they just started setting up last week!)

I wonder who is not sleeping well in Paris. The Russians kinda get a pass, as Iraq was openly a Soviet client state during the Cold War; they were (are?) expected to be behaving badly.

The TotalElfFina shenanegans of Cretien’s in-laws is shameful in the extreme, and largely (in my mind) explains Canadian opposition. The French-Canadians were in power, quel suprise that they made trouble.

Germany looks to have (a while ago) started prosecuting firms that were involved in illegal trade with Iraq, they look to be cleaning house, while trying to tip-toe and still play nicey-nice with France over EU issues.

So the Germans were mercantile, the French duplicitous…and this surprises me how, exactly? :-)

Putting him on trial at the Hague would be a farce. After a trial lasting years and costing billions, he would be imprisoned for life in some remote place giving interviews and reminiscing about his two lion cubs; but eventually he would fade away without having much impact, for good or ill, on Iraq and the rest of the Arab world.

Trial by the US in some secret Guantanamo-style kangaroo court would be a ticket to martyrdom and only serve to further inflame the Arab “street.”

The maximum advantage from Saddam’s capture is to let the Iraqis try him in a fair and public manner; but structure it so that the trial and appeals are not drawn out. In such a trial Iraqis, and maybe other Arabs, would once again be confronted with the horror and, one hopes, vow not to let it happen again.

To avoid an Iraqi trial and certain death Saddam is probably going to plea-bargain like mad with the US occupation. In exchange for an international trial he’ll probably promise to give US interrogators all kinds of valuable info. Don’t believe it. Whatever Saddam once knew is probably stale by now, and anyway it is not worth the risk of a political show in which Saddam rhetorically defies the Crusaders and Jews.

Personally, i’m opposed to the death penalty; but if executing Saddam helps Iraqis to get over the past 3 decades of misery, it is well worth it.

Like I said, the Left, especially the lawyers, will rally to any enemy of the United States.

Second, they should borrow the “glass box” that Israel used in the trial of Eichmann. Partly to protect the beast until sentence is passed, but also to make sure he only answers questions and only asks on-topic questions – no haring off into Arab-solidarity-land for the guy who invaded three Arab countries.

A big issue is that he knows that we won’t really torture him (I don’t think sleep deprivation and withholding washroom privileges counts as torture where he comes from). So as long as we have him he’s likely to hold out unless we offer him a deal. That’s a reason not to hold him any longer than we absolutely have to. An Iraqi tribunal sounds like the best way to deal with him ultimately.

Yeah, OJ. Classic. A botch job. Milosevic, getting his last moments in the sun. Why let him? Same with Goering. The Soviets were right, prior to Nuremburg, on this at least: We won, they’re going to die, so why even bother with a show trial?

These guys don’t deserve a trial. These are not criminal prosecutions in any real sense. There is no sovereign, for one thing, and pretending these proceedings are “trials” and that there is some kind of supra-national sovereign authority is bad business. These guys should get some kind of summary proceeding, where the overwhelming evidence is compiled into an organized record for the sake of posterity. Then, execute them. Letting them rant and orate serves no good purpose. It just encourages their supporters, and makes them look noble and brave facing the world alone, blah, blah. Remember Oliver North? The guy has ridden those hearing appearances to stardom. Liberals love process for the sake of process. Bush, bless him, does not.

At least it looks like Saddam will face an Iraqi proceeding, so there will be no make believe “international court” to impose “international law”. (I took a course on public international law in law school. What a farce.)

I say, get any intel we can, then get him shot and buried as soon as possible. If it drags out, the Iraqis will start to fear that he may get free somehow. Our notions of fairness and due process may well look like vacillation and weakness in that part of the world. This is too important to screw around.

>Retired U.S. General Wesley Clark testified
>today in the war crimes trial of former
>Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic

The former Yugoslav president is
>representing himself in this trial and
>already has demonstrated that he is an
>able trial lawyer and a fierce cross-examiner.

And makes the Hague court look like the set of Judge Judy and the war crimes prosecution team like another Clark entirely. Marcia Clark. Remember Marcia and her stunning work on the O.J. Simpson prosecution?

Give Saddam to the Iraquis. In about a year, after we pump him dry of info…